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

Tier 9 and 10 Repair Costs

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
270 posts

I am going to sell my Fletcher DD as I did the Des Moines and give up on playing Tiers 9 and 10. The repair costs are stupidly high and need to be brought in line with 8. It does not cost any more to repair ships of one kind over another in real life. We are being gouged on this. I encourage others to do the same until WG brings the repair costs for these tiers down a bunch permanently.

 

I enjoy the ships but not the exhorbitant costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
509 posts
14,519 battles

I am going to sell my Fletcher DD as I did the Des Moines and give up on playing Tiers 9 and 10. The repair costs are stupidly high and need to be brought in line with 8. It does not cost any more to repair ships of one kind over another in real life. We are being gouged on this. I encourage others to do the same until WG brings the repair costs for these tiers down a bunch permanently.

 

I enjoy the ships but not the exhorbitant costs.

 

They aren't too bad, and when they were reduced not many took up the chance to play them more to make them stay.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,197
[KMS2]
Members
10,919 posts
4,863 battles

I don't have too much of an issue with the repair costs personally, if you have a decent game and take little damage you'll probably make credits, the only time you'll lose a lot of credits is if you ship is destroyed, which admittedly is going to be most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,148
[NDA]
Supertester
3,926 posts
2,681 battles

Sigh.  This again.

 

WG needs most players to lose credits at tier X.  This forces those players to either:

A) play lower tiers to make credits to finance their big boy ships, which keeps the lower tier playerbase healthy and improves player retention, or

B) Buy doubloons and convert to credits, which improves WG's bottom line.

They did a test for a couple of months with repair costs reduced by 30% or 40%, I forget exactly.  Apparently they were not pleased enough to make the change permanent, which one could take to mean that they are more pleased with the current repair cost levels.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,202 posts

Sigh.  This again.

 

WG needs most players to lose credits at tier X.  This forces those players to either:

A) play lower tiers to make credits to finance their big boy ships, which keeps the lower tier playerbase healthy and improves player retention, or

B) Buy doubloons and convert to credits, which improves WG's bottom line.

They did a test for a couple of months with repair costs reduced by 30% or 40%, I forget exactly.  Apparently they were not pleased enough to make the change permanent, which one could take to mean that they are more pleased with the current repair cost levels.

 

Yup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,927
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
16,310 posts
23,640 battles

Not play them for a time? Sure. Sell them? Crazy talk!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
501 posts
12,753 battles

I don't have too much of an issue with the repair costs personally, if you have a decent game and take little damage you'll probably make credits, the only time you'll lose a lot of credits is if you ship is destroyed, which admittedly is going to be most of the time.

key phrase here: Take little damage, not really leaving a lot of room for tanking are you? the best way to avoid taking damage? -sit at max range and pray to RNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
143
[FOGMC]
Members
211 posts

Yup T9+ REALLY isn't worth the investment with such obscene repair costs! I myself have learned that lesson the hard way...and quite painfully....I might add.

I spent something in the neighborhood of $150 cdn on a fast track campagain to get my T9 Iowa class. And what did I end up getting for my investment...? A super-squishy dock ornament that costs me my shirt EVERY...FREAKING...TIME I ever take it out for a match. Now I know I'm clearly not using the Iowa properly ,but with the uber T9 expenses it means there's no way in HELL I'm ever going to be able to afford to practice with it in order to ever get any good with it. And don't get me started on the futility of trying to get a feel for her in PvE with PvE's legendary half reward punishment for even thinking of playing anything but PvP. So it sits in my dock collecting dust, my ambitions of one day getting the Montana as cancelled as the actual Montana Class itself.

 

Also with the new BB bow armor nerf I can only surmise that my hard luck Iowa game is just going to go from bad to worse!

 

Needless to say...I will NOT be making that kind of monetary mistake again!

 

My advise cap your grind quest at T7 or T8 tops. If you really want to party in the high tiers, get a Tirpitz, Atago, Kutusov or Prinz Eugen otherwise don't waste your time (or money) on higher tiers.

 

For me Tirpitz and Scharnhorst is where it's at.

 

Good luck and fair seas everyone! :D

Edited by Noriruru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
397 posts

Yup T9+ REALLY isn't worth the investment with such obscene repair costs! I myself have learned that lesson the hard way...and quite painfully....I might add.

