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

Request: Turn off coal option for crates

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

292
[ARP3]
Members
412 posts
10,440 battles

Can we please have an option to turn off coal ? Same way there is an option to "do not collect" for collections.

You need 8000 coal to get 20 signals, that is 20 daily crates. With 4 flags per crate, you add another 80 flags for 100 flags for 20 daily crates if you spend all the coal earned.

Previously I would get 160 flags if there was no coal in 20 signal crates (you get one camo or some other useless item).

 

I don't need this coal economics, it's harmful to me as a player.

Edited by Cit_the_bed
  • Cool 8
  • Funny 3
  • Bad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,412
[PNG]
Supertester, Supertester
5,663 posts
6,472 battles

Citing a conversion rate for the worst priced item in the shop seems disingenuous, no? Would you say a Musashi is worth 440 detonation flags? 

Or 2.64M credits, those flags’ sale value?

 

If you establish coal as only a resource to be turned into flags, then yes, coal is garbage. But if you establish coal as a resource to be turned into premium ships or modules, then it becomes significantly more valuable as a resource.

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,523 posts
7,578 battles
Just now, Compassghost said:

Citing a conversion rate for the worst priced item in the shop seems disingenuous, no? Would you say a Musashi is worth 440 detonation flags? 

Or 2.64M credits, those flags’ sale value?

 

If you establish coal as only a resource to be turned into flags, then yes, coal is garbage. But if you establish coal as a resource to be turned into premium ships or modules, then it becomes significantly more valuable as a resource.

:Smile_great:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,827
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,282 posts

From what I can see though @Compassghost I have the premiums I could currently afford (that I want). Those premiums I would want are the other new currency of which I currently have zero. But would need close to a quarter million of it to get a good premium. Don't know if i have that many years ahead of me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,412
[PNG]
Supertester, Supertester
5,663 posts
6,472 battles

The arsenal is likely to change in contents over time. Just because a premium isn’t in there now doesn’t mean it won’t come later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,557 posts
12,419 battles

one mans trash is another mans treasure... jonesing for more coal to buy camos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,957
[ARGSY]
Members
6,248 posts
4,207 battles
35 minutes ago, Cit_the_bed said:

Can we please have an option to turn off coal ? Same way there is an option to "do not collect" for collections.

How about NO.

In the next patch there is a new option for containers that is biased toward coal (or as they put it, "resources"). If I were you, I would see what effect the change has on your camo/flag container drops across the whole of 0.7.7 and then get back to us at the beginning of 0.7.8 with the benefit of your experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,153
[PVE]
Members
9,554 posts
7,456 battles
1 hour ago, Cit_the_bed said:

Can we please have an option to turn off coal ? Same way there is an option to "do not collect" for collections.

You need 8000 coal to get 20 signals, that is 20 daily crates. With 4 flags per crate, you add another 80 flags for 100 flags for 20 daily crates if you spend all the coal earned.

Previously I would get 160 flags if there was no coal in 20 signal crates (you get one camo or some other useless item).

 

I don't need this coal economics, it's harmful to me as a player.

 

By completing the daily coal missions this month, you can earn 13,950 for getting both coal challenges done each day. You can earn another 11,700 on the days that coal is the daily log in bonus. Not to mention all the flags and consumables you get when those are the daily bonus.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,645
[BIAS]
Members
3,138 posts
9,213 battles

Can I please turn off every option except for doubloons please? 

 

Thanks!!! 

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
442
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,600 posts
4,013 battles
1 hour ago, Compassghost said:

If you establish coal as only a resource to be turned into flags...

I don't understand why we needed two new resources to mine in the game.  There's already the practically-unused Elite XP that accumulates on elite tech tree ships.  The only thing that resource is currently used for is to let the doubloons out of your account.  They could easily have let us spend that for signal flags, consumables and special-super-elite-but-not-legendary upgrades.

As far as steel goes, if they want to lock ships away from the majority of the player base behind "competitive" play, they already had a going concern.

But that's just my humble opinion.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,153
[PVE]
Members
9,554 posts
7,456 battles
6 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

I don't understand why we needed two new resources to mine in the game.  There's already the practically-unused Elite XP that accumulates on elite tech tree ships.  The only thing that resource is currently used for is to let the doubloons out of your account.  They could easily have let us spend that for signal flags, consumables and special-super-elite-but-not-legendary upgrades.

