5.12 economy will make some happy and others not so..

[SteelClaw]

Many though the change would only affect tier 10. It looks like it will cover all tiers. I think passive players will hate this change while aggressive players will love it. Also i can hear the non premium players having a fit, but i like the fact that having a premium account is even more important now. 

----------

 

The main chunk of this expense was the cost of repairing the player’s ships, and this value would excessively increase with each tier. Due to this, we noticed that in the higher tiers, and especially at tier X, players were overly cautious, which negatively affected gameplay. Even if a player performed well, the sinking of their ship would lead to a large repair bill, often times negating any profit earned from the battle. To rectify the situation, we decided to make the following changes: 

- The ship-repair fee has been completely replaced with a fixed service charge, meaning the cost will not be dependent on how much damage the player's ship received in battle. 
- Reduced the cost of replenishing ammunition and aircraft for a number of vessels, and the higher the tier, the greater the reduction. 
- By reducing these costs, we aim to encourage players to be more aggressive and take appropriate risks, ensuring that they are properly rewarded -- for example, the change will reduce the average post-battle costs of a tier X ship by 50,000 Credits,and will reduce the chance of losing Credits when in possession of a Premium Account. 

[Cruiser_Senjo]

Many though the change would only affect tier 10. It looks like it will cover all tiers. I think passive players will hate this change while aggressive players will love it. Also i can hear the non premium players having a fit, but i like the fact that having a premium account is even more important now. 

----------

 

The main chunk of this expense was the cost of repairing the player’s ships, and this value would excessively increase with each tier. Due to this, we noticed that in the higher tiers, and especially at tier X, players were overly cautious, which negatively affected gameplay. Even if a player performed well, the sinking of their ship would lead to a large repair bill, often times negating any profit earned from the battle. To rectify the situation, we decided to make the following changes: 

- The ship-repair fee has been completely replaced with a fixed service charge, meaning the cost will not be dependent on how much damage the player's ship received in battle. 
- Reduced the cost of replenishing ammunition and aircraft for a number of vessels, and the higher the tier, the greater the reduction. 
- By reducing these costs, we aim to encourage players to be more aggressive and take appropriate risks, ensuring that they are properly rewarded -- for example, the change will reduce the average post-battle costs of a tier X ship by 50,000 Credits, and will reduce the chance of losing Credits when in possession of a Premium Account. 

 

thats why my Tomato is a secondary spec one *u* even my biscuit gonna love this >u< !! 

[Captain_Dorja]

The thing about the economy that makes me sad is that they are reducing gains from everything that we gain from currently in order to make the net change from spotting/spotting damage equal 0. That means the average incoming for a normal game is going to decrease, because in a lot of games, spotting and what not are going to be a marginal contribution for a lot of ship types, but the methods they use to gain credits/exp are going to be less effective. CVs and DDs will get to stay the same, maybe increase some. BBs and cruisers will be less profitable.

 

This game needs a less brutal economy. They should have not adjusted the credit income gains for damage/capping/kills and just straight up added on the scouting credit.

[BlazerSparta]

The thing about the economy that makes me sad is that they are reducing gains from everything that we gain from currently in order to make the net change from spotting/spotting damage equal 0. That means the average incoming for a normal game is going to decrease, because in a lot of games, spotting and what not are going to be a marginal contribution for a lot of ship types, but the methods they use to gain credits/exp are going to be less effective. CVs and DDs will get to stay the same, maybe increase some. BBs and cruisers will be less profitable.

 

This game needs a less brutal economy. They should have not adjusted the credit income gains for damage/capping/kills and just straight up added on the scouting credit.

 

Tanking damage also gets you rewards.

 

The only class that's really getting screwed are CAs.

 

Can't really tank, can't spot.

[AspiringCodger]

 They should have not adjusted the credit income gains for damage/capping/kills and just straight up added on the scouting credit.

 

This.  It won't work for XP, but I agree it should be this way for credits.

[Sircolby45]

The thing about the economy that makes me sad is that they are reducing gains from everything that we gain from currently in order to make the net change from spotting/spotting damage equal 0. That means the average incoming for a normal game is going to decrease, because in a lot of games, spotting and what not are going to be a marginal contribution for a lot of ship types, but the methods they use to gain credits/exp are going to be less effective. CVs and DDs will get to stay the same, maybe increase some. BBs and cruisers will be less profitable.

 

This game needs a less brutal economy. They should have not adjusted the credit income gains for damage/capping/kills and just straight up added on the scouting credit.

 

Yes, people keep looking at this as oh I spot a lot therefore I am going to make more credits. The sad part is this is not the case. If you spot a lot you will make the SAME credits you are already making, meaning you are not getting rewarded for this. They merely are punishing the ones that do not. Therefore if you have a game where for whatever reason you don't do a lot of these actions you will receive fewer rewards. Essentially this gives you more opportunity to fail without giving you more opportunity to succeed. This means that regardless of how you play you will make fewer credits than you would have with the old economy in the end. (Because at some point you are going to have an off game where you just don't contribute in spotting/etc. as well as you normally do. It is inevitable.)

