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

Seattle's Service Costs higher than Montana's

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

112
[ICOP]
Members
234 posts

I got 2 ships in a day which brought my balance of Credits down pretty low - low enough to feel pain after taking Seattle out for a few battles.  I started paying attention, and the service/ammo costs for Seattle are more than for Montana!  ~65k credits per Co-op battle.  I was going to do some serious grinding with Seattle, but the wallet pain got too intense.  Anyone else notice this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,664
[PVE]
Members
8,706 posts
22,017 battles

Tier 9 is just miserable save for premium ships. In the past I have played my tier 8s until I unlocked a tier 9, then free xp'd past them totally, never playing them unless needed for a mission or "snowflake" event.  The economy of the tier is just too punishing and the expensive perm camos do little to mitigate this. If it were not for potential flake-like events, I would sell them all save the Missouri and Musashi. I hate BBs but they make credits. Oddly enough I enjoy using the Seattle as needed for Ranked or whatever, so actually bought the camo for it. It is a comfortable ship but I can net more credits using my Katori. 

I used to want tier 10s in my port to farm the super container rewards each year and was planning on using my free xp to unlock three or four this time around. Then something occurred to me, once I spent my 1 million+ Free XP, there would be no replacing that in a timely manner. With the removal of so many OPs from rotation, once I spend what I have, I am boned. Just came to the conclusion that I don't need more than the 9 or 10 top tier ships I have in port now. I don't find the tier particularly fun or the ships very interesting and am good with the SC rewards I get now. My plan now is to hoard my resources to buy tier 10 premium ships that get my interest (ie cruisers) and skip all the other reward ships.  Well except for Diana Lima. I think we all agree that purchase is a no brainer! I am just planning on waiting until Christmas time to see if they put her on sale. 

Edited by Taylor3006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
275
[UN1]
Members
717 posts
2,685 battles
4 hours ago, Episcopo said:

I got 2 ships in a day which brought my balance of Credits down pretty low - low enough to feel pain after taking Seattle out for a few battles.  I started paying attention, and the service/ammo costs for Seattle are more than for Montana!  ~65k credits per Co-op battle.  I was going to do some serious grinding with Seattle, but the wallet pain got too intense.  Anyone else notice this?

If you have the permacamo on both of them, then yes, the Seattle is more expensive than the Montana.  But without it, it's not.  High tier ships are just economically draining unless you get the permacamos for them, and T9 especially more so than T10 due to the benefits of the T10 camouflage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,072
[HYDRO]
Members
3,682 posts
5,280 battles

Are you using premium consumables? In ships with lots of consumables this can skyrocket costs. By comparison Montana has just 3 consumable slots, as opposed to Seattle's 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
903
[4HIM]
Members
2,726 posts
9,518 battles

Yeah, the T9 economy is borked.  With perma-camo on each, it costs more to run a T9 than it does a T10.  T9 is nothing more than a grind wall to encourage players to FXP past most of the ships at that tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,387
[ARGSY]
Members
15,169 posts
9,943 battles
5 hours ago, Taylor3006 said:

Well except for Diana Lima. I think we all agree that purchase is a no brainer!

Are you trolling, or is there actually something about that ship among low-tier players which makes her super-desirable?

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,664
[PVE]
Members
8,706 posts
22,017 battles
1 hour ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Are you trolling, or is there actually something about that ship among low-tier players which makes her super-desirable?

Just a ship I love honestly, well love the Diana, imagine having the Diana Lima would make me happy too.... Didn't purposely mean to troll, was attempting a humorous statement, something that this forum seems in short supply of... 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,387
[ARGSY]
Members
15,169 posts
9,943 battles
31 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Didn't purposely mean to troll, was attempting a humorous statement, something that this forum seems in short supply of...

NP. I knew you were going for a "Your Yamato is worthless before the power of my mighty Black Swan" sort of vibe, but at the same time I didn't want to overlook the possibility that hardcore low-tier players might actually favour her for some reason (nearest I can tell is that she's got the biggest health pool and a decent secondary suite for bot-brawling, sort of like a Varyag detuned for T2).

