Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Lord_Argus

Do You Think We Will See Tier X Coal Ships For 400k In The Future?

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

530
[SOBA6]
Members
277 posts

Tier 9 and 10 coal ships currently run 228-248 thousand coal on average. The Neustrashimy is 296k which for the life of me I can't figure out why. Anyway, I'm wondering if WG is going to make certain high demand ships cost more in the future because they don't want another Thunderer fiasco. By that I mean that the Thunderer became too popular to the point that you see them in just about every game and ranked was filled with them. Coal is not that hard to acquire vs steel so the majority of players could save up the amount required to buy a Thunderer in about 6 months of play time. 

So do you think certain ships they anticipate to have a high demand in the future could cost double the Coal to try and prevent them from being overpopulated? Also someone tell me why the Neustrashimy is so expensive because in my last 500 games I think I saw 1 and I'm beginning to think I imagined it lol

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,981
[A-I-M]
Members
3,846 posts
14,851 battles
1 minute ago, Lord_Argus said:

Tier 9 and 10 coal ships currently run 228-248 thousand coal on average. The Neustrashimy is 296k which for the life of me I can't figure out why. Anyway, I'm wondering if WG is going to make certain high demand ships cost more in the future because they don't want another Thunderer fiasco. By that I mean that the Thunderer became too popular to the point that you see them in just about every game and ranked was filled with them. Coal is not that hard to acquire vs steel so the majority of players could save up the amount required to buy a Thunderer in about 6 months of play time. 

So do you think certain ships they anticipate to have a high demand in the future could cost double the Coal to try and prevent them from being overpopulated? Also someone tell me why the Neustrashimy is so expensive because in my last 500 games I think I saw 1 and I'm beginning to think I imagined it lol

Absolutely.

We have a T9 destroyer set at 296,000 coal now.  350,000 will be upon us very soon. 400, 000 is not far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[META_]
Members
219 posts
3,166 battles

Neustrashimy is priced that high to reflect its status as a former steel ship (which, combined with the fact that it was pulled from the store for about a year also explains its rarity) - as stated when the pricing was announced.  I think it's unlikely that any future coal ships will be priced similarly, aside from the Black (also a former steel ship) - at least in the near future.

Edited by Fel0niusMonk
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,280
[WOLFG]
Members
11,768 posts
10,910 battles

Neustra was a former steel ship, so WG messed with the coal price.

If the Stalingrad, Bourgogne, Shikishima ever go for coal, I would expect the price to go to 350K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,981
[A-I-M]
Members
3,846 posts
14,851 battles
7 minutes ago, Fel0niusMonk said:

Neustrashimy is priced that high to reflect its status as a former steel ship (which, combined with the fact that it was pulled from the store for about a year also explains its rarity) - as stated when the pricing was announced.  I think it's unlikely that any future coal ships will be priced similarly, aside from the Black (also a former steel ship) - at least in the near future.

We’ve seen price escalation. The first FXP ship cost 750k FXP, at T9. Now, FXP ships at T9 go for an even million. And T10 now goes for 2 mil.

There is every reason to believe the “preserving the value of the steel investment” bilgewater is just that: bilgewater. Consider: Flint and Atlanta lost main battery range due to the captain rebone. Atlanta

got its max range (what it had with AFT) built back in. Flint has not. No “value” has been “preserved” for those who bought it. Just the cost was jacked up. There is a profound difference.

For FXP ships, WG’s basis was “concern” over the large amounts of FXP in player accounts. Then they rolled out new currencies, pairing that with the practice of NOT announcing what currencies new ships would be sold for. This paralyzed player spending, leading to...more currencies hoarded by players. This rendered their “concern” transparent for the billshut that it always was.

The same is going on with this “preserving the value of the steel investment” language.

Write it down.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[META_]
Members
219 posts
3,166 battles
Just now, MannyD_of_The_Sea said:

We’ve seen price escalation. The first FXP ship cost 750k FXP, at T9. Now, FXP ships at T9 go for an even million. And T10 now goes for 2 mil.

There is every reason to believe the “preserving the value of the steel investment” bilgewater is just that: bilgewater. Consider: Flint and Atlanta lost main battery range due to the captain rebone. Atlanta

got its max range (what it had with AFT) built back in. Flint has not. No “value” has been “preserved” for those who bought it. Just the cost was jacked up. There is a profound difference.

For FXP ships, WG’s basis was “concern” over the large amounts of FXP in player accounts. Then they rolled out new currencies, pairing that with the practice of NOT announcing what currencies new ships would be sold for. This paralyzed player spending, leading to...more currencies hoarded by players. This rendered their “concern” transparent for the billshut that it always was.

The same is going on with this “preserving the value of the steel investment” language.

Write it down.

I didn't say that prices will never go up, just that I don't see the increased prices on the ex-steel ships as a harbinger of inflation.  You disagree, and that's fair, but there's no point getting angry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,981
[A-I-M]
Members
3,846 posts
14,851 battles
5 minutes ago, Fel0niusMonk said:

I didn't say that prices will never go up, just that I don't see the increased prices on the ex-steel ships as a harbinger of inflation.  You disagree, and that's fair, but there's no point getting angry about it.

Who’s angry? I’m opinionated, I’m right, and I know it.

Not everyone was raised watching Oswald the Octopus.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[META_]
Members
219 posts
3,166 battles
Just now, MannyD_of_The_Sea said:

Who’s angry? I’m opinionated, I’m right, and I know it.

