Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
RiverBend__

Formula for Credits

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2
[IPWA2]
Members
17 posts
12,009 battles

Is there a formula for credits before modifiers.  In other words, is their a formula for credits before flags, premium and anything else.  It seems to me that with all things equal my Shimakaze makes more money than my Yueyang.  So I am wondering did the designers think well the 1970s pan asian destroyer costs more to operate than a 1940s dd.  Bottomline:  Are credits calculated differently, ship by ship or is it a straightline calculation like damage caused x N.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,879
[HINON]
Supertester
19,211 posts
12,740 battles

We don't know the actual formulas WG uses. However, we do know the following:

  • Damage done overall is less important than percentage of damage done to a target. So, for example, you'll get more credits for doing 40k damage to a 45k HP cruiser than you do for doing 60k damage to a 95k battleship.
  • Damage done to higher tier targets earns more than damage to lower tier targets. So, for example, removing half the hitpoints from a tier 10 ship earns more than removing half the hitpoints of a tier 8 ship.
  • You get a small bonus for sinking a target.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,211
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,624 posts
9,027 battles
32 minutes ago, Lert said:

We don't know the actual formulas WG uses. However, we do know the following:

  • Damage done overall is less important than percentage of damage done to a target. So, for example, you'll get more credits for doing 40k damage to a 45k HP cruiser than you do for doing 60k damage to a 95k battleship.
  • Damage done to higher tier targets earns more than damage to lower tier targets. So, for example, removing half the hitpoints from a tier 10 ship earns more than removing half the hitpoints of a tier 8 ship.
  • You get a small bonus for sinking a target.

 

This and fighting in or near the caps, you is also is a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,226
[WOLF3]
Members
6,439 posts
2,405 battles

Lert implies that credits earned is a function of base XP, and I think he's right.

Yes, there are ship-type modifiers.  They are not public, though on some obvious examples (like Missouri) we can induce a relative value.  It wouldn't surprise me that all Premiums have a modifier > all tech tree types.

 

Edited by iDuckman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[BNKR]
Members
710 posts
713 battles

I find it odd that they don't publish the credit and XP modifiers. The one thing World of Tanks Console did right is publish the percentage of silver and XP, or even crew XP, that a premium tank will give you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[IPWA2]
Members
17 posts
12,009 battles

I also think perhaps there is a modifier based on how early in the game you do some damage?  Anyone else think that?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,581
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
On 3/3/2018 at 2:52 PM, Lert said:

We don't know the actual formulas WG uses. However, we do know the following:

  • Damage done overall is less important than percentage of damage done to a target. So, for example, you'll get more credits for doing 40k damage to a 45k HP cruiser than you do for doing 60k damage to a 95k battleship.
  • Damage done to higher tier targets earns more than damage to lower tier targets. So, for example, removing half the hitpoints from a tier 10 ship earns more than removing half the hitpoints of a tier 8 ship.
  • You get a small bonus for sinking a target.

 

Also different ships have different credit multipliers innate to them. Missouri is most famous for her per-modifier earnings, but patch notes show that WGing tweaks individual ships as well and are different from one another.

Also, I've noticed that there is a distinct correlation to the damage taken and damage 'mitigated' (bounced/shattered/dodged) as the credit earnings on like-playstyle ships seem to differentiate between which ones receive/heal more damage than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[SUCIT]
Members
825 posts
3,621 battles

From my understanding, credit earnings are proportional to XP earnings.  Everything that you do that earns you XP also earns you credits.  This is based off of percentage of damage done relative to maximum HP, not total damage.  That means that 10k damage done to a DD is worth more than 25k done to a BB.  Things like spotting, capping, tanking and defends also earn you credits as well, but I don't know how much they're actually worth.  However, every ship has an inherent modifier that can either multiply or divide the amount of credits per game.  For a ship like the Missouri, it is absurdly high, which leads to those massive credit games.  We don't know the specific modifier for each ship, but we can take an educated guess in saying that the Shima has a higher modifier than the YueYang, judging by your experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,879
[HINON]
Supertester
19,211 posts
12,740 battles
12 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Also different ships have different credit multipliers innate to them. Missouri is most famous for her per-modifier earnings, but patch notes show that WGing tweaks individual ships as well and are different from one another.

