Separation of economic bonuses from camos and signals

[Jethro_Grey]

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/318

 

Well, this ought to be interesting...

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

8 minutes ago, Jethro_Grey said:

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/318

 

Well, this ought to be interesting...

 

I have read it during my break... I must say that I don't know that to think of it at this time... 

 

BTW, the first thing that comes to my mind if that 4% of dispersion bonus is now gone... so... more accuracy (especially for better shooters)...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[RuruushuVuiBuritania]

It looks rather... positive? I'll believe it when I see it. Numbers don't lie, but liars know how to count.

[Yedwy]

I think we need to have the option to refund all our permaflages for full doubloon cost for starters, then we can talk more

[Belustigungspanda]

27 minutes ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

I have read it during my break... I must say that I don't know that to think of it at this time... 

...which is quite telling because - according to WG - the new system is supposed to simplify everything.

 

What i'm afraid of is that WG might use the changes for getting rid of efficient bonus stacking, i.e. using your rare +300% xp camo + a full set of regular and special signals on +100/200% event times so that you earn tens of thousands of XP, CXP and FXP in a single match. Or just for the sake of speeding up stock grinds and captain retrainings...

 

Another line that's bothering me is this one:

Quote

The service cost reduction from expendable camouflages and signals was replaced by a temporary resource which is exchanged for other economic bonuses during several versions after the release of the change

 

I'm one of those players who stopped using cost reduction signals and camo as soon as WG announced that they were going to stop issuing them. I'm still sitting on a rather large stockpile and would be affected by this rather undefined "replacement". I'm not confident that it will be of equal value to me when it hits...

[Yamashiro42]

20 minutes ago, Belustigungspanda said:

I'm one of those players who stopped using cost reduction signals and camo as soon as WG announced that they were going to stop issuing them. I'm still sitting on a rather large stockpile and would be affected by this rather undefined "replacement". I'm not confident that it will be of equal value to me when it hits...

So either spend them now (you will get most of their value when you use them on the superships), or keep them and then exchange them for the other bonuses of your choice via the token system. I expect that the exact values will be disclosed at least a month in advance.

[BrusilovX]

I see the 'next big cluster f**k' on the horizon.

 

The bit about if permanent camos had a service cost reduction they will get a percentage credit and XP(?) increase is a worry.  With WG's record of calculations (Missouri credit bonus anyone) it fills me with dread.

[Verblonde]

50 minutes ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

I have read it during my break... I must say that I don't know that to think of it at this time... 

This.

 

In principle, I have no objections to simplifying the system (this is one bit of dumbing down I can live with!); as already said, the proof of the pudding...etc.

 

My main concern is that whilst WG assure us that we'll be no worse off, I can't help but recall the business with MO, where the initial iterations of the mission were decidedly worse than what had gone before, and it took hard work by the community (LWM particularly) before WG acknowledged they'd messed up and fixed it. This new system will be harder to check, to make sure WG are being honest (not their strongest suit, it has to be said)...

 

54 minutes ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

that 4% of dispersion bonus is now gone

I wonder if this will make any real difference, at least to the average farty? Might be nice for anyone who can shoot straight...?

[Logan_MountStuart]

Seems initially positive, but we have all been there before.

The various contradictions in it make one wonder where exactly it is going, apart from into the bank account of course.

 

[SodaBubbles]

"""only one economic bonus per resource (credits, Free XP, Commander XP, XP)"""

 

So basically I can't stack a bunch of signals and camouflages to get high bonuses.

 

I don't like that.

 

I don't like losing the dispersion either. Is that going to be baked in like the 3% stealth bonus?

 

Does this mean that operations will be returned to its former economic state, so that the rewards are more commensurate with the amount of time spent in the match?

 

I like grinding the German Cruisers. Does this mean I can buy 100% XP bonus permanent camouflage is for all of them?

 

For most players that probably won't mean much. But I have to question the application of developer time and effort when the players have repeatedly indicated that they have a lot of issues that are far more urgent.

 

The potential for a klusterfuk is vast. I sure hope they're up to the task. Right now this looks like a lot of time and effort spent on something that nobody asked for or needed. A fairly typical developer project...

 

 

[AndyHill]

Looks to me like camos with small experience bonus and not much more will become pretty much worthless for those who have lots of camos. At the moment you can use them on ships you aren't grinding and get a bonus for free XP and captain XP, which are always somewhat useful. After the change those will turn into (small) pure XP bonus, which is pointless for anything except grinding lines (and maybe getting daily containers) and people with lots of base XP bonus camos will end up with billions of small XP bonuses, which they have no practical use for leading to lower free XP and captain XP gains.

 

If WG want to make the system fair, we need to be able to combine small XP bonuses into fewer, usable size ones.

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

You can be sure this rework totally is in favor of WG and not us.

