Jump to content


Moving costs away from repairs

Suggestion Economy Repair costs

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

VeryRisky #1 Posted 30 September 2017 - 12:14 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 17417 battles
  • 8,565
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012

For a long time I've though that whether your tank gets damaged or not has too big an effect on you credit profit.  You can have games where you were pretty ineffective but didn't get shot at and you will make more than a game which you more or less won, though at the expense of you tank. 

 

This could be changed by  reducing repair costs and having a fixed "Service Cost" that was incurred as you entered battle regardless of the result.   This is not proposing to make any tank or tier more or less profitable overall but to change the distribution of costs.

 

It would probably be bad for me as I am not a great damage dealer, but I think it would be good for the game.



yun9 #2 Posted 30 September 2017 - 12:59 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 5190 battles
  • 504
  • [CHAI] CHAI
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

As far as I know, WG's admitted that the in game economy system (silver specifically) needs a rework after the numerous complaints regarding losing so many credits in ranked battles, making it impossible to sustain a credit income and play the mode at all.

 

It's hard to tell since the credit coefficients aren't public anywhere but changing this might be a decent step a long the way. Especially in tier 10 where repair costs are a lot. I'd much rather see a more even profit system across the board rather than people having to resort to either tier 8 prems or tier 5/6 standard vehicles to grind credits. 

 



VeryRisky #3 Posted 30 September 2017 - 01:17 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 17417 battles
  • 8,565
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012

I was trying to keep away from the overall credit profit levels as that's an economy balance issue, but to see if there's a better way to distribute the profits and losses within a given battle.

 

Isn't the ranked issue more to do with a choice to spam premium to get up the ranks faster?



WindSpIitter1 #4 Posted 01 October 2017 - 12:51 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 277 battles
  • 1,043
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

Repair costs aren't the main issue with the credit economy tbh. The major issue is that the armor meta WG has introduced with the maus/type 5 buffs means that in order to really compete and not be gimped you need to use gold shells at a level that is hard to sustain while running premium account, let alone standard account at tier 10. Playing high tiers in this game is now by very definition P2W as without either premium account or a premium tank you will never be able to afford playing tier 10.

 

Sure, you could grind masses of t6 battles, but the sheer amount of credits you blast through at tier 10 is just unsustainable on a standard account for the average player. I mean I'm a superunicum and I'm still hemorrhaging credits on a standard account even on 3k+ DPG sessions where I didn't need to spam gold. It's not like I expect to get rich, but in the past I'd break even easily. These days I need premium account and a good session to manage that. Himmels vs type 5s, there go another 100k down the drain.



HassenderZerhacker #5 Posted 01 October 2017 - 05:18 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27227 battles
  • 2,398
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

Just played Jagdtiger, lost the battle but survived with 30% life left and did over 3000 damage, distributed evenly among enemies of tier 8,9 and 10, 2 kills, one tier 8 and one tier 10.

the result was that I lost 14k credits.

it doesn't feel right.

 

the basic AP ammo for the JT costs 1070 per round, I feel that's excessive.

if bringing down repair costs would be one thing to consider, I would also have a look at ammo cost.



yun9 #6 Posted 01 October 2017 - 05:45 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 5190 battles
  • 504
  • [CHAI] CHAI
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

They should just inflate credits earned. WG admitted it needed reworking due to ranked battles and how pretty much everyone were constantly losing credits, and the ones who weren't were playing arty. Credits were the entire catalyst of the arty problem in the ranked mode. 

 

What the game needs is simply more credits, I never really understood the fact that the average tier 10 player was supposed to lose credits, an overall 10% increase to credits earned wouldn't be so bad I think. It'd cover the repair costs at least, and a bit more of the standard ammo, and on wins you'd earn credits (hopefully) even on standard accounts.



ZlatanArKung #7 Posted 01 October 2017 - 08:27 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Post_yung, on 01 October 2017 - 05:45 AM, said:

They should just inflate credits earned. WG admitted it needed reworking due to ranked battles and how pretty much everyone were constantly losing credits, and the ones who weren't were playing arty. Credits were the entire catalyst of the arty problem in the ranked mode. 

 

What the game needs is simply more credits, I never really understood the fact that the average tier 10 player was supposed to lose credits, an overall 10% increase to credits earned wouldn't be so bad I think. It'd cover the repair costs at least, and a bit more of the standard ammo, and on wins you'd earn credits (hopefully) even on standard accounts.