While this is true, this is done to ensure that each ship earns roughly the same amount of credits for a given performance. They all have different roles and different ways to influence the match, and the different credit multipliers function to equalize the earnings between different ships doing different tasks. At least, this is my theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,581
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
4 minutes ago, Lert said:

While this is true, this is done to ensure that each ship earns roughly the same amount of credits for a given performance. They all have different roles and different ways to influence the match, and the different credit multipliers function to equalize the earnings between different ships doing different tasks. At least, this is my theory.

IDK I've noticed ships of similar roles, played the 'same' by me, that basically result in wildly different credit earnings, the most noticeable is Kidd vs. Akizuki. I can average, easily 200k more credits in Kidd than in Akizuki, despite their playstyles being strikingly similar. Same goes for Alabama vs. North Carolina (which for all practical purposes are the same ship), and a few others. There seems to be some giggery pokery going on behind the scenes, which is not unheard of or unfair. It's a 'soft' way to make some ships more popular than others. I mean imagine if the Nik earned 10% of what other at tier performances did, would people mind it being as OP as it is?  Maybe maybe not.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,879
[HINON]
Supertester
19,211 posts
12,740 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

the most noticeable is Kidd vs. Akizuki. I can average, easily 200k more credits in Kidd than in Akizuki, despite their playstyles being strikingly similar.

Kidd and Alabama are premiums. Akizuki and NC are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,581
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
1 minute ago, Lert said:

Kidd and Alabama are premiums. Akizuki and NC are not.

The point stands, some ships, like the Missouri have innately per-modifier higher credit earnings (XP likely too), whereby even similar gameplay will result in different credit earnings. Even amongst tree ships this can be the case: the Budy and the Cleveland are strikingly similar in gameplay, with range being the chief the difference, and yet the Cleveland seems to consistently earn more per match. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,879
[HINON]
Supertester
19,211 posts
12,740 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

Even amongst tree ships this can be the case: the Budy and the Cleveland are strikingly similar in gameplay, with range being the chief the difference, and yet the Cleveland seems to consistently earn more per match. 

I'd be very curious to see an actual study over several hundred battles and controlled conditions (no credit bonus flags / camo) between the two ships instead of unsupported anecdote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[BNKR]
Members
710 posts
713 battles
2 minutes ago, Lert said:

I'd be very curious to see an actual study over several hundred battles and controlled conditions (no credit bonus flags / camo) between the two ships instead of unsupported anecdote.

I'd be happier if they just published the credit and XP modifiers. There's no real reason not to show it, especially on premium ships, unless they're trying to hide something untoward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,581
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
4 minutes ago, Lert said:

I'd be very curious to see an actual study over several hundred battles and controlled conditions (no credit bonus flags / camo) between the two ships instead of unsupported anecdote.

While I cannot comment on cash, XP is definitive (and I have prem camo on both); with ~500 games and 1132 average XP, and Budy with ~200 games and 1008 average XP, that is a pretty big difference. I doubt my playstyle, in either, has evolved, and the Cleveland is more bogged down by 'early' stats than the Budy is (USN CA's were the first line I went down, thus every 'first tier' was a USN CL/CA including Cleveland as a first T6). And, as I said, experience seems to indicate the Budy earns less and I remember the grind Budy-> Schors taking longer than Cleveland->Pensacola.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,879
[HINON]
Supertester
19,211 posts
12,740 battles
7 minutes ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

I'd be happier if they just published the credit and XP modifiers. There's no real reason not to show it, especially on premium ships, unless they're trying to hide something untoward.

I'm much more interested in average credit-per-match income than any multiplier. Just giving the multipliers without the average per match earnings can give the wrong idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[BNKR]
Members
710 posts
713 battles
Just now, Lert said:

I'm much more interested in average credit-per-match income than any multiplier. Just giving the multipliers without the average per match earnings can give the wrong idea.

I guess I'm asking for the modifiers as a customer. They tell me I'll earn more credits and XP with a premium ship. Okay, how much more? Obviously, how well you play that ship will be the final word on earnings, but it would be nice to know what the numbers are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,879
[HINON]
Supertester
19,211 posts
12,740 battles
Just now, RagingxMarmoset said:

I guess I'm asking for the modifiers as a customer. They tell me I'll earn more credits and XP with a premium ship. Okay, how much more? Obviously, how well you play that ship will be the final word on earnings, but it would be nice to know what the numbers are.

