Game Economy Explanation Please? Someone in the Know? Dev?

[TurboT]

So while browsing through the notifications screens today I found some anomalies that I don't understand.  It initially drew my attention because I had a 70,000 credit repair cost on an undamaged ship, and I thought that was odd.   While talking to others in a different thread I was directed to this website (link below) explaining that all ships have a cost to run, despite being damaged or not and it's tagged 'repair' in game. 

http://blog.worldofwarships.ru/economics/

While the translation is difficult to read in certain areas, it explains some of the economic math tables for paying out credits, and deductions of.

 

Where my confusion is, is surrounding the "Ammunition Costs"  ... I have two screen shots to post from battle from the same CV.

The first screenshot (below) was a full length battle with an enemy CV on the other team.  As it was a Two Brothers Draw, I lost planes to AA and to enemy CV, and of course damaged enemy ships.  What is missing is "torps fired, and planes lost" information, but of the two examples I have this was the longer battle and MUCH more activity.   As you will see, my ammunition cost is "3200" credits. 

 

 

This battle, was a roflstomp Domination mode experience where there was no enemy CV on the other team.  It ended early with a lot of enemy ships left over, simply because we lost no boats and I believe killed 5, and gave them a minus rating in the Domination counter for an instant win.  In this game, I lost one fighter squad while shooting down on board fighters over the cruisers to keep them away from my anti ship planes.  I only managed to get three waves of planes out, each dealing damage, before the timer ended the game.  Absolutely more planes lost in first battle, and most certainly much, much less torp and bomb runs due to the length of the game.  

However, my ammunition cost is THREE TIMES HIGHER at $10,400 credits. 

 

 

Now this post isn't to whine.  I'm wondering if there is some bug in the math here which is costing more credits than it should? I am also wondering how this is possible, if someone could give me a reasonable explanation as to where or how these ammunition costs are calculated.  It would seem to me the first game should have been much more expensive than the second, not the other way around.

 

[Crucis]

IIRC, even after battles where you took no damage and you have repair costs, those repair costs represent the cost of refueling the ship.  At least what's what I'd read before.

[TurboT]

IIRC, even after battles where you took no damage and you have repair costs, those repair costs represent the cost of refueling the ship.  At least what's what I'd read before.

 

My question here is about the ammunition cost and why it is higher in a battle I did way less "shooting" in?   A 5 minute battle 10,400, and 20 minute battle 3200.. 

 

There is a disconnect here for me.

 

[IronWolfV]

 

My question here is about the ammunition cost and why it is higher in a battle I did way less "shooting" in?   A 5 minute battle 10,400, and 20 minute battle 3200.. 

 

There is a disconnect here for me.

 

 

Depends on what you were shooting, what class, etc.

[TurboT]

 

Depends on what you were shooting, what class, etc.

 

Just curious if you read my OP and looked at the shiney pictures?

 

Its the same ship. Taiho.

[IronWolfV]

 

Just curious if you read my OP and looked at the shiney pictures?

 

Its the same ship. Taiho.

 

Sorry eats my phone alive to try and do pictures. But the simple reason is this. It's to force players to do 1 of 3 things or all of them.

 

1. Keep the mid tiers populated.

2. Buy premium time

3. Buy premium ships

 

All to fund tier 8+ ships, unless you have enough skill to make boatloads of credits at higher tier. It's a population control. They do the same thing in tanks and planes, just taken to the extreme in ships.

[Final_Spark]

 

Depends on what you were shooting, what class, etc.

 

He just means the costs themselves.

 

Honestly, you got me there. Doing more costs less?

 

Only thing I can think of would be AA and secondary activity. Oddball theory could be different costs related to aircraft loss that did or did not expend their ammunition.

[IronWolfV]

 

He just means the costs themselves.

 

Honestly, you got me there. Doing more costs less?

 

Only thing I can think of would be AA and secondary activity. Oddball theory could be different costs related to aircraft loss that did or did not expend their ammunition.

 

Well he was talking Taiho, could he one match he lost next to no planes, another match he could of lost entire squadrons?

[dahdah325]

OP, I have not paid close attention to this, but I have noticed it before as well. It would require more OCD than I have, but it might be interesting to track over time. 

 

One theory, maybe 'costs' are related to whether you win or not. In the case of a win, you pay 'full cost', and in a loss (or draw, which is treated as a loss for rewards) you pay a percentage of the true 'cost'. The reduced 'cost' would be a small offset for not getting the win-buff. Someone who cares more about this can work on testing the idea. 

[TurboT]

OP, I have not paid close attention to this, but I have noticed it before as well. It would require more OCD than I have, but it might be interesting to track over time. 

 

One theory, maybe 'costs' are related to whether you win or not. In the case of a win, you pay 'full cost', and in a loss (or draw, which is treated as a loss for rewards) you pay a percentage of the true 'cost'. The reduced 'cost' would be a small offset for not getting the win-buff. Someone who cares more about this can work on testing the idea. 

Yeah I was hoping a dev or someone could comment on what exactly the relationship to ammo cost on a CV is because it really doesn't make sense in the example I have posted.   I could see if I was dropping lots of torps or bombs I'd have a higher cost, but it doesn't make sense that it'd be less in a 20 minute battle over a 5 minute one.  

[IronWolfV]

Yeah I was hoping a dev or someone could comment on what exactly the relationship to ammo cost on a CV is because it really doesn't make sense in the example I have posted.   I could see if I was dropping lots of torps or bombs I'd have a higher cost, but it doesn't make sense that it'd be less in a 20 minute battle over a 5 minute one.  

 

How many planes did you lose in each battle?

[TurboT]

 

How many planes did you lose in each battle?

I do not have that information on the after battle screen, but I would say that the battle which went 20 minutes would've cost me more planes due to attrition and enemy CV on other team.

 

[IronWolfV]

I do not have that information on the after battle screen, but I would say that the battle which went 20 minutes would've cost me more planes due to attrition and enemy CV on other team.

 

 

Depends. Could of been top tier vs a lower tier carrier. Idk. Just trying to narrow down the reasons.

[Grisbane]

in any of the matches was your vehicles destroyed?  the pictures don't tell that.  if so..  your planes and ammunition sinking to the bottom with you would explain the higher cost.

[TurboT]

in any of the matches was your vehicles destroyed?  the pictures don't tell that.  if so..  your planes and ammunition sinking to the bottom with you would explain the higher cost.

No damage taken to ship in either battle, standard "70K" fee for fuel and food for the sailors I guess.

 

Again I get the planes and ammunition aspect IF the disparity were reversed. As I said, the more expensive game was short, and I lost less, and shot less.