 

More credits for all accounts mean less reason to get premium account -> less money for WG.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if WGs 'fix' to this credit issue many players have is to give premium accounts 60% higher credit income instead of 50%.



clixor #8 Posted 01 October 2017 - 11:02 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 51483 battles
  • 3,058
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View PostZlatanArKung, on 01 October 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

 

More credits for all accounts mean less reason to get premium account -> less money for WG.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if WGs 'fix' to this credit issue many players have is to give premium accounts 60% higher credit income instead of 50%.

 

Yes, obviously prem tanks and account are part of WG's business model. But i do have the feeling that prem tanks market is saturated. I mean, even if a player doesnt can or want to spend the money such a player could have earned a prem tank through a marathon by now. And besides that, i think future prem tanks should not ONLY be played for credits, but also just because they are fun to drive. 

 

So all in all, the current state of the game imo is a huge constant credit grindfest, which quite frankly i think is killing the 'fun' of the game. 

 

So first, i think tank purchase cost can be reduced to 75%. That means a tier10 will cost 4M. Still enough to 'have to work' for it, but not that it takes the average player like 600 games or so to buy it.

 

Then something seriously needs to be done about credit income, and i don't care if raw income is buffed or repair/shell cost is reduced. The way i see it is like this:

 

good game (tier8+regular tank) - 50 - 70k income

excellent game (tier8+ regular tank) ~100k income

good game (tier8+prem tank) - ~100k income

excellent game (tier8+ premtank) ~130 - 170k income

 

And above with moderate prem. ammo usage. And speaking of which, players shouldn't be punished for having to fire prem ammo like they do now. I'm not saying prem ammo should be way cheaper, because it's a balancing factor (in other words, if prem ammo would be more cheaper, tanks relying on armor would essentially be nerfed). But in the current meta you often just don't have a choice, either you fire gold and be competitive, or not and simply are not.

 

Coming back to WG's business model, even with buffed income, there is so much content/lines to grind, that the need for a prem tank and prem account is still there.

 


Edited by clixor, 01 October 2017 - 11:03 AM.


VeryRisky #9 Posted 01 October 2017 - 11:42 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 17417 battles
  • 8,565
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012

View Post_yung, on 01 October 2017 - 04:45 AM, said:

They should just inflate credits earned. WG admitted it needed reworking due to ranked battles and how pretty much everyone were constantly losing credits, and the ones who weren't were playing arty. Credits were the entire catalyst of the arty problem in the ranked mode. 

 

What the game needs is simply more credits, I never really understood the fact that the average tier 10 player was supposed to lose credits, an overall 10% increase to credits earned wouldn't be so bad I think. It'd cover the repair costs at least, and a bit more of the standard ammo, and on wins you'd earn credits (hopefully) even on standard accounts.

 

This is a separate question.   Could we debate it elsewhere?

 

My post here was about moving some of the existing cost away from repairs to a fixed service fee.   IT would still apply whatever the income levels are.



WindSpIitter1 #10 Posted 01 October 2017 - 02:12 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 277 battles
  • 1,043
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

View Post_yung, on 01 October 2017 - 05:45 AM, said:

They should just inflate credits earned. WG admitted it needed reworking due to ranked battles and how pretty much everyone were constantly losing credits, and the ones who weren't were playing arty. Credits were the entire catalyst of the arty problem in the ranked mode. 

 

What the game needs is simply more credits, I never really understood the fact that the average tier 10 player was supposed to lose credits, an overall 10% increase to credits earned wouldn't be so bad I think. It'd cover the repair costs at least, and a bit more of the standard ammo, and on wins you'd earn credits (hopefully) even on standard accounts.

 

Because WG switched from XP being the main reason to buy premium account to credits being the main reason for it. It's quite obvious. Back in the day you could run standard ammo just fine most of the time and you had to do the full grind. Nowadays you get showered with XP boosters round about the same time you can't compete anymore without spending a ton of credits on gold ammo as soon as you meet certain t10 heavies or a swede TD when you can't overmatch and have HEAT.

brumbarr #11 Posted 01 October 2017 - 02:29 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012
You could posssibly reduce repair and ammo cost heavily, and just add a fixed cost depending on tier that you need to pay to enter a battle.
That way you encourage being active and playing better.

VeryRisky #12 Posted 01 October 2017 - 02:31 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 17417 battles
  • 8,565
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012

View Postbrumbarr, on 01 October 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

You could posssibly reduce repair and ammo cost heavily, and just add a fixed cost depending on tier that you need to pay to enter a battle.
That way you encourage being active and playing better.