Let me give you an example with some numbers I'm grabbing out of the dark, these are just example numbers.

If I told you that Pensacola has a 1.4 x damage multiplier on credit earnings and Shchors a 1.2 x, you'd think that Pensacola earns more than Shchors, right? But Pensacola does 28k average damage per game and Shchors 40k, so even with the lower multiplier Shchors would rake in a lot more credits per match on average than Pensacola.

Hence the multiplier being less interesting to know than average earnings per battle.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,514
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,101 posts
12,663 battles

Credit earnings are definitely NOT based off the exact same calculation as XP earnings. If they were, the ratio between the two would always be the same, and they are not, even with the same ship and same equipment. They are related, but not the same. I believe credit earnings favor raw damage, while XP earnings factor in a lot more of the support actions and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[TDG]
Members
1,185 posts
5,998 battles

I have a lot of data on my battles, and I don't think there is a simple factor that can be applied to XP to get the credits.  One thing I have noticed is that credit earnings do not seem to be dependent on a win.  Even adjusting for this, I find that the activities map slightly differently to credits than they do to base XP.

Different ships work differently as to actual results.  I earn many more credits in a battle running Kidd vs Benson.  However, I see little difference between Alabama and North Carolina.  In this case, I may actually do better in Kidd in addition to the premium bonus while that bonus makes up for my performance deficit when running Alabama as opposed to North Carolina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
182
[CAST]
Members
1,202 posts
7,381 battles
57 minutes ago, Lert said:

Let me give you an example with some numbers I'm grabbing out of the dark, these are just example numbers.

If I told you that Pensacola has a 1.4 x damage multiplier on credit earnings and Shchors a 1.2 x, you'd think that Pensacola earns more than Shchors, right? But Pensacola does 28k average damage per game and Shchors 40k, so even with the lower multiplier Shchors would rake in a lot more credits per match on average than Pensacola.

Hence the multiplier being less interesting to know than average earnings per battle.

I still think the multiplier would be a key item.  You can look up the average numbers.  You can't look up the multiplier.  By looking up the average damage and knowing the multiplier, I will have the average earnings anyway.   The average damage might be different because the average player tries to play all ships the same way, when they should be played differently.  In the right hands, the Pensacola might generate a higher damage per game than the Shchors.  So, from a player perspective, I would want to know how much I am going to earn from the damage I do.  Then I have to determine what damage I can generate in that ship based on ship parameters and observation. 

We can look at the credit earnings before any bonuses are applied.  I don't think the credits are applied to XP bonuses, only credit bonuses.  I could be mistaken.  If we captured enough games and ran some simple equations, we could equate the multiplier value to each game item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,581
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
1 hour ago, Lert said:

If I told you that Pensacola has a 1.4 x damage multiplier on credit earnings and Shchors a 1.2 x, you'd think that Pensacola earns more than Shchors, right? But Pensacola does 28k average damage per game and Shchors 40k, so even with the lower multiplier Shchors would rake in a lot more credits per match on average than Pensacola.

I think the idea is that one knows their own average damage. I know my average damage in Baltimore and I know my average damage in the Roon, so if I know the multiplier is, like you say, 1.4 x the damage (fake numbers I know) but the multiplier in the Roon is 1.6, then I know if I want to focus on credit earnings, I want to play the Roon a bit more for the time being. Likewise, degrees of similarities can lend clues. I know my Average damage in say, Maas, and it has a credit earning of 1.7, and the upcoming T61 has a 1.1, I may not want to buy it, or, if it were the reverse, I may want it as a replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,879
[HINON]
Supertester
19,211 posts
12,740 battles
8 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

*things*

If you have played a ship long enough to have knowledge of your own average damage in it, you know your average earnings in it as well. As for T-61, it's a premium and will earn more than tech tree ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,581
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
40 minutes ago, Lert said:

If you have played a ship long enough to have knowledge of your own average damage in it, you know your average earnings in it as well. As for T-61, it's a premium and will earn more than tech tree ships.

More information is never a bad thing, Lert. And how much more. premium vs. tech tree, is likewise nice information to have. Things should not be kept secret for when you spend money. Buyer beware is contingent on the the purchaser taking due diligence, not whether the information is *accessible* or not. That's (one of the reasons) why they put ingredients lists on foods. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×