[LegioCI]

The thing about the economy that makes me sad is that they are reducing gains from everything that we gain from currently in order to make the net change from spotting/spotting damage equal 0. That means the average incoming for a normal game is going to decrease, because in a lot of games, spotting and what not are going to be a marginal contribution for a lot of ship types, but the methods they use to gain credits/exp are going to be less effective. CVs and DDs will get to stay the same, maybe increase some. BBs and cruisers will be less profitable.

 

This game needs a less brutal economy. They should have not adjusted the credit income gains for damage/capping/kills and just straight up added on the scouting credit.

 

Ultimately its going to be a nerf for "bottom" tier ships, which will be especially brutal for Tier V-VI Battleships and Cruisers. Since Cruisers and BBs are the least able to aggressive "play from the bottom", and since these tiers basically force captains to play in bottom-tier for most of their games (I actually had more than 45k experience on my Bayern before I got a battle where I was top tier- even now in the few dozen battles I've played in it I've only been top tier about 4-5 times.) Since aggressive play is generally suicidal for most bottom tier cruisers, who are generally recommended to stay back, support their fleet and engage targets that are already engaged. 

 

Ultimately I can see this having a huge negative impact on mid-tier gameplay, since cruisers and BBs that should be playing a support role and providing fire while higher-tiers pull the majority of the weight, are going to instead rush forward to get spotting damage and immediately get deleted by high-tier battleships.

 

It's actually a very Gaijin-esque change, because it comes so close to fixing major gameplay problems but one detail means it'll like cause more problems than it solves.

[Lert]

As someone who is too aggressive and has a very low survival rate to begin with, this will mean that high tiers will be cheaper for me to run than before.

[Captain_Dorja]

As someone who is too aggressive and has a very low survival rate to begin with, this will mean that high tiers will be cheaper for me to run than before.

 

Same here.

[Crucis]

The thing about the economy that makes me sad is that they are reducing gains from everything that we gain from currently in order to make the net change from spotting/spotting damage equal 0. That means the average incoming for a normal game is going to decrease, because in a lot of games, spotting and what not are going to be a marginal contribution for a lot of ship types, but the methods they use to gain credits/exp are going to be less effective. CVs and DDs will get to stay the same, maybe increase some. BBs and cruisers will be less profitable.

 

This game needs a less brutal economy. They should have not adjusted the credit income gains for damage/capping/kills and just straight up added on the scouting credit.

 

Tanking damage also gets you rewards.

 

The only class that's really getting screwed are CAs.

 

Can't really tank, can't spot.

 

 

Well, ,if they wanted to give CA's an advantage in this area and overall, I suppose, they could lower the maintenance cost on CA's across the board, making them a bit cheaper to run than the other ship types.

 

 

[awiggin]

As someone who is too aggressive and has a very low survival rate to begin with, this will mean that high tiers will be cheaper for me to run than before.

 

Agreed, I don't mind it at all, but considering the general population is adverse to risk, I can't see it going over very well. 

[Xannari]

Even if a player performed well, the sinking of their ship would lead to a large repair bill, often times negating any profit earned from the battle.

 

The trueness of this sentence. Even in that 258k damage game with Yamato and a big handful of 3110 exp, I only walked out with 10k credits profit

[poeticmotion]

Lert, on 27 September 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

As someone who is too aggressive and has a very low survival rate to begin with, this will mean that high tiers will be cheaper for me to run than before.

Same here.

 

Ditto. I've been working on increasing my survival rate without losing my aggressiveness, as that's the biggest problem I have. My hit ratios are above average, but I actually do lower than average damage in many ships because I am so aggressive that I die too early too often. But at least now high tiers will be cheaper for me, and hopefully people will stop being so campy and non-aggressive so I get support when I push. 

[LegioCI]

As someone who is too aggressive and has a very low survival rate to begin with, this will mean that high tiers will be cheaper for me to run than before.

 

Speaking as someone who generally gets himself in trouble being overly aggressive as well, the problem is that aggression is situational, and holding up aggressive gameplay as the only way to effectly earn experience and credits is going to create a massive s**tstorm on the servers. For example, in a situation where a BB is expected to hold a flank against superior forces, that BB's best choice is to remain at range and use good fire control to pick at the enemy in a fighting retreat until he can be reinforced. In the same situation, rushing in and aggressively engaging them means you're going to do some damage to one of the ships and then die, leaving your team, down a battleship. I think the best way WG could've handled this would be to add spotting/tanking on top of existing credits, this would've allowed some encouragement to more aggressive playstyles, but also wouldn't enforce those playstyles in the wrong situations.

 

This is going to be a huge change for the meta and it remains to be seen whether it will be a positive one...

