What is the charge for "Service"?

[Glacis_UK]

At the end of a battle today, I had managed to sail my Shiratsuyu around any kind of damage, amazingly enough, sank one cruiser and was on cap when the last enemy was sunk.  I had a look at my results, and found that I had been charged 8k for ammo and 7.5k for camo.  Fair enough.  But then I saw a 42k charge for "Service".  What the heck is that?  There was no damage to repair.  Is this some some sort of "head tax"?  Or some kind of "wear and tear" charge?  Grease and an oil change?  Paint touch-ups?  Labor charge for dry dock?  Bonuses to crew members for a job well done?

 

I'm tempted to not start the engines in the next battle and just sit around doing nothing.  Then see if I get Services charged for.  No, I won't actually do that, but what is up with "Services"?

[hgbn_dk]

That's a fixed service cost of your ship if you take damage or not... Earlier it was called repair cost and price variate about damage taken. Led to people avoid combat for saving on the repair bill.

[xxNihilanxx]

6 minutes ago, Glacis_UK said:

At the end of a battle today, I had managed to sail my Shiratsuyu around any kind of damage, amazingly enough, sank one cruiser and was on cap when the last enemy was sunk.  I had a look at my results, and found that I had been charged 8k for ammo and 7.5k for camo.  Fair enough.  But then I saw a 42k charge for "Service".  What the heck is that?  There was no damage to repair.  Is this some some sort of "head tax"?  Or some kind of "wear and tear" charge?  Grease and an oil change?  Paint touch-ups?  Labor charge for dry dock?  Bonuses to crew members for a job well done?

 

I'm tempted to not start the engines in the next battle and just sit around doing nothing.  Then see if I get Services charged for.  No, I won't actually do that, but what is up with "Services"?

 

Repair costs based on the amount of damage taken were ditched years ago in favour of a flat service cost as some players were using it as an excuse to sit at the back of the map avoiding damage so as to lower their post-game bill.

 

Edit: Damn you @hgbn_dk, you are just too quick on the draw.

[Hummus]

Back in the days the repair bill was dependant on how much damage you had received. But this meant you would have BB's sitting aaaaallll the way back near the map borders, sniping at max range. You would lose the game, and the camping BBs would get the biggest profits since they did some damage didn't have to pay for repair (and at high tiers the repair bill gets pretty high)

 

So they changed it. You pay the repair bill every game.

The repair bill is the same, doesn't matter that you got sunk, detonated, or survived the battle without any damage .... same repair bill.

 

It's a good thing.

[von_chom]

(insert usual surprise)

 

fixed repairs are in the game for around a year

Its suppose to promote active gameplay, at least this is what WG thinks

[eliastion]

9 minutes ago, Glacis_UK said:

At the end of a battle today, I had managed to sail my Shiratsuyu around any kind of damage, amazingly enough, sank one cruiser and was on cap when the last enemy was sunk.  I had a look at my results, and found that I had been charged 8k for ammo and 7.5k for camo.  Fair enough.  But then I saw a 42k charge for "Service".  What the heck is that?  There was no damage to repair.  Is this some some sort of "head tax"?  Or some kind of "wear and tear" charge?  Grease and an oil change?  Paint touch-ups?  Labor charge for dry dock?  Bonuses to crew members for a job well done?

 

I'm tempted to not start the engines in the next battle and just sit around doing nothing.  Then see if I get Services charged for.  No, I won't actually do that, but what is up with "Services"?

You don't pay to repair a ship. You pay a fee for taking it out to battle. And no, it doesn't get smaller for

 - avoiding damage

 - avoiding movement

And if you think what these two might entail (especially the first one in case of things like battleships) you'll quickly figure out WHY they decided to make the economy so that it doesn't encourage avoiding having your paint scratched.

 

Of course the effectiveness is heavily reduced by bad communication leading to many people still having the misconception that avoiding fighting and camping at the safe distance might save them money.

[hgbn_dk]

It was always easy to find the Yamato's back then.. You just had to look in the corners where they reversed into.

[_DemonGuard_]

8 minutes ago, hgbn_dk said:

It was always easy to find the Yamato's back then.. You just had to look in the corners where they reversed into.

Yes, i'm glad these times are long gone and the BBs are now always close to the objectives and tanking for their team...oh wait...

[Klopirat]

Vor 12 Minuten, von_chom sagte:

fixed repairs are in the game for around a year

nearly 2 years, it came already with 0.5.12. ...

[ColonelPete]

Congratulations for finally taking a more detailed look at your results after over 2000 matches.

