So, about the 'grind', WoWS vs WoT

[Lert]

Not sure this belongs in gameplay discussion, but that's where I put it.

 

So I couldn't sleep, despite 3 hours of trying. This leads to me thinking about things, a situation best avoided at any cost.

 

As you can see from my sig, I have at the moment of writing this thread 2743 games played since release with 1318 average experience over all of them.

 

I have three tier 10's already in my port (Yamato, Zao, Hindenburg), one tier 9 (a bone stock Iowa), I've played up to tier 8 on the USN cruiser line and I have about a million or so XP sitting on all my premium ships. That's enough to get one-and-a-half lines from tier 1 to tier 10 in a single go.

 

Now, I don't remember exact details, but when WoT was just released I was nowhere near this far at <3000 battles played. In fact, it probably took me twice that long - if not more, to reach this amount of progression.

 

Ofcourse, 100x +100% XP camos from ranked season 2 helped a lot, as do all the +50% XP signals that I've burnt - several hundred of them at least. Plus, I've been running premium time as well for each and every one of those battles. But then, I'd been running premium time for all my WoT battles as well. (shut it, I help keep your free game in the air, you freeloader)

 

So, the only possible conclusion is that the WoWS grinds are relatively waaaaaaay shorter than the WoT grinds are. The 1318 average XP per battle stands in stark contrast with my average XP in WoT of 640, with average tier played of 6.9. Plus, WoT doesn't have all those fancy +100% XP camo's or +50% XP flags that WoWS has, that considerably shorten grinds.

 

Even credits are far, far easier to come by in WoWs than they are in WoT. In WoWS repair costs are relatively very, Very high - but ammunition and resupply costs are relatively tiny in comparison, leading to a more predictable upkeep costs compared to WoT where repair costs are relatively low but ammunition and resupply can cost an arm and a leg after a prolonged fight. Especially with the expenditure of premium ammo, something WoWS (thank god) does not even have. Finally, a great match in a T8 premie in WoT can earn me 100k credits on premium account. A similar match in a T8 premie here can earn me five times that, easily. I've seen gross income figures approaching 1m even, on exceptionally epic matches, with the +20% income signal flag flying.

 

That said, I do recognize that between XP and credits, credits is 'the grind' at high tiers, with tier 10 repair costs coming to about 270k before resupply is added.

 

Ships are slightly more expensive in XP and considerably more expensive in credits (6.1m for a T10 tank, 20.5m for a T10 boat)

 

The value of gold is also interesting between the two games.

 

Fortunately premium time is shared, so that's a non-issue.

 

Then, though at first glance the free-XP-per-gold rate seems the same (25 free XP pergold / duhbloom) in actuality WoWS is more expensive, because ships take slightly more XP to research so you need more duhblooms to convert, and XP is so easy and plentiful with higher earn rates, flags, camouflages and signals to boost XP, thus gibing many people gobs of elite XP to convert.

 

Finally there's the gold-to-credit conversion that no sane man uses except maybe for a little bit on rare occasions.  400 credits per gold in WoT, 1500 credits per duhbloom in WoWS. This is one point where the duhbloom is worth more relatively than a gold. Though - is it? If we just take vehicle purchase, a tier 10 ship is 3.36 times more expensive to purchase than a tier 10 tank is, and a duhbloom is worth 3.75 as much as a gold, where conversion to credits is concerned. So, yes, a duhbloom is worth slightly more than a gold, for this purpose. The purpose that you should not use premium currency for, since a few battles in a mid tier ship or a premium ship already earns a butt-ton of credits that you don't need to spend real money for.

 

Speaking of real money, since after purchase of premium time, conversion of elite XP to free XP is probably the best use of your golden duhblooms in WoWS (as it is in WoT) and thus the best use of your IRL monies, and for this purpose a duhbloom is worth less than a gold, that makes WoWS the more expensive free-to-play game for people who care about what their money does. More expensive premiums also don't help.

 

Why this disparity in economies between WoWS and WoT? As long as all these disparities exist, there can never be a unified economy between the two games. The economies are just too different to be really compatible.

[enderland07]

When you say, "it probably took me twice that long - if not more, to reach this amount of progression" -- are you referring to games played? or actual hours of gameplay?

 

 

[Parker_xgps]

[Lert]

are you referring to games played? or actual hours of gameplay?