 

Exactly my point!   Finally someone read the O. 

SovietBias #13 Posted 01 October 2017 - 11:39 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37407 battles
  • 1,312
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostVeryRisky, on 01 October 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

 

Exactly my point!   Finally someone read the O. 

 

It would end up making some vehicles less profitable relative to others, namely arties and stealthy TDs, plus you would be worse off relative to games you do good and don't get shot, since you now pay regardless. 

 

Repair costs may vary a bit, but I'd say most of the profit variance comes from ammo costs(and other consumables). Perhaps it is just a bad habit of mine, but I never really look to repair costs, in a way that it may influence my playstyle. I avoid throwing my tank (or health) away to the point that it prevents me from winning or getting damage, and having a fixed cost won't make me take higher risks than I already do.


Edited by SovietBias, 01 October 2017 - 11:42 PM.


jabster #14 Posted 02 October 2017 - 04:52 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12537 battles
  • 23,426
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postbrumbarr, on 01 October 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

You could posssibly reduce repair and ammo cost heavily, and just add a fixed cost depending on tier that you need to pay to enter a battle.
That way you encourage being active and playing better.

 

Generally I think it's a good idea although maybe it could be something along the lines of you get X% of repairs for 'free' meaning that taking an active part in the game isn't punished anywhere near as heavily as now. This can then be coupled with your other suggestions. A downside of a scheme like this is going yolo may end up being more profitable than now.

 

Edit: Just  reading the OP again and it does seem as though arty would be negatively affected by this due to the currently high survival rate.


Edited by jabster, 02 October 2017 - 07:28 AM.


slitth #15 Posted 02 October 2017 - 06:28 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11956 battles
  • 1,008
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

I like the idea.

 

But we need to ask the 2 big question first.

1. If we do not need to farm credits, how do we keep the lower tiers populated?

2. And how do we want WG to earn money now that we are killing the pay2skip system?

 

Because that the 2 main reasons why it's hard to earn credits.

And we need to answer this questions before we can mess with the credits system.

 

I can give 2 random examples that I have in now way considers the consequences for.

 

1.

One a limit on how many battle per day/week a players can get on each tank above tier 7. 

If you have a premium account you can play unlimited.

If you don't have premium accountt you can play tier 1 to 7 unlimited and in tier 8 and above you get X amount of battle per tank per day/week. (20 battles on your Defender per week, 20 battles on you Maus...... )

 

2.

You have to watch 30 seconds of commercials before you are added to the match maker if you do not have a premium account.

 

Please note that this 2 examples is not something I want added to the game, but examples on how WG might try and earn money if the current credits systems is change.



ZlatanArKung #16 Posted 02 October 2017 - 07:21 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Postslitth, on 02 October 2017 - 06:28 AM, said:

I like the idea.

 

But we need to ask the 2 big question first.

1. If we do not need to farm credits, how do we keep the lower tiers populated?

2. And how do we want WG to earn money now that we are killing the pay2skip system?

 

Because that the 2 main reasons why it's hard to earn credits.

And we need to answer this questions before we can mess with the credits system.

 

I can give 2 random examples that I have in now way considers the consequences for.

 

1.

One a limit on how many battle per day/week a players can get on each tank above tier 7. 

If you have a premium account you can play unlimited.

If you don't have premium accountt you can play tier 1 to 7 unlimited and in tier 8 and above you get X amount of battle per tank per day/week. (20 battles on your Defender per week, 20 battles on you Maus...... )

 

2.

You have to watch 30 seconds of commercials before you are added to the match maker if you do not have a premium account.

 

Please note that this 2 examples is not something I want added to the game, but examples on how WG might try and earn money if the current credits systems is change.

 

It is not like the players will bath in credits after a change. Only have marginally more of them.

 

1: There are many players that don't enjoy T9-T10. So keeping T5-7 populated anyway won't be a problem.

And T1-T4 are populated without being a good credit zone. 

T8 might be the tier that has most to fear, especially in current MM.

But prem tanks will still increase credit gain, and we are not talking about making millions of credits at T10, only a slight general income buff.

 

2: earlier the p2skip was about xp, now it is credits. Moving back to xp instead shouldn't be to hard. Just stop giving out millions of xp boosters every week for winning 1 battle.

 

And WG can still make money from prem tanks and prem time. They are not bought for credits in many cases anyway. WG have highest paying players by quite a margin anyway. Lowering it by a little won't hurt their profit much.

