Babykim

Posted by Takeda92 from Sub_Octavian on the NA forum: The analytics by the Russian video-blogger appears to have substance, perhaps not surprising given the size of his sample (25 percent of all players, but four days only). I expect the second conjecture to be true as well, namely we earn less experience as well as less credits on average. My subjective feeling is that I now earn less with my tier 8 premiums, regardless whether its the Atago, the Tirpitz or the Kutuzov. But especially the Atago.

Their credo is to delete, rather than to add...

I agree 100 percent. The short-leash autonomy of the servers is absurd.

Which is nice!

Sure, I take your point. You can discard this piece of analytics if you think that EU cluster is sufficiently different, but I found it interesting. In his video, the guy also promises more detailed results for individual ships, in particular the premium ships. The WG declared policy is not to nerf premiums, unless the changes apply to a whole class of ships, or a whole faction, or a whole tier, etc. But in reality the quality of premium ships changes every time a significant change is implemented. The interesting question is: By how much? Finally, I said before, I am not dissatisfied with the new economy because I do not play carriers, nor rank battles, nor PVE. Much of this would not be if WG followed a decent information policy.

It is not bullcrap, but you are right. The second reason why they do not want to see it in numbers is that the ship is OP. Not terribly OP, but enough to rip the noobs' rears.

It does! What I said does not apply to every low tier premium, but there is a tendency to withhold some ships for gifts and awards. Some will be available straight after their testing, other will take time to appear in the shop. But consider this, Tachibana, Diana and Emden were gift (Italeri kits) or award ships long before they made it to the shop. Cambeldown became an award ship after it was in the shop. Please, König Albert is very likely to be sold eventually, but after it will be a reward in some event. Secondly, we perfectly know that servers have different release schedules and policies. Something we hate, but something WG does not care about.

This was clear to me (and I mentioned this a few times) from my reading of the Russian forum. They do not like to sell low tier premiums since they need them for gifts and awards.

Point 4 refers to the XP intake of average players (-2.5), a rough estimate of the overall effect is about -5.0. The data on credits are not available.

So now we have the evidence that this conclusion is most likely to be false. The good players are earning less experience, and probably also less credits as a consequence. The higher the tier, the larger the shortfall. What is not to like about the new economy? See here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/31444-some-interesting-info-from-ru/page__st__4560__pid__1340622#entry1340622

On the new economy with a focus on tier 8 for Ranked Battles. The Russian video-blogger z1ooo, which traditionally has good relations with the developers, analyses the changes in profitability since version using a 25 percent sample of the Russian cluster (700k players), with a focus on the profitability of tier 8 ships used in the current Ranked Battle season. Source: The quantity of interest is the average experience, not the average credit earnings. The relationship between experience and credit earnings is nonlinear, and the credit earnings data are not available. Only players with blue/purple stats are considered, since the there is too much variance in the experience earned by the average players. So we are talking about the average experience of the top players. We are talking random battles only. The data covers all versions 0.5.10, 0.5.11 and 0.5.12. The 0.5.12 is the average the four days since the launching of this version (100k games). Stats of those players that had ever hidden their stats are not considered. There is no correction for premium accounts. The results: 1. No significant changes between 0.5.10 and 0.5.11. The experience strongly correlates with damage and frags. 2. Between 0.5.11 and 0.5.12, overall -1 percent average experience (-1 percent frags), which is not significant. But changes become the more significant the higher the tier: Tier 5, -2.5 percent Tier 6, -4 percent Tier 7, -6 percent Tier 8, -5 percent Tier 9, -8 percent Tier 10, -10 percent If we look at ship types, Carriers and destroyers -8 percent Battleships -5 percent Cruisers -4 percent A staggering 80 percent of all ships now earn less on average 3. Now to individual ships of tier 8, relevant for the current Rank Battle season: Lo Yang -12 percent (due to smaller capping rewards) Bismark, Tirpitz, Lexington, Fubuki -10 or -9 percent Amagi, Mogami, New Orleans, slight minus or slight plus, but the average damage and frags increased by 5 percent. So, a loss in profitability. 4. The average players (not top) earn on average -2.5 percent less experience, a bit less on destroyers and carriers, a bit more on cruisers and battleships. But the same average players made 3 percent more damage and frags. So, the results are better, but the earnings are worse. The overall decrease in experience earning is about 5 percent, contrary to what the developers have promised.

I am unsure whether this is well-known, or not. The developer SubOctavian on the deck armor of USS Montana, which was supposed to be increased from 28mm to 38mm in version 0.5.12. Source: http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?/topic/67146-%d0%bd%d0%be%d0%b2%d0%b0%d1%8f-%d1%81%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b8%d1%8f-%d1%88%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%bb%d0%be%d0%ba%d0%b0-%d0%b0%d0%bd%d0%be%d0%bd%d1%81/ The absence of correction in 0.5.12 is an oversight that will be corrected soon. This happened when we rolled back the nerf of the bow armor, as the increase was added at the last moment following the feedback from the general test. We apologize for this.

And are useless as commander trainers.

On Roon and Donskoi

Yes, a horribad game in which I camped like everyone else to finish with 35k in an Iowa.

One more idea to consider. Despite the repeated claims to the contrary, WG has no incentive in general to increase the overall profitability, because of the slow speed at which new content is added and the modest number of beginners. This is not a conspiracy theory but a general observation why they want to slow down the grind. In addition to changes in the reward system aimed at imroving the gameplay.

Thanks! What I added is also that an average player will lose money in an average Ranked Battle, something WG designers apparently did not grasp.

Whether you like the recent changes, or not, you cannot deny that this game is unplayable at higher tiers as a free-to-play game, i.e. as advertised. Imagine someone who has not spent a single cent on this game. The player arrives at tier 9, selling all previous ships to finance the new ones, or simply because no port slots to keep good money makers are available. The player is stuck and can leave the game. Thank you for trying out, Goodbye! If lucky, this player got a few very low tier premium ships, plagued by doubt: Should I sell my Emden to keep a Fuso? The economy of this game is horrible, and it did not become better, esp. not for carriers and the PvE players, and also not in Ranked Battles that just started. For me personally, it did not become worse either, just as bad as it always was. BTW: 1k posts!

According to the RU forum, the developers know about this problem and plan correcting it soon.

The traditional Q&A on the forum are closed, as the RU server is moving to a unified Q&A system on the official cite, in which most popular questions will be answered every Friday. The same system, with different questions, will be available on other servers.

The developer WellDone confirms that there will be a joint ship & tank clan war map, just not this year. Source: http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?/topic/67117-%d0%bc%d0%be%d0%bd%d0%b5%d1%82%d0%b8%d0%b7%d0%b0%d1%86%d0%b8%d1%8f-%d0%b2%d0%be%d0%bf%d1%80%d0%be%d1%81/page__p__2738507#entry2738507

Here are a few screens of the premium HMAS Perth, unfortunately on very low graphics settings, and a characteristics comparison with the Soviet premium cruiser Molotov. http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?/topic/67050-%d0%bd%d0%b5%d1%81%d0%ba%d0%be%d0%bb%d1%8c%d0%ba%d0%be-%d1%81%d0%ba%d1%80%d0%b8%d0%bd%d0%be%d0%b2-perth-%d0%bf%d1%80%d0%b5%d0%b4%d0%b2%d0%b0%d1%80%d0%b8%d1%82%d0%b5%d0%bb%d1%8c%d0%bd%d1%8b%d0%b5-%d1%82%d1%82%d1%85/

For a better translation you need someone who speaks Chinese. I simply quoted their translation in the link and added a Google translation for comparison.