 

That ... is a very good point. Thank you for bringing it up. Games played definitely, I am fairly confident hours played as well. Between the more-than-double average XP per game, with the +100% XP camos and +50% XP signals, my XP-per-hour is most likely higher.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

Took me 68 games I think to grind my Amagi (I free xped the first hull) and 140 games to make the same grind in WOT. 

[LittleWhiteMouse]

Mm, a typical World of Tanks game is, what?  Five to seven minutes long?  A World of Warships game has to average at least over ten to twelve minutes.  I wonder how that works on an XP per time played between the two games.  But I digress, it's late and we have a Lert out of bed.  Someone grab his arms.  I'll apply this asphyxiating soporific pillow.

 

[Lert]

Bring it, Mouse. Methinks you're going to need a bigger pillow.

 

 

Seriously though, the XP-per-hour is a very good point. I know that WoT matches globally average at 7 minutes per, not sure about WoWS matches. But even if it's double that at 14 minutes average, the +50% XP signals and to a lesser extent the +100% XP camos still boost the XP-per-hour of WoWS.

[klymar8]

I have been saying that the conversion disparity between WoT and WoWs  ; Gold to Credits ; has left me thinking that true unification of accounts is going to be an interesting dilemma . And now you have pointed out some more reasons why .

 

  Thank you Lert .

[klymar8]

Bring it, Mouse. Methinks you're going to need a bigger pillow.

 

 

Seriously though, the XP-per-hour is a very good point. I know that WoT matches globally average at 7 minutes per, not sure about WoWS matches. But even if it's double that at 14 minutes average, the +50% XP signals and to a lesser extent the +100% XP camos still boost the XP-per-hour of WoWS.

 

Is that a picture of the Lion Tiger crossbreed I've heard of ?

[Batwingsix]

 

Is that a picture of the Lion Tiger crossbreed I've heard of ?

 

Looks more like the monstrosity my ex wife would turn into anytime I made her mad.

[Lert]

Is that a picture of the Lion Tiger crossbreed I've heard of ?

 

Yeah. Hercules the Liger. Largest non-obese cat in the world. 904 pounds of claw, muscle and fang. And friendliness, going by his pictures.

[klymar8]

 

Yeah. Hercules the Liger. Largest non-obese cat in the world. 904 pounds of claw, muscle and fang. And friendliness, going by his pictures.

 

Wow !  Thanks again .  Been wanting to see some Savanah pictures too .

[LittleWhiteMouse]

 

Back on topic, it's an interesting math problem.

 

We'd need average XP gains per hour in World of Tanks -- including real-world modifiers like first-win-of-the-day influences on gains, missions, etc.  This could be done by figuring out the average number of games each player has per session.  I'm sure the stat is out there somewhere.  Lastly, we then the total XP necessary to unlock each of the tier 10 lines to get a better grasp of what "average" costs might be. 

 

Then we'd do the same for World of Warships.  Unlike World of Tanks, this data is going to be a little harder to come by but we can use sites like WarshipStats and WarshipsToday to help out. Again, we need to factor in bonuses like first wins, signals, missions, etc.  And again we'll need the XP totals for various lines to get a rough idea of what the average costs would be.

 

I have no doubt that by raw numbers, you gain more XP in World of Warships than you do World of Tanks.  Certainly, the ceiling on gains in World of Warships is much higher.  A "good" game in World of Tanks has experience totals starting at 1000xp base with 1500xp or higher being reserved for the truly memorable matches.  In World of Warships, a "good" game begins around 1750 base xp and the truly memorable stand out after 2500 or more.  Your own personal numbers may vary.  Once you toss in premium time, camouflage, signals (on top of signals), first win of the day and maybe an event bonus, it's easily possible to see that number skyrocket over the 10,000 mark and beyond.

 

My intuition tells me that Warships does unlock XP faster.  Not by a lot, but by enough.

[enderland07]

It's not just XP/hour, either.

 

It's time required to unlock the next ship, both in credits and XP.

 

if it takes 100k xp for WoWS but only 50k XP for WoT that matters.

[Spongeman131]

Holy crap no. I've had enough friends quit WoT (with myself more or less dropping the game) because of the ridiculous grind to get to the more fun parts (not max tier, but higher tier).