As far as steel goes, if they want to lock ships away from the majority of the player base behind "competitive" play, they already had a going concern.

But that's just my humble opinion.

To your first point, doubloons are a big seller for WG I believe, so I don't see the ESXP to FXP for doubloons changing any time soon. The game is free to play, not free to develop.

 

Coal replaced the personal oil wallet that was teased when oil was released.

 

Steel makes getting the Black and Flint easier as you can get 1,000 steel in Squall league, so you don't have to be a great clan team to get them anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
442
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,600 posts
4,013 battles
23 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

To your first point, doubloons are a big seller for WG I believe, so I don't see the ESXP to FXP for doubloons changing any time soon. The game is free to play, not free to develop.

 

Coal replaced the personal oil wallet that was teased when oil was released.

 

Steel makes getting the Black and Flint easier as you can get 1,000 steel in Squall league, so you don't have to be a great clan team to get them anymore.

On my first point - I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think they should remove the ESXP to FXP for doubloons.  I did not mean to imply that.  I would just like an alternative to that model.  In WoT, we can set the elited tech tree tank to send those XP to the crew instead, which is useful - and that game also has a ETXP to FXP conversion for doubloons, excuse me, gold.  So the economic model can clearly support two options.

Again, why create the 'personal oil wallet' in the first place when the game already had an under-utilized resource available?

Lastly, they could have tweaked the system that was already in place to reward those ships to make them more widely available but still locked behind "competitive" modes.

At times it seems like whoever is directing development on this game lacks focus.  They see a feature in another game and say "Ooh!  We gotta make this!" without spending any time thinking about whether or not that feature really fits into the game and adds to the experience in a cohesive way.  Collections are a great example - perfect feature for a hidden items game.  But between the time I press the Battle button and the time I see the results screen, Collections have no effect on the game I'm playing.  When I'm going through my ships in the tech tree, outfitting, upgrading, buying and selling, Collections have no impact.  It is those core parts of the game that make WoWs what it is that I think need the developers' focus.  Part of that is 'using all the parts of the animal', so to speak.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,210
[WOLF3]
Members
6,393 posts
2,380 battles
2 hours ago, Cit_the_bed said:

Can we please have an option to turn off coal ? Same way there is an option to "do not collect" for collections.

You need 8000 coal to get 20 signals, that is 20 daily crates. With 4 flags per crate, you add another 80 flags for 100 flags for 20 daily crates if you spend all the coal earned.

Previously I would get 160 flags if there was no coal in 20 signal crates (you get one camo or some other useless item).

 

I don't need this coal economics, it's harmful to me as a player.

I completely agree with you. 

1 hour ago, Compassghost said:

Citing a conversion rate for the worst priced item in the shop seems disingenuous, no? Would you say a Musashi is worth 440 detonation flags? 

This is a fair point.  But I don't need a new ship to keep playing in the manner to which I've become accustomed.  Likewise the Special Upgrades are nice but unnecessary.


 

With the next drop comes a new feature that I don't recall being discussed here: Container type Resources.  Apparently it has Coal (and maybe Steel) as its primary yield (as Consumable containers primarily yield Consumables.) 

WG, with the introduction of Resources containers, can we PLEASE go back to other container types yielding as they did before Coal started polluting the Daily Containers?

@Pigeon_of_War

@Radar_X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,153
[PVE]
Members
9,554 posts
7,456 battles
7 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

On my first point - I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think they should remove the ESXP to FXP for doubloons.  I did not mean to imply that.  I would just like an alternative to that model.  In WoT, we can set the elited tech tree tank to send those XP to the crew instead, which is useful - and that game also has a ETXP to FXP conversion for doubloons.  So the economic model can clearly support two options.

Again, why create the 'personal oil wallet' in the first place when the game already had an under-utilized resource available?

Because that ESXP is there to tempt people to convert it to FXP with doubloons that are mostly purchased in the shop. So it makes WG money to leave the ESXP there for FXP conversions. I thought I was clear on that. ESXP is not going to be used for anything else as it makes money for WG. The game is free to play, but not free to develop.

 

9 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

Lastly, they could have tweaked the system that was already in place to reward those ships to make them more widely available but still locked behind "competitive" modes.