I spent something in the neighborhood of $150 cdn on a fast track campagain to get my T9 Iowa class. And what did I end up getting for my investment...? A super-squishy dock ornament that costs me my shirt EVERY...FREAKING...TIME I ever take it out for a match. Now I know I'm clearly not using the Iowa properly ,but with the uber T9 expenses it means there's no way in HELL I'm ever going to be able to afford to practice with it in order to ever get any good with it. And don't get me started on the futility of trying to get a feel for her in PvE with PvE's legendary half reward punishment for even thinking of playing anything but PvP. So it sits in my dock collecting dust, my ambitions of one day getting the Montana as cancelled as the actual Montana Class itself.

 

Also with the new BB bow armor nerf I can only surmise that my hard luck Iowa game is just going to go from bad to worse!

 

Needless to say...I will NOT be making that kind of monetary mistake again!

 

My advise cap your grind quest at T7 or T8 tops. If you really want to party in the high tiers, get a Tirpitz, Atago, Kutusov or Prinz Eugen otherwise don't waste your time (or money) on higher tiers.

 

For me Tirpitz and Scharnhorst is where it's at.

 

Good luck and fair seas everyone! :D

 

Yes, to all. I don't have the Tirpitz yet but it's on the short list. I have several T10's that make nice port displays but little else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,148
[NDA]
Supertester
3,926 posts
2,681 battles

And of course as we are having this little discussion WG announces they're bringing some relief to the high cost of high tiers.  Sounds like maybe it'll at least limit the losses to something more reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
613
[CHEEZ]
Members
2,614 posts
4,925 battles

Yup T9+ REALLY isn't worth the investment with such obscene repair costs! I myself have learned that lesson the hard way...and quite painfully....I might add.

I spent something in the neighborhood of $150 cdn on a fast track campagain to get my T9 Iowa class. And what did I end up getting for my investment...? A super-squishy dock ornament that costs me my shirt EVERY...FREAKING...TIME I ever take it out for a match. Now I know I'm clearly not using the Iowa properly ,but with the uber T9 expenses it means there's no way in HELL I'm ever going to be able to afford to practice with it in order to ever get any good with it. And don't get me started on the futility of trying to get a feel for her in PvE with PvE's legendary half reward punishment for even thinking of playing anything but PvP. So it sits in my dock collecting dust, my ambitions of one day getting the Montana as cancelled as the actual Montana Class itself.

 

Also with the new BB bow armor nerf I can only surmise that my hard luck Iowa game is just going to go from bad to worse!

 

Needless to say...I will NOT be making that kind of monetary mistake again!

 

My advise cap your grind quest at T7 or T8 tops. If you really want to party in the high tiers, get a Tirpitz, Atago, Kutusov or Prinz Eugen otherwise don't waste your time (or money) on higher tiers.

 

For me Tirpitz and Scharnhorst is where it's at.

 

Good luck and fair seas everyone! :D

 

I can make credits almost every match on Iowa and Fletcher. Key is, I keep a premium account, and have purchased the premium camo's for both of them. The big AND, I can maintain above server average damage on them by quite a bit. (12000 average damage above server averages on both of them) It is still very easy for me to hemorrhage credits on them with that off round where I only net a few thousand damage. 

 

The problem is though, My credit income averages only about 50k per game on these ships, where I can step down one tier and average 125k on a tech tree ship with a premium camo. The repair bills really should not be dependent on damage received (as this rewards a player who survived on the losing team more than a player that died, but contributed to victory on the winning team. This brings about the play attitude of, "Why try and win, when it is going to cost me money?") and it should be linear from tier to tier, not exponential, as the credit income is fairly linear right now.

 

I suppose that this is the current business strategy of WG to make money right now. Is to force us into buying premium accounts and camo from them, rather than releasing fun and engaging content that people are willing to spend the money on. Like premium ships, they would probably make more money if they priced the ships 25-50% lower, as the number of players willing to buy them would shoot up, probably by over 100%. (24USD for an Eugen or Atago, they would sell like wild fire.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
726
[WOLF1]
Members
3,298 posts

Sigh.  This again.

 

WG needs most players to lose credits at tier X.  This forces those players to either:

A) play lower tiers to make credits to finance their big boy ships, which keeps the lower tier playerbase healthy and improves player retention, or

B) Buy doubloons and convert to credits, which improves WG's bottom line.