Not everyone was raised watching Oswald the Octopus.

And not everyone was raised watching Oscar the Grouch either.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
191
[Y0L0W]
Members
372 posts
9,094 battles
10 minutes ago, MannyD_of_The_Sea said:

Who’s angry? I’m opinionated, I’m right, and I know it.

Not everyone was raised watching Oswald the Octopus.

Then maybe stop implying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot? Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
658
[UN1]
Members
1,339 posts
4,190 battles
2 hours ago, Lord_Argus said:

Tier 9 and 10 coal ships currently run 228-248 thousand coal on average. The Neustrashimy is 296k which for the life of me I can't figure out why. Anyway, I'm wondering if WG is going to make certain high demand ships cost more in the future because they don't want another Thunderer fiasco. By that I mean that the Thunderer became too popular to the point that you see them in just about every game and ranked was filled with them. Coal is not that hard to acquire vs steel so the majority of players could save up the amount required to buy a Thunderer in about 6 months of play time. 

So do you think certain ships they anticipate to have a high demand in the future could cost double the Coal to try and prevent them from being overpopulated? Also someone tell me why the Neustrashimy is so expensive because in my last 500 games I think I saw 1 and I'm beginning to think I imagined it lol

Just remember, it's all relative.  If they up the cost to 400k, it's because you'll be earning more coal in general.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,009
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead
15,724 posts
4,771 battles
2 hours ago, Lord_Argus said:

Do You Think We Will See Tier X Coal Ships For 400k In The Future?

Yes.  Inflation is a thing.

 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,174
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
4,263 posts
12,198 battles

The big question is how long till we do ? 

Edited by clammboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,981
[A-I-M]
Members
3,846 posts
14,851 battles
1 hour ago, SirPent13 said:

Then maybe stop implying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot? Just a thought.

Maybe the implication of intellectual inferiority is being voiced within you. It didn’t come from me. Just a thought.

I always assume charitably of others - that people who disagree with me might simply haven’t thought about it enough.

 

  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,184
[KWF]
Members
5,754 posts
6,994 battles

Considering WG has complete access and control on how coal is distributed and how much one can earn, I believe any price increases would take some time though they will happen eventually because inflation. 

Instead it would be sneakier to stealthily reduce the daily amount of coal one can earn; prices are kept the same, but getting the needed coal becomes more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,000 posts
4,356 battles

Black will surely go for over 300k as an ex-Steel ship so if any Tier X Steel/RB becomes available for coal, 400k or more will happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,981
[A-I-M]
Members
3,846 posts
14,851 battles
13 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

...they will happen eventually because inflation.

 

18 hours ago, iDuckman said:

Yes.  Inflation is a thing.


This is not inflation. It is a planned currency availability/value manipulation, aimed at producing a desired effect on player behavior. The in-game “economy” lacks too many elements of a real economy to be characterized by terms that apply to real economies.

If there were real inflation or inflationary pressures (like increasing wages, increasing server costs, etc.) we would see it in the form of increased cash prices of ships, subscriptions etc. - those things which bring income to WG from outside of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[PHD]
Members
230 posts
11,549 battles

Already hoarding coal waiting for something good to come out. Have over 300k sitting there waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
156
[KOBK]
Members
393 posts
5,081 battles

Well, either the T10 ships come at a higher currency cost or they gonna put a new currency and specific ships. But since people are stockpiling coal due to the lack of new ships to expend, eventually they gonna do something about this.

Maybe steel convertion with doublons? converting coal into FEXP with doublons? who knows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,009
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead
15,724 posts
4,771 battles
3 hours ago, MannyD_of_The_Sea said:

This is not inflation. It is a planned currency availability/value manipulation, aimed at producing a desired effect on player behavior. The in-game “economy” lacks too many elements of a real economy to be characterized by terms that apply to real economies.

If there were real inflation or inflationary pressures (like increasing wages, increasing server costs, etc.) we would see it in the form of increased cash prices of ships, subscriptions etc. - those things which bring income to WG from outside of them.

So.  Currency devaluation and price increases are a fact, but we can't call it "inflation"?

Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,981
[A-I-M]
Members
3,846 posts
14,851 battles
5 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

So.  Currency devaluation and price increases are a fact, but we can't call it "inflation"?

Okay.

Calling it what you want, doesn’t change what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78
[FLTF1]
Members
282 posts
7,821 battles
On 2/14/2021 at 12:27 AM, Lord_Argus said:

Tier 9 and 10 coal ships currently run 228-248 thousand coal on average. The Neustrashimy is 296k which for the life of me I can't figure out why. Anyway, I'm wondering if WG is going to make certain high demand ships cost more in the future because they don't want another Thunderer fiasco. By that I mean that the Thunderer became too popular to the point that you see them in just about every game and ranked was filled with them. Coal is not that hard to acquire vs steel so the majority of players could save up the amount required to buy a Thunderer in about 6 months of play time. 

So do you think certain ships they anticipate to have a high demand in the future could cost double the Coal to try and prevent them from being overpopulated? Also someone tell me why the Neustrashimy is so expensive because in my last 500 games I think I saw 1 and I'm beginning to think I imagined it lol

I bought Georgia around November 15 (so my coal went to 0). And I bought Thunderer January 31. 2,5 months. And while gathering coal for Thunderer, I bought at least 2 (maybe 3) upgrades (17k coal each) and at least 12-16k coal worth of flags. So, it's like 2 months for Thunderer (189k, with coupon).

Edited by crazyrom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×