They did set the Stalingrad, Black and Flint behind competitive modes, it is just that you now don't have to rank our or get to Typhoon level to do it. See above about why ESXP would not be used.

 

11 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

At times it seems like whoever is directing development on this game lacks focus.  They see a feature in another game and say "Ooh!  We gotta make this!" without spending any time thinking about whether or not that feature really fits into the game and adds to the experience in a cohesive way.  Collections are a great example - perfect feature for a hidden items game.  But between the time I press the Battle button and the time I see the results screen, Collections have no effect on the game I'm playing.  When I'm going through my ships in the tech tree, outfitting, upgrading, buying and selling, Collections have no impact.  It is those core parts of the game that make WoWs what it is that I think need the developers' focus.  Part of that is 'using all the parts of the animal', so to speak.

 

Well the collections do add flavor to the game. Changing the color of camo. Adding 2 flags to ships. Giving out new flags to fly on your ships.

The collections giving out perma-camo and 10 point special captains are helpful in battle. The free perma-camo with their XP bonus(es) and the 10pt captains are nice. Sure the players with 19pt captains in every ship don't care, but those of us who don't have tons of 19 pointers do like them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[FAILD]
Members
427 posts
1,608 battles

I wish the super container drop was higher. But if WG did that it'd make it less meaningful when you did get one. Speaking of super containers isnt steel a possibility?

As far as coal goes I'm ok with it. Although at this stage (still early in game play) I'd prefer port slot drops lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,153
[PVE]
Members
9,554 posts
7,456 battles
4 minutes ago, Sped_Gax said:

I wish the super container drop was higher. But if WG did that it'd make it less meaningful when you did get one. Speaking of super containers isnt steel a possibility?

As far as coal goes I'm ok with it. Although at this stage (still early in game play) I'd prefer port slot drops lol. 

 

Super containers can drop 15,000 coal or 1,500 steel in the new resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[FAILD]
Members
427 posts
1,608 battles
15 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

With the next drop comes a new feature that I don't recall being discussed here: Container type Resources.  Apparently it has Coal (and maybe Steel) as its primary yield (as Consumable containers primarily yield Consumables.) 

WG, with the introduction of Resources containers, can we PLEASE go back to other container types yielding as they did before Coal started polluting the Daily Containers?

I totally agree with this. I like the credits containers the way they were. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[FAILD]
Members
427 posts
1,608 battles
1 minute ago, Kizarvexis said:

Super containers can drop 15,000 coal or 1,500 steel in the new resources.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,323 posts
3,585 battles
30 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

On my first point - I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I think they should remove the ESXP to FXP for doubloons.  I did not mean to imply that.  I would just like an alternative to that model.  In WoT, we can set the elited tech tree tank to send those XP to the crew instead, which is useful - and that game also has a ETXP to FXP conversion for doubloons, excuse me, gold.  So the economic model can clearly support two options.

Again, why create the 'personal oil wallet' in the first place when the game already had an under-utilized resource available?

Lastly, they could have tweaked the system that was already in place to reward those ships to make them more widely available but still locked behind "competitive" modes.

At times it seems like whoever is directing development on this game lacks focus.  They see a feature in another game and say "Ooh!  We gotta make this!" without spending any time thinking about whether or not that feature really fits into the game and adds to the experience in a cohesive way.  Collections are a great example - perfect feature for a hidden items game.  But between the time I press the Battle button and the time I see the results screen, Collections have no effect on the game I'm playing.  When I'm going through my ships in the tech tree, outfitting, upgrading, buying and selling, Collections have no impact.  It is those core parts of the game that make WoWs what it is that I think need the developers' focus.  Part of that is 'using all the parts of the animal', so to speak.

To gain more money by making one invest more time into the game itself. This makes it so you are more likely to purchase premium time or flag bundles. The sad part is they are not done three more new currencies are planned in the future according to Seagroup. They will make coal and steel less valuable when they add in these currencies somehow. This will cause one to advance slower in someway. I think the intention is to slow down progression to tier 10 and make one spend more money to progress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
442
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,600 posts
4,013 battles
16 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

Because that ESXP is there to tempt people to convert it to FXP with doubloons that are mostly purchased in the shop. So it makes WG money to leave the ESXP there for FXP conversions. I thought I was clear on that. ESXP is not going to be used for anything else as it makes money for WG. The game is free to play, but not free to develop.