[aleksi111]

If that 42k feels excessive then you better stay away from higher tiers

Service fees:

 

T10: 180.000 credits (with perma camo: -50% = 90k)

  T9: 120.000 credits (with perma camo: -20% = 96k)

  T8:   75.000 Credits (with perma camo: -10% = 67,5k)

 

^That's right, with premium camo T10 ships are cheaper to operate than T9's, and with India Bravo providing -10% from the base value we get following costs;

T10: 72k (-18k)

  T9: 84k (-12k)

  T8: 60,75k (7,5k)

 

As you can see,  India Bravo gives much greater benefits when you use it on higher tier ships.

[Glacis_UK]

22 minutes ago, Hummus said:

Back in the days the repair bill was dependant on how much damage you had received. But this meant you would have BB's sitting aaaaallll the way back near the map borders, sniping at max range. You would lose the game, and the camping BBs would get the biggest profits since they did some damage didn't have to pay for repair (and at high tiers the repair bill gets pretty high)

 

So they changed it. You pay the repair bill every game.

The repair bill is the same, doesn't matter that you got sunk, detonated, or survived the battle without any damage .... same repair bill.

 

It's a good thing.

If it's the same regardless of battle outcome, then it is senseless.  All it does is reduce the amount of credits you get.  

 

On another hand, in real life it was sometimes a tactic or strategy to keep a capital ship in port because even if it never sallied forth, it nevertheless served a purpose -- keeping the enemy's fleet busy watching it.  This is called "Fleet in being".  It obviously does not work in a multi-player simulation like WoWS.

[BeauNidl3]

1 minute ago, Glacis_UK said:

If it's the same regardless of battle outcome, then it is senseless.  All it does is reduce the amount of credits you get.  

 

On another hand, in real life it was sometimes a tactic or strategy to keep a capital ship in port because even if it never sallied forth, it nevertheless served a purpose -- keeping the enemy's fleet busy watching it.  This is called "Fleet in being".  It obviously does not work in a multi-player simulation like WoWS.

 

It's a FIXED cost to take the ship out, as others have pointed out before it was introduced people used to camp to avoid damage.

 

The service costs are FIXED per tier, it's VERY sensible.

Detailed under the Operating Costs section here. http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Economy

[Glacis_UK]

26 minutes ago, von_chom said:

(insert usual surprise)

 

fixed repairs are in the game for around a year

Its suppose to promote active gameplay, at least this is what WG thinks

Don't be surprised.  Some players are like myself -- I am not a serious player, this is just a pasttime for me.  I do sometimes participate in the open beta, but only because it's fun to play ships I never expect to earn, I don't usually read the notes accompanying the beta (as to what has changed) and I don't notice subtle changes.

 

So, I only just noticed this feature.  And after all the comments to my question -- thanks everyone! -- I understand what's happening.

 

But if the Service charge is the same regardless of damage, then it is totally pointless.  It's just an artificial delay of credit earnings.  So it takes you longer to build up credits to purchase features and ships, and that's all it does.

[Tungstonid]

16 minutes ago, _DemonGuard_ said:

Yes, i'm glad these times are long gone and the BBs are now always close to the objectives and tanking for their team...oh wait...

And this thread shows quite well, why a lot of people still camp, IMO. Besides the "I have the range, so why not use it" argument (although the range IMO is justifed because of the lower mobility), some people aren't even aware that the "repair costs" are always the same, no matter the damage taken.

 

2 minutes ago, Glacis_UK said:

If it's the same regardless of battle outcome, then it is senseless.  All it does is reduce the amount of credits you get.  

 

On another hand, in real life it was sometimes a tactic or strategy to keep a capital ship in port because even if it never sallied forth, it nevertheless served a purpose -- keeping the enemy's fleet busy watching it.  This is called "Fleet in being".  It obviously does not work in a multi-player simulation like WoWS.

Having repair costs is comprehensible and part of the economy (motiviating people to play lower tiers and/or buy premium ships and time). This was changed into the service fee for the above explained reason. So it is not pointless.

[Glacis_UK]

13 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Congratulations for finally taking a more detailed look at your results after over 2000 matches.

Yes, snarky Pete, congrats to me.  I frequently look at my detailed results, but since I rarely if ever escape unharmed in a battle, it was not at all obvious that I was getting the same charge for Service regardless of damage.

[Profilus]

4 minutes ago, Glacis_UK said:

But if the Service charge is the same regardless of damage, then it is totally pointless.  It's just an artificial delay of credit earnings.  So it takes you longer to build up credits to purchase features and ships, and that's all it does.

Yes and thats what makes this game for free to play for some and others to pay2progress faster.

[ColonelPete]

3 minutes ago, Glacis_UK said:

 

But if the Service charge is the same regardless of damage, then it is totally pointless.  