[Soshi_Sone]

I don't think I'll see much of a change.  Well, maybe at T10 (but I'm not there yet, so I can't tell).  I am what most will call an aggressive BB player.  I don't yolo, but I do push more than the average.  I mix it up more.  In my T9 experiences, about half the games I survive and about half I die.  Hence, my net "repair" cost average about a mean between small and big.  The change will...well....average it all out every time.  So the net change from me will be minimal.  And as I already play aggressively...that won't change either. 

[Crucis]

I don't think I'll see much of a change.  Well, maybe at T10 (but I'm not there yet, so I can't tell).  I am what most will call an aggressive BB player.  I don't yolo, but I do push more than the average.  I mix it up more.  In my T9 experiences, about half the games I survive and about half I die.  Hence, my net "repair" cost average about a mean between small and big.  The change will...well....average it all out every time.  So the net change from me will be minimal.  And as I already play aggressively...that won't change either. 

 

It might be lower for you.  But I think that this change is aimed more at less aggressive players who may be playing more passively out of fear of high repair costs.

 

 

[Sir_Godz]

All WG needed to do was make the economy cap out near T8.

 

WG constantly wastes tons of time and effort attempting to avoid doing the simple thing. Too many DDs, change all sorts of ship across many classes instead of capping them with only a slight increase in que times for the minority of players determined to play them. Exactly the same issue for BBs. The irony is that hardly anyone enjoys excesses of DDs or BBs and WG's rational is that it is better that most of the people in game don't enjoy the experience rather than a mere few that don't enjoy sitting in que for seconds longer to get into their 20 minute match.

[NightHawkS117]

 

Tanking damage also gets you rewards.

 

The only class that's really getting screwed are CAs.

 

Can't really tank, can't spot.

 

finally I get credit for tanking damage. Money for BB punching bags!!

[Crucis]

All WG needed to do was make the economy cap out near T8.

 

WG constantly wastes tons of time and effort attempting to avoid doing the simple thing. Too many DDs, change all sorts of ship across many classes instead of capping them with only a slight increase in que times for the minority of players determined to play them. Exactly the same issue for BBs. The irony is that hardly anyone enjoys excesses of DDs or BBs and WG's rational is that it is better that most of the people in game don't enjoy the experience rather than a mere few that don't enjoy sitting in que for seconds longer to get into their 20 minute match.

 

 

There are NOT too many DD's nor too many BB's.  And I think that you're completely wrong when you claim that "hardly anyone enjoys excesses of DDs or BBs". 

 

 

 

 

[Umikami]

As someone who is too aggressive and has a very low survival rate to begin with, this will mean that high tiers will be cheaper for me to run than before.

 

Yes, that could be true. (I'm not the ONLY one who plays too aggressively and has a low survival rate?)

 

I wonder what this will mean for my Mikasa? (speaking of ships that just soak up damage)

[BlazerSparta]

Well, ,if they wanted to give CA's an advantage in this area and overall, I suppose, they could lower the maintenance cost on CA's across the board, making them a bit cheaper to run than the other ship types.

 

They could have done that with the income though.

 

Uneven income is already a thing, with CVs currently earning fewer exp for the same damage.

[MnemonScarlet]

 

They could have done that with the income though.

 

Uneven income is already a thing, with CVs currently earning fewer exp for the same damage.

 

It makes me wonder if they do that partially to keep CVs in tier longer. Fewer players run them, so if they're supposed to be a balancing presence at all, the longer the grinders are grinding the better. At the same time, WG doesn't want a flood of CVs since the class is out for rework, but this allows them to keep the specter of the class around so AA ships are worthwhile to some degree.

[BlazerSparta]

It makes me wonder if they do that partially to keep CVs in tier longer. Fewer players run them, so if they're supposed to be a balancing presence at all, the longer the grinders are grinding the better. At the same time, WG doesn't want a flood of CVs since the class is out for rework, but this allows them to keep the specter of the class around so AA ships are worthwhile to some degree.

 

It's because WG forgot to reverse the economic penalties on CVs after their offensive power got nerfed.

 

Never blame conspiracy when incompetence explains it.

[CylonRed]

As a non-premium account player - it is already hard top make money - a LOT of grinding fro credits and XP already.  Not going to be supremely happy if it gets even harder...

[Fiero85]

There are NOT too many DD's nor too many BB's.  And I think that you're completely wrong when you claim that "hardly anyone enjoys excesses of DDs or BBs".

 

Oh that is complete and utter B***-S*** and you and I both know it.

 

More than half of my games lately have been 6 Battleships, 2 Cruisers and 4 Destroyers on both sides. I don't enjoy that kind of match up in the least. The cruisers on one side or the other get deleted within the first few minutes of the game, letting the destroyers run roughshod over the battleships unless the cruiser(s) that are still alive on one side or the other run interference for the battleships.

 

Hell, just limiting battleships to 4 per side would go a long way towards balancing things out. Honestly though Battleships should be capped at no more than 2 per side, and destroyers capped at 4 per side, making it 6 cruisers per side.