Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
gopher31

Alaska Credit Earning

103 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SHAD]
Players
571 posts

I've noticed this ship doesn't seem to earn credits in the way most high tier premiums do. OK games yield 200-300,000 and the most I have received is 650,000.

On the Jean Bart I would usually get 400-800,000 with occasional games getting a million.

 

Is it just me that has noticed this or am I mistaken?

 

Thanks

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GULLY]
Players
76 posts
3,262 battles

I've gotten over 700k for a loss. Ofc I had some credit flags on it. Does seem to earn as much as the other TIX premiums (aside from Missouri)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,488 posts
6,713 battles

I've noticed the same yes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[M_OB]
Players
500 posts
4,258 battles
12 minutes ago, tadaMonika said:

I've gotten over 700k for a loss. Ofc I had some credit flags on it. Does seem to earn as much as the other TIX premiums (aside from Missouri)

 

You dont earn less credits for a loss in WoWs thou.

And Ive always been stating that all tier 9 premiums including Missouri has the exact same credit earnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
17,383 posts
11,714 battles
13 minutes ago, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

And Ive always been stating that all tier 9 premiums including Missouri has the exact same credit earnings.

Missouri was proven to have a higher multiplier. Players tested this.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[M_OB]
Players
500 posts
4,258 battles
Just now, ColonelPete said:

Missouri was proven to have a higher multiplier. Players tested this.

 

Ive seen those tests and I dont agree with how they were performed

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GOLD]
Players
903 posts
8,036 battles
Just now, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

 

Ive seen those tests and I dont agree with how they were performed

They are right nonetheless. Thats one of the reasons why MO was removed in the first place. Besides anyone who has both the MO and another T9 prem can see the MO earns a lot more.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
17,383 posts
11,714 battles
4 minutes ago, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

 

Ive seen those tests and I dont agree with how they were performed

Then make your own tests and proof them wrong.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
1,910 posts
15,969 battles

IDK i got alaska as soon as update went live and played several battles, income seems quite fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[M_OB]
Players
500 posts
4,258 battles
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Then make your own tests and proof them wrong.

 

That is impossible. Youd have to have identical games with the same damage to the same targets in order to compare it. That is why I dont buy the validity of those tests.

Thing is I have every single T9 premium ship ever released in this game. If you run them all stock with no flags or camo modifiers they all earn similar values. I think the main reason why this Missouri myth started was because it earned WAY more than T8s did, and it still does, when it was released. But now theres so many other T9s premiums that does just as well.

 

A big reason why Missouri also seem to earn more is because it has radar, and that tends to mean it does a lot of damage to DDs. 20k damage to a T10 DD is worth similar in terms of credits to 100k to a BB.

That is why I also tend to earn good amounts with Krohnstadt, despite being absolutely awful in it.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
17,383 posts
11,714 battles
2 minutes ago, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

 

That is impossible. Youd have to have identical games with the same damage to the same targets in order to compare it. That is why I dont buy the validity of those tests.

Thing is I have every single T9 premium ship ever released in this game. If you run them all stock with no flags or camo modifiers they all earn similar values. I think the main reason why this Missouri myth started was because it earned WAY more than T8s did, and it still does, when it was released. But now theres so many other T9s premiums that does just as well.

 

A big reason why Missouri also seem to earn more is because it has radar, and that tends to mean it does a lot of damage to DDs. 20k damage to a T10 DD is worth similar in terms of credits to 100k to a BB.

That is why I also tend to earn good amounts with Krohnstadt, despite being absolutely awful in it.

Then do not claim stuff you cannot proof.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[M_OB]
Players
500 posts
4,258 battles
1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

Then do not claim stuff you cannot proof.

 

I believe you are guilty of the same thing my dear sir.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
17,383 posts
11,714 battles
6 minutes ago, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

 

I believe you are guilty of the same thing my dear sir.

Nope.

You have seen the proof, you just do not believe it.

24 minutes ago, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

 

Ive seen those tests and I dont agree with how they were performed

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,169 posts
16 minutes ago, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

 

That is impossible. Youd have to have identical games with the same damage to the same targets in order to compare it. That is why I dont buy the validity of those tests.

Thing is I have every single T9 premium ship ever released in this game. If you run them all stock with no flags or camo modifiers they all earn similar values. I think the main reason why this Missouri myth started was because it earned WAY more than T8s did, and it still does, when it was released. But now theres so many other T9s premiums that does just as well.

 

A big reason why Missouri also seem to earn more is because it has radar, and that tends to mean it does a lot of damage to DDs. 20k damage to a T10 DD is worth similar in terms of credits to 100k to a BB.

That is why I also tend to earn good amounts with Krohnstadt, despite being absolutely awful in it.

 

It's NOT impossible, simply take a reasonable number (20 at the least, 50+ to be better) games with roughly the same XP per game (few hundred different at most) and plot the credit earnings in comparable battles. The XP formula is fixed and we know that the credit earnings are tied to the XP gained.

 

Not at all tricky to work out the approximate credit earning potentials with a reasonable level of confidence, especially with multiple results.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GOLD]
Players
903 posts
8,036 battles
8 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

 

It's NOT impossible, simply take a reasonable number (20 at the least, 50+ to be better) games with roughly the same XP per game (few hundred different at most) and plot the credit earnings in comparable battles. The XP formula is fixed and we know that the credit earnings are tied to the XP gained.

 

Not at all tricky to work out the approximate credit earning potentials with a reasonable level of confidence, especially with multiple results.

Dont try and bring logic into this.... You know NOTHING!:Smile_glasses:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GOLD]
Players
903 posts
8,036 battles
8 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

I was under the impression that credit gains didn’t have a win/loss modifier?

It does just like XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[M_OB]
Players
500 posts
4,258 battles
22 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

 

It's NOT impossible, simply take a reasonable number (20 at the least, 50+ to be better) games with roughly the same XP per game (few hundred different at most) and plot the credit earnings in comparable battles. The XP formula is fixed and we know that the credit earnings are tied to the XP gained.

 

Not at all tricky to work out the approximate credit earning potentials with a reasonable level of confidence, especially with multiple results.

 

We know? No we dont know, thats completely false. Theres a number of things where XP and credits differ. Winning or Losing being the biggest thing.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[M_OB]
Players
500 posts
4,258 battles
1 minute ago, DJ_Die said:

It does just like XP.

 

No it doesnt

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,169 posts
12 minutes ago, DJ_Die said:

Dont try and bring logic into this.... You know NOTHING!:Smile_glasses:

 

Sorry, you're absolutely right, I can't have proven he has no clue on how basic mathematics works.

Hell at a push even using Excel is beyond me, when I work out my project budgets for clients.

 

10 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

I was under the impression that credit gains didn’t have a win/loss modifier?

 

XP has a win/loss modifier of +50% if my memory is about right and credit earnings are tied to XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GOLD]
Players
903 posts
8,036 battles
9 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

 

Sorry, you're absolutely right, I can't have proven he has no clue on how basic mathematics works.

Hell at a push even using Excel is beyond me, when I work out my project budgets for clients.

Damn right. Real men dont use Excel and dont care about silly things like budgets, they simply make the money last FULL STOP!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[M_OB]
Players
500 posts
4,258 battles

Aah the forums, where people go to insults when they cant prove their point. Show me where it says that credit earnings directly follows xp gain. Cause if that is the case I have quite a few battle resultscreens that makes very little sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×