IIRC she's for sale at the moment in the premium shop; just short of $10 CDN. She could be yours. How desperate is your desire? :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[ICOP]
Members
234 posts
5 hours ago, ZARDOZ_II said:

Yeah, the T9 economy is borked.  With perma-camo on each, it costs more to run a T9 than it does a T10.  T9 is nothing more than a grind wall to encourage players to FXP past most of the ships at that tier.

^^This.  I have abandoned any out-of-the-ordinary effort to go to Izumo because even the Wiki says it's the biggest POS in the game, and I don't want a Yamato that badly.  I have a Montana and am now hoarding coal for a Smolensk... or perhaps a Salem, and then I don't have to grind Seattle for weeks - running Atlanta to farm credits to support Seattle's typically negative credit balance each battle.

I do realize that I probably wouldn't have negative balances in Random Battles, but I get SO tired of losing the battle after I contribute significantly and survive because nobody but me even TRIES to capture, and most often lose the game on points.

So, perhaps my Tier X desires are best fueled by coal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,664
[PVE]
Members
8,706 posts
22,017 battles
8 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

NP. I knew you were going for a "Your Yamato is worthless before the power of my mighty Black Swan" sort of vibe, but at the same time I didn't want to overlook the possibility that hardcore low-tier players might actually favour her for some reason (nearest I can tell is that she's got the biggest health pool and a decent secondary suite for bot-brawling, sort of like a Varyag detuned for T2).

IIRC she's for sale at the moment in the premium shop; just short of $10 CDN. She could be yours. How desperate is your desire? :Smile_teethhappy:

Yeah not spending any more cash on the game. I have 50k+ of doubloons and the Lima is in the Armory. Waiting to see if they have a sale around Christmas like they do with tech tree premiums. 
BTW not sure who would downvote ya for your comment, so +1 to offset it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[ICOP]
Members
234 posts
14 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

Are you using premium consumables? In ships with lots of consumables this can skyrocket costs. By comparison Montana has just 3 consumable slots, as opposed to Seattle's 5.

No, I'm just looking at the service+ammo costs... the former is the culprit with Seattle... 60k-ish every battle plus ammo (and ammo costs are reasonable except for CVs).

It makes no sense that a Tier IX CL costs more for servicing than a Tier X BB.  Who knows, there may be a reason, but it's going to make the grind to X a lot longer and more painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,928
[WOLF3]
Members
22,450 posts
20,530 battles

Tier X is more expensive to run but if you have Perma-Camo, it has a significant service cost reduction bonus to them.  Even the service cost reduction bonus to Tier IX Perma-Camo, that doesn't come anywhere close to what the Tier X ones do.

 

For playing Tier IX without regularly losing Credits in Co-op, it's all about the Premiums.  But that doesn't help the guy trying to grind towards the Tier X ship in the first place.  Tier IX is as someone pointed out earlier, a Pay Wall.  You either FreeXP or blow Doubloons and convert ShipXP -> FreeXP (a very expensive venture with horrible returns, I might add, a mistake I did when I was new).  The sad part is that most of the Tier IX ships, once you earned the Tier X ones, aren't worth to keep on playing.

So you got Yamato, GK, Worcester.

Why would you ever play Izumo, FDG, Seattle after getting the Tier X?

Few of these are desirable to keep.  Fletcher, Jutland, Kitakaze are worth keeping.  Others are bonafide trash and people sell them off once they get the Tier X.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,664
[PVE]
Members
8,706 posts
22,017 battles
4 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Others are bonafide trash and people sell them off once they get the Tier X.

If I remember right, Wargaming said this much a while back. Seems they said tier 9 ships were the boats most likely to be sold off once a player went thru them. That was the reason that Musashi and Kron were over represented at the tier and used as justification to remove them from sale..

Personally I had sold all my tier 9 tech tree ships when I unlocked the tier 10s. Course then the Snowflake came around so re-purchased them and keep them in port to be played for these kinds of events. I just don't bother buying the upgrades, just play them stock with 3 point captains.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×