 

 



jabster #17 Posted 02 October 2017 - 07:52 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12537 battles
  • 23,426
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postslitth, on 02 October 2017 - 05:28 AM, said:

I like the idea.

 

But we need to ask the 2 big question first.

1. If we do not need to farm credits, how do we keep the lower tiers populated?

2. And how do we want WG to earn money now that we are killing the pay2skip system?

 

Because that the 2 main reasons why it's hard to earn credits.

And we need to answer this questions before we can mess with the credits system.

 

I can give 2 random examples that I have in now way considers the consequences for.

 

1.

One a limit on how many battle per day/week a players can get on each tank above tier 7. 

If you have a premium account you can play unlimited.

If you don't have premium accountt you can play tier 1 to 7 unlimited and in tier 8 and above you get X amount of battle per tank per day/week. (20 battles on your Defender per week, 20 battles on you Maus...... )

 

2.

You have to watch 30 seconds of commercials before you are added to the match maker if you do not have a premium account.

 

Please note that this 2 examples is not something I want added to the game, but examples on how WG might try and earn money if the current credits systems is change.

 

I don't believe the idea is credit income is going to change overall but instead it will change for individual playstyles. To put it simply I'm assuming that 'camping' gets you less, average players get the same and active good players get more. I think it requires a bit more thought into the details but the basic premise seems sound. 



Unknown_Lifeform #18 Posted 02 October 2017 - 08:20 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27425 battles
  • 507
  • Member since:
    12-11-2012

View PostVeryRisky, on 30 September 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

This could be changed by  reducing repair costs and having a fixed "Service Cost" that was incurred as you entered battle regardless of the result.   This is not proposing to make any tank or tier more or less profitable overall but to change the distribution of costs.

 

I'm not sure whether you wrote this with the World of Warships system in mind but they already implemented this. It was in response to claims that high tier battleships were only camping and sniping from the red line because repair costs were so high. They changed the repair costs to a flat service fee you had to pay regardless of whether you got your ship scratched and.... it had absolutely zero impact on passive play at high tiers.

 

Having said that I do prefer the system. It provides an incentive to get stuck in and farm some more damage when the game is lost rather than to run away and hide and it rewards players who are effective and deal damage, even if that means firing more ammunition and taking hits, over players that play passively and don't achieve much. It doesn't actually impact on play style as campers gonna camp but at least the right kind of play is rewarded and the wrong kind punished.



Dr_ownape #19 Posted 02 October 2017 - 08:25 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 43469 battles
  • 5,483
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

View Postbrumbarr, on 01 October 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

You could posssibly reduce repair and ammo cost heavily, and just add a fixed cost depending on tier that you need to pay to enter a battle.
That way you encourage being active and playing better.

 

View PostVeryRisky, on 01 October 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

 

Exactly my point!   Finally someone read the O. 

 

Playing better is all well and good but what about those classes that rely on acting as support rather than damage dealing? I've been trying to complete all the PMs with honours recently which means playing arta again AND mainly firing gold all the time. Taking my M53 out usually results in a 60-90k loss each game due to very low damage (compared with pre arty nerf) and stun, assist not being rewarded better.

 

Look at prems too. You take a tier 8 heavy out and deal about 5/6 shots results in 70k ish profit. Take GF out in same game and deal 5/6 shots AND spot/assist 2k results in 30k profit. balanced?

 

standard repair costs will not solve the disparity in earnings



clixor #20 Posted 02 October 2017 - 09:43 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 51483 battles
  • 3,058
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View PostDrownape, on 02 October 2017 - 08:25 AM, said:

 

Playing better is all well and good but what about those classes that rely on acting as support rather than damage dealing? I've been trying to complete all the PMs with honours recently which means playing arta again AND mainly firing gold all the time. Taking my M53 out usually results in a 60-90k loss each game due to very low damage (compared with pre arty nerf) and stun, assist not being rewarded better.

 

Look at prems too. You take a tier 8 heavy out and deal about 5/6 shots results in 70k ish profit. Take GF out in same game and deal 5/6 shots AND spot/assist 2k results in 30k profit. balanced?

 

standard repair costs will not solve the disparity in earnings

 

Shooting gold in arty is stupid nowadays, you only get a very minimal splash radius increase. And i'm also doing the arty missions and the GWE100 is one of my best non-prem credit makers (if you do a lot of stun dmg/assist). 







Also tagged with Suggestion, Economy, Repair costs

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users