They did a test for a couple of months with repair costs reduced by 30% or 40%, I forget exactly.  Apparently they were not pleased enough to make the change permanent, which one could take to mean that they are more pleased with the current repair cost levels.

 

unfortunately I think that's quite short sighted to cost credit to repair, so to force people to buy credit with $$$, people just won't. winning strategy should be make it more FUN and easier to play games, then people will come more and play more, that will increase the $$$ income

 

right now in battle people just stay behind, and afraid to engage and fight, and get pissed if ship is destroyed instead of having a good laugh, that is a BAD design, eventually game play will be less fun, and less people will play, so WG will get less $$$ instead of more.

 

the most important part of game design is making it FUN and enjoyable, then money will come

Edited by Happy668

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
613
[CHEEZ]
Members
2,614 posts
4,925 battles

 

unfortunately I think that's quite short sighted to cost credit to repair, so to force people to buy credit with $$$, people just won't. winning strategy should be make it more FUN and easier to play games, then people will come more and play more, that will increase the $$$ income

 

right now in battle people just stay behind, and afraid to engage and fight, and get pissed if ship is destroyed instead of having a good laugh, that is a BAD design, eventually game play will be less fun, and less people will play, so WG will get less $$$ instead of more.

 

the most important part of game design is making it FUN and enjoyable, then money will come

 

Finally somebody who understands. You don't make money by punishing your player base for wanting to play the end game... There are so many people that defend this, they must be sadists that enjoy the punishment, lol.

Edited by twitch133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
726
[WOLF1]
Members
3,298 posts

 

Finally somebody who understands. You don't make money by punishing your player base for wanting to play the end game... There are so many people that defend this, they must be sadists that enjoy the punishment, lol.

 

yeah even if someone wants to spend money, but if the rest of the team are afraid to fight and it's no fun, why would people want to spend money to get an edge to fight a uninteresting losing game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[-RTS-]
Beta Testers
226 posts
8,486 battles

I agree that T10 play expect to lose money, in general. This way we have a mix of T8/9/10 versus T10 everywhere.

 

What broken is that the high cost changed T10 player's behavior - They stay back and snipe from safe and leave other T8/9 at front, which expose them to enemy T10 and made their game not so fun.

 

I think if WG should raise the "baseline cost" of T10 play and reduce the "additional cost" for damage/sunk repair. After all the T10 player still lose money but at least they (and others) would have fun. For example, if WG plan my T10 credit expense being 100K(no paint scratch) - 300K(sunk), making the average being about 200K, I'd like that changed to 180K - 220K - maintain the same average yet make T10 players think "what the heck do I lose additionally if I go long and go deep?" and engage real T10 fun play.

 

Another change I suggest is the top exp player in the lost team should be rewarded higher credit and not counting this loss into their Win Rate%, similar to rank battle. This effectively will encourage people to play even when the team is trending toward loss.

Edited by even524

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[DOW]
[DOW]
Members
1,082 posts
41,469 battles

Sigh.  This again.

 

WG needs most players to lose credits at tier X.  This forces those players to either:

A) play lower tiers to make credits to finance their big boy ships, which keeps the lower tier playerbase healthy and improves player retention, or

B) Buy doubloons and convert to credits, which improves WG's bottom line.

They did a test for a couple of months with repair costs reduced by 30% or 40%, I forget exactly.  Apparently they were not pleased enough to make the change permanent, which one could take to mean that they are more pleased with the current repair cost levels.

 

    True enough and well stated. So an advantage for the company and not the players AND the company needs to be addressed by players not playing Tier 10's. Vote by just choosing the tier you play at, and Wargaming will change what's necessary(eventually). I am a huge fan of the company and their product but until someone can explain how many matches a player with Tier10's has to play at lower tiers to keep lower tiers well populated, this argument does not convince me.  Tier 10 should be just about a break even Tier; if you're still adding ships to your fleet and growing in the game you wouldn't be able to play Tier 10 that much anyway. And if Tier 10's were free, I wouldn't play them all the time. There are tons of interesting ships and match ups at lower tiers. I can even say I'd play more Tier 2-4 ships if they paid better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
270 posts

Sold both Des Moines and Fletcher. A permanent and significant reduction in Tier 9/10 repair costs is needed for me to consider them. Until then I stay and enjoy  Tier 7/8.

 

More will buy 9/10 if costs are reduced I believe.

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.

×