Facepalms incoming: WGs last Q&A.

Snowjaguar, on 14 December 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:   You're missing the point entirely and it's partly my fault for quoting you badly, I apologize for that. You asked "If you want I can discuss with you from my player's perspective. Do you want me to do so?". My reply would be no, I don't think many here are interested in what you think as a player since the forums are full of just that. You've opened up the can as WGs spokesman and you've been called out for it. People want an official version and a good explanation what a representative meant which is a completely reasonable thing to want after statements like that.   So again, what's the up with those numbers showing the difference between your statistical data and the publically available ones with regards to Type 5 and the Leopard? And also, if you have no data, as one player mentioned a few pages back if you could buff the Object 907, how can you claim that you have no data when it comes to putting it back as it was from the start?  You need to back your words with something factual instead of speculations and what's many here rightfully so considers to be lies, you really do need to come clean and show those hard facts that you're claiming to have.


Gkirmathal, on 14 December 2017 - 11:35 AM, said: So, if you would do us a favor: share WG's data on those things you have proclaimed here and in the Q&A as being "all fine and not op/broken/balanced/etc" Only then people will start to believe it and start to believe Wargaming, their developers and producers again.