Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
aN00Bis_6VI6

Buff Rewards Ships Economic Potential.

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
7 posts
3,269 battles

I have not long got the Thunderer, only had one win in a about 10 games, not a good start, but can't have it all your own way. But the win I did achieve (with 95K damage) earned me only 200K.

With other TX ships with their respective premium camo, I can earn up to 400K. (But I will point out I may be neglecting the added signals, before anyone points this out, so I will keep testing to see the difference.)

For a ship that you may have spent months to grind to earn (which is most people trying to get these ships, probably years for the Steel ships), it feels very underwhelming that what you have does not reward you back.

It is not a premium ship, I know that, its not a Jean Bart (good premium I should add, and I got her before she was a premium). But while the ship on its own maybe good (It is a Conqueror sister though so I knew more or less what I was getting in to), it should also be more rewarding economically I feel, a TX premium to earn would be nice, but a least on par with TIX's with its credit potential.

 

How does everyone else feel about this, I could be doing something wrong, or had my expectations too high (most likely). But the credit earning side of it feels like a let down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
4,854 posts
11,844 battles

I was under the impression that the reward ships at T10 had a broadly similar earning potential to regular silver ships?

 

That said, I imagine WG would be reluctant to boost the earning capabilities of any T10, as they're already having trouble with MM (apparently) due to the ability of permaflaged T10s to earn a lot of silver already...

 

(If I were WG, I might be tempted to flog permaflage for T9s that did roughly the same as the T10 cammo - it might reduce the T10 pressure slightly?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-RM-]
Beta Tester
2,000 posts
7,981 battles

The economic potential of the reward ships (tier 10) is basically just the same as a normal tier 10 with perma cammo but the added benefit of beeing able to put any captain you want into it. My reward ships gain around the same rewards as my other tier 10 with perma cammo and thus I see no need to buff the economy of reward ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,724 posts
8,662 battles

Its already too easy.

People can derp around with T9 ships and earn money by doing it. We dont need that on TX (well, MORE of it so to say).

TX premiums dont lose money either, but atleast they dont earn as much if you dont play properly.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOBS3]
Players
972 posts
17,013 battles
1 hour ago, Verblonde said:

If I were WG, I might be tempted to flog permaflage for T9s that did roughly the same as the T10 cammo - it might reduce the T10 pressure slightly?

Better to buff T8 to increase the number of players at that level.

They would still see T10 on occasion but would be in a better place to L2P before taking out T10 ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,895 posts
1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

Its already too easy.

People can derp around with T9 ships and earn money by doing it. We dont need that on TX (well, MORE of it so to say).

TX premiums dont lose money either, but atleast they dont earn as much if you dont play properly.

Agreed. But you know what i think about the whole earning credits at T10 deal. 

Play T10? Lose credits unless you carry(as you should with T10s), then you go even. That should be the price to pay for playing the strongest ships out there. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7 posts
3,269 battles
17 hours ago, Bear_Necessities said:

You want more reward for doing badly?

 

Hummmm...

To clarify, no. If I do bad or have bad luck, then I should not be rewarded for doing poor, but thats not the point. I had expected more economic reward in general for a reward ship. It even says: "Has lower post-battle costs than tech tree equivalents" To my initial understanding this means that it should have a better (somewhat) credit earning potential. Evidently this is not the case, which is a shame, and I feel its should reward a bit more than what it does.

 

You can argue that the reward is the ship itself, which is a very valid point to which I do agree. But as I said: "It is a Conqueror sister though so I knew more or less what I was getting in to", Salem is a similar story to Des Moines, Bourgogne probably has a somewhat similar story to the Alsace (albeit it is a tier higher and key consumable differences). And then there are the respective standalone's such as; Smolensk and so on.

 

17 hours ago, Cambera_1 said:

Better to buff T8 to increase the number of players at that level.

They would still see T10 on occasion but would be in a better place to L2P before taking out T10 ships.

On that I can agree. Prinz Eugens Adler permaflage is a brilliant credit earner, arguably one of the best in the game (imo), and the Eugen seems to be in a better position now than what it was ages ago (either that or I just got better, up for debate).

 

I guess I just had my expectations higher than they should have been. I do enjoy the Thunderer (although the initial win rate is abysmal) and I have always preferred the 18"ers. Just load her with ALL of the economic flags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[501L]
Players
375 posts
4,314 battles
30 minutes ago, aN00Bis_6VI6 said:

On that I can agree. Prinz Eugens Adler permaflage is a brilliant credit earner, arguably one of the best in the game (imo), and the Eugen seems to be in a better position now than what it was ages ago (either that or I just got better, up for debate).

I would argue that a presence of a heal at a tier where cruisers don't typically get it (if they're not royal navy) definitely helps the Eugen out preform its sister ships, letting it actually do the whole 'Battleship Hipper' schtick a whole lot more than the Hipper does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,724 posts
8,662 battles
37 minutes ago, aN00Bis_6VI6 said:

To clarify, no. If I do bad or have bad luck, then I should not be rewarded for doing poor, but thats not the point. I had expected more economic reward in general for a reward ship. It even says: "Has lower post-battle costs than tech tree equivalents" To my initial understanding this means that it should have a better (somewhat) credit earning potential. Evidently this is not the case, which is a shame, and I feel its should reward a bit more than what it does. 

 

Well, if you pay less you get more in the end, dont you? :Smile-_tongue:

They dont earn more credits, they only get a bonus upon their service cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[501L]
Players
375 posts
4,314 battles

Tell you what I would like them to buff, the perma-camo for under tier 10s. for tier 10s its a -50% to the repair costs but for tier 9s its a -20%, that is quite the large amount of saving. Is it any wonder that people stick to their tier 10s if the other tiers camo is kinda meh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-NFG-]
Players
211 posts
7,595 battles

Yes it's actually a lower service cost (90k) on a T10 with a camo than a T9 (96K) with just the camo in effect.

 

If you look at it slightly differently then for every game you play (in pvp, coop is lower cost) in a silver ship with a permacamo  the number of credits you save is:

 

image.png.1c97e7113f4b35638b79444ea471c3a9.png

Giving a service cost of:

 

image.png.728400bbf7b8674c007c0eae347ec7b6.png

 

 

For premium ships (and rewards?) the service cost is half to start with, so the camo saves half as many credits per game.  Except Salem, which gets an even lower service cost in place of +credits

 

Tier 9 is in a bad, bad place economically, even WITH a camo.  I keep very few as a result

 

The other change that would be nice is if the buff lowered ammo costs.  Specifically plane costs, which are nuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×