 

If they're going to change anything, it should be to reduce the grind in WoT. Leave Warships as it is. It actually feels like you can get somewhere without opening up your wallet to WG every month for premium.

[dseehafer]

It took me 3 years to get my E100, and i played almost everyday (of course going up other lines didnt help) she is still my only tier 10. Ive stopped playing WOT since WOWS came out, but i cant bring myself to uninstall it.

[Antares_Athena]

I bet the sheer number of tanks compared to the number of ships a huge factor in the game EXP variance.  WoT has like probably close to 1000 something tanks, WoWS has 120ish? 

 

[Oberarzt_U511]

I like to think that the grind in WoT is more painful - for a couple of reasons.

 

First off is the prevalance of derp guns in WoT (T18, T82, Cruiser III, Sherman 105 etc etc). Whilst they aren't necessarily the most effective at ensuring constant dpm, they end games for some instanteously. It is moderately depressing to go into tiers 1-5 knowing that a massive finger of God shell could end your game within the first few seconds. Only multiple cits can do the same in WOWS - those are assuredly much, much rarer.

 

Second of all is the torturous stock grind in WoT. That VK 16.02 Leopard stock config still haunts me (39 pen? Good luck penetrating rotten rice paper). Its readily apparent that this time around in WOWS WG decided not to slow roast players with too harsh a stock grind.

 

Oh and speaking of derp guns, this pre-nerf beauty here is probably the illicit child of SerB and too much vodka ... 

 

[Samurai_Mouse]

what is thew ratio of cost per tank versus experience gained per battle, and cost per ship versus experience gained per battle? Balance that to over all time needed to achieve either of those figures and you have your comparison..

[Cruiser_Maya]

So I couldn't sleep, despite 3 hours of trying. This leads to me thinking about things, a situation best avoided at any cost.

[EroSun]

Mm, a typical World of Tanks game is, what?  Five to seven minutes long?  A World of Warships game has to average at least over ten to twelve minutes.  I wonder how that works on an XP per time played between the two games.  But I digress, it's late and we have a Lert out of bed.  Someone grab his arms.  I'll apply this asphyxiating soporific pillow.

 

 

Its ok Mouse, I'm sure Freya is biting his shins or ankles in her displeasure of him being up so early/late.  Sometimes I think his avatar should be of a mouse instead with how much his cat likes to bite him.

[Herr_Reitz]

It took me 3 years to get my E100, and i played almost everyday (of course going up other lines didnt help) she is still my only tier 10. Ive stopped playing WOT since WOWS came out, but i cant bring myself to uninstall it.

 

Same here for me and WoT... for me it was always a love/hate relationship; as long as the love side outweighed the hate side, we kept grinding forward. I've not been back to WoT since WoWS opened up. 

 

I believe this game has potential for the long run if they just figure out how to promote it. 

 

As to the grind/xp/etc.... I'd say things are about where they need to be, although some of the captain skill point requirements are insane, count-wise.

[AXELGREASE]

OP,

In WOT there were 4 lines to grind when I started.  I played in the Russian, American and German lines simultaneously. It took a lot longer to get a tier 10 in one line because I spend time in multiple lines in multiple trees.  I was grinding heavies, mediums and some TDs all at the same time.  It would be kin to grinding DD, cruisers and BB in both American, Japanese lines and adding the German and Russian line combined.

 

But yes I think ships come faster in WOWS, but crew XP is way slower.  With around 800 games I still don;t have a captain with a 4th level skill yet.  I have a couple ships close, but I am at least another 800 games from earning a 5th level skill, if not more. 

 

I only have 1 tier 6 ship and frankly, can't see playing much past it.  USN cruisers seem week, easily penned by anything and I almost never finish a battle with all turrets in tact.  The BB are the worst, slow,  unmaneuverable, and they are made of tinder.  But i digress.

 

[swarbs]

 the torturous stock grind in WoT. 

 

This is important too.  In WoT, when you're stock or lower tier (or both), you can pretty easily come back from a battle with almost no XP earned at all.  Rarely in WoWS are you in a situation where you can't do any sort of damage.

[BarnsBroadside]

Don't compare grinds in battles played, compare them in time spent.  The average WoT battle lasts about 5 minutes.  The average WoWS battle lasts about 15 minutes.  I think the grinds are pretty similar from the standpoint of time spent.