Because you view it only from your side.

WG did not introduce costs (service, camo, consumables, ammo...) for your benefit, but for theirs. Without costs, there would less motivation for players to buy premium time and permanent camos.

Even if a game is free, the servers and employes have to be paid.

[Glacis_UK]

44 minutes ago, Tungstonid said:

 

Having repair costs is comprehensible and part of the economy (motiviating people to play lower tiers and/or buy premium ships and time). This was changed into the service fee for the above explained reason. So it is not pointless.

Yes, it is comprehensible, but if it is the same regardless of outcome, then it is definitely pointless.  If they silently omitted the Service charge, and just awarded fewer overall credits, the result would be the same!  That is what makes it pointless.  Because there is no actual incentive or disincentive provided.  It's just meaningless bookkeeping.

 

You probably still disagree, and I'm OK with that.

 

41 minutes ago, Profilus said:

Yes and thats what makes this game for free to play for some and others to pay2progress faster.

You're missing something.  I'm not talking about doubloons, I'm talking about credits.  Credits that are awarded based on game play, not real financial transations.

[Tungstonid]

8 minutes ago, Glacis_UK said:

Yes, it is comprehensible, but if it is the same regardless of outcome, then it is definitely pointless.  If they silently omitted the Service charge, and just awarded fewer overall credits, the result would be the same!  That is what makes it pointless.  Because there is no actual incentive or disincentive provided.  It's just meaningless bookkeeping.

 

You probably still disagree, and I'm OK with that.

 

The problem is that someone who doesn't do much during the battle sees a negative "income" and doesn't know why. The way it is now, people can see what they got for their actions in battle and what actually is the service fee.

 

Edit: @Profilus isn't talking about dubloons either. It is F2P for those who earn credits playing lower tiers and pay to progress faster for those who buy premium time and ships.

[Glacis_UK]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Because you view it only from your side.

WG did not introduce costs (service, camo, consumables, ammo...) for your benefit, but for theirs. Without costs, there would less motivation for players to buy premium time and permanent camos.

Even if a game is free, the servers and employes have to be paid.

I see what you're saying, but if there were no per-battle "Service" charge, this would not affect any of that.  All they would need to do is adjust the price of these other items, or adjust the amount of credits that a battle produced, and get the same result.  Having a meaningless "Service" charge is eyewash -- it looks good, but it does nothing.

[Profilus]

4 minutes ago, Glacis_UK said:

I see what you're saying, but if there were no per-battle "Service" charge, this would not affect any of that.  All they would need to do is adjust the price of these other items, or adjust the amount of credits that a battle produced, and get the same result.  Having a meaningless "Service" charge is eyewash -- it looks good, but it does nothing.

It seems its just there to mess with YOU

[hgbn_dk]

4 minutes ago, Glacis_UK said:

I see what you're saying, but if there were no per-battle "Service" charge, this would not affect any of that.  All they would need to do is adjust the price of these other items, or adjust the amount of credits that a battle produced, and get the same result.  Having a meaningless "Service" charge is eyewash -- it looks good, but it does nothing.

Not how the world works....

[Glacis_UK]

1 minute ago, Tungstonid said:

 

The problem is that someone who doesn't do much during the battle sees a negative "income" and doesn't know why. The way it is now, people can see what they got for their actions in battle and what actually is the service fee.

You can achieve the same result by reducing the credits awarded during the battle.  

 

In the battle in question, I was credited with 73k.  Then 42k for "Service", 8k for ammo and 7.5k for camo were subtracted, leaving me with 16k.  If I had been credited with 31k, then charged 8k for ammo and 7.5k for camo, I would still have ended up with 16k.  (btw, don't do the math on all this, I'm rounding).  If I had used up a lot more ammo, I might have gone into the negative, but it still would have been obvious why I was in the negative.  

[Loran_Battle]

This  is why WG's intentions with the fixed service costs do not work: how could it when nearly nobody knows about it? Something that is not known among players cannot have an effective change to how those players behave.

 Never understood that WG does not understand this simply concept.

 

And yes, service costs DO have a reason. If you do nothing in a game, you lose money because of the service costs. Therefore you need to actually participate in the battle! It might even force you to start playing better, because the higher the tier, the more costs and the better you need to play to negate that. It also kind of makes it so that if a battle is lost beyond hope and you are the last person alive, it is detrimental to go into a corner and hide. You gain more by engaging and get some extra damage and therefore credits.

 

Too bad it does not seem to work, since looking at the detailed page is something nobody seems to do. In my opinion the front screen should give you the actual credits earned (or lost).