Then why not limit the possibilities in WoT?  As I said, the economic model clearly supports two options here.  I thought I had been clear as well, but most of your responses seem to have missed my points.

16 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

They did set the Stalingrad, Black and Flint behind competitive modes, it is just that you now don't have to rank our or get to Typhoon level to do it. See above about why ESXP would not be used.

Again, a tweak to the previous existing system could have made those ships available to players of those modes without requiring ranking out (could be based on number of stars earned), or getting to Typhoon league.  Creation of Steel was not required to do this.

16 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

Well the collections do add flavor to the game. Changing the color of camo. Adding 2 flags to ships. Giving out new flags to fly on your ships.

The collections giving out perma-camo and 10 point special captains are helpful in battle. The free perma-camo with their XP bonus(es) and the 10pt captains are nice. Sure the players with 19pt captains in every ship don't care, but those of us who don't have tons of 19 pointers do like them.

The Collections do add flavor, but the system is so convoluted and it's creation was not necessary.  I've got partial collections laying around now that I may never be able to complete.  That's frustrating.  The rewards doled out (perma-camo, 10-pt and Legendary Commanders(?), customizable camo colors, second flags, etc.) could all have been awarded through the existing missions system, or through Campaigns.  More is not always better, and different is not automatically an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[FAILD]
Members
427 posts
1,608 battles
24 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

The collections giving out perma-camo and 10 point special captains are helpful in battle. The free perma-camo with their XP bonus(es) and the 10pt captains are nice. Sure the players with 19pt captains in every ship don't care, but those of us who don't have tons of 19 pointers do like them.

Here here!!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
918 posts
2,449 battles
9 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

Then why not limit the possibilities in WoT?  As I said, the economic model clearly supports two options here.  I thought I had been clear as well, but most of your responses seem to have missed my points.

Again, a tweak to the previous existing system could have made those ships available to players of those modes without requiring ranking out (could be based on number of stars earned), or getting to Typhoon league.  Creation of Steel was not required to do this.

The Collections do add flavor, but the system is so convoluted and it's creation was not necessary.  I've got partial collections laying around now that I may never be able to complete.  That's frustrating.  The rewards doled out (perma-camo, 10-pt and Legendary Commanders(?), customizable camo colors, second flags, etc.) could all have been awarded through the existing missions system, or through Campaigns.  More is not always better, and different is not automatically an improvement.

What we need is a "More Resources" to be added to the list like more camo and more credits. They should revert the crates back to the way they were imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,153
[PVE]
Members
9,554 posts
7,456 battles
3 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

Then why not limit the possibilities in WoT?  As I said, the economic model clearly supports two options here.  I thought I had been clear as well, but most of your responses seem to have missed my points.

I would guess the reason WoWs isn't run like WoT, is because they are making more money with the ESXP to FXP conversion. I would guess that is why the economy is set up the way it is.

 

4 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

Again, a tweak to the previous existing system could have made those ships available to players of those modes without requiring ranking out (could be based on number of stars earned), or getting to Typhoon league.  Creation of Steel was not required to do this.

 

Well previously, there were credits, doubloons, ESXP & ECXP. Credits are earned in game and can be farmed up pretty hard since there are people with hundreds of millions of credits. Doubloons are bought with cash and then you are buying those ships instead of competition to get them. The problem with clan battles to Typhoon league, is not many were getting there. By creating steel as a currency, you can play clan battles and ranked and not have to get to the top to get a little bit of steel to work towards the ships. People who get to the top of those modes, get a lot of steel.

 

9 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

The Collections do add flavor, but the system is so convoluted and it's creation was not necessary.  I've got partial collections laying around now that I may never be able to complete.  That's frustrating.  The rewards doled out (perma-camo, 10-pt and Legendary Commanders(?), customizable camo colors, second flags, etc.) could all have been awarded through the existing missions system, or through Campaigns.  More is not always better, and different is not automatically an improvement.

 

Collectoins was a new way to grind that was different than missions. WG brought back Bismarck containers periodically to be earned in missions, so you can eventually complete that one. Dunkirk containers have been brought back as missions as well. The Yamamoto containers can be earned from regular containers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×