[hellhound666]

considering how was fcked up relatively simple issue with missouri credit-earning bonuses i dont see how lesta could handle this without total fck-up

[HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS]

Credits	XP	Commander XP	Free XP
+20%	+100%	+100%	+300%
+40%	+200%	+200%	+600%
+160%	+800%	+800%	+2400%
+320%	+1600%	+1600%	+7200%

"Bonuses from the last row will be especially rare." (Who's gonna bet those will be in the premium shop for money?)

 

Permanent Camouflages.

"Post-battle service cost reduction bonus is replaced with credits bonus: for each 2% of the service cost reduction you get +1% credits instead." (Anyone mind doing the maths if this is better or worse?)

[HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS]

22 minutes ago, hellhound666 said:

considering how was fcked up relatively simple issue with missouri credit-earning bonuses i dont see how lesta could handle this without total fck-up

"Missouri - For ease of tracking bonuses, all owners of a special Missouri combat mission will instead receive an improved permanent bonus for credits: instead of +10% to credits they will have +40%." 

[tadaMonika]

44 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

You can be sure this rework totally is in favor of WG and not us.

No way! Why would you ever expect such a thing from our benevolent benefactors?

 

 

[BrusilovX]

1 hour ago, SodaBubbles said:

For most players that probably won't mean much. But I have to question the application of developer time and effort when the players have repeatedly indicated that they have a lot of issues that are far more urgent.

How often has WG directed development at things other than ways to get players to spend more money instead of removing 'features' (bugs) from their code.

[Lootboxer]

Looks like hard end to stacking mozaik, 200% win and all the flags to get 60-80k of freexp and captain xp.

WG trying to patch economy holes that they have drilled by themselves. Must be that despite recent "improvements" credit packs are not selling well enough...

[Yedwy]

3 minutes ago, Lootboxer said:

Looks like hard end to stacking mozaik, 200% win and all the flags to get 60-80k of freexp and captain xp.

WG trying to patch economy holes that they have drilled by themselves. Must be that despite recent "improvements" credit packs are not selling well enough...

This is not even about credits but the basic way economy bonuses are calulated, 5k gold permaflages are quite literally useless now, we have to demand a refund before its 2 late

[Belustigungspanda]

30 minutes ago, HARBINGER_OF_SKULLS said:

Permanent Camouflages.

"Post-battle service cost reduction bonus is replaced with credits bonus: for each 2% of the service cost reduction you get +1% credits instead." (Anyone mind doing the maths if this is better or worse?)

It will depend on your performance in the respective match.

I just had a look at my screenshot folder and found an expanded "credits" tab for a 2972 bxp Kraken T9 Prinz Rupprecht match...yeah, i'm using the screenshot folder for self-adulation.

• credits received before modifiers: 542k
• service costs: 102k + 35,5k ammunition costs (which are both flat numbers no matter what you do) => fixed costs of 137,5k

Now imagine a 50% reduction on service costs through a permouflage, which brings down the service costs to 51k. The total fixed costs amount to 86,5k, resulting in a -37,1% reduction on the base value.

The corresponsing credit bonus would be +25%, so +135,5k credits.

 

In the end, the new permouflage would have given me 84,5k credits more. But this completely depends on the match performance. If you get detonated after 2 minutes and maybe 10k damage done to a 100k BB, you will earn significantly less and thus also get a significantly smaller bonus from the new camo. With the current camo, you always get a flat out cost reduction.

 

1 hour ago, Yamashiro42 said:

So either spend them now (you will get most of their value when you use them on the superships), or keep them and then exchange them for the other bonuses of your choice via the token system. I expect that the exact values will be disclosed at least a month in advance.

Cost reduction camos and signals had been reserved for my T10 ships so far, but i don't play them often because for me, T10 battles serve no real purpose any more after i've completed the grind. Same with T11. I might be using a handful until the changes hit, but in the end, it will be mostly the compensation for me.

[J0tt]

I don't understand why they would remove the 4% dispersion buff instead of baking it into all the ships. This will open a can of worms because it's essentially a discount Deadeye that is permanently active for all.

[300ConfirmedKills]

Zitat

For example, if you have Yamato without any permanent camouflages or economic bonuses:

• A permanent economic bonus will cost 4,800 doubloons;
• The first permanent camouflage that you purchase in the "Exteriors" tab would be discounted by 4,800 doubloons. For example, Scorpioid will cost 3,200 doubloons and Type 20 - 200 doubloons;
• The second and all subsequent permanent camouflages will have the same cost as they do now: Scorpioid will cost 8,000 doubloons, Type 20 - 5,000 doubloons.

Do I understand correctly that this means, in order to obtain both an economic bonus and a skin for a TX ship, it will cost the player at least 9800 doubloons, whereas currently players can buy permaflages incorporating these perks for 5000 doubs?
 

Vor 3 Minuten, J0tt sagte:

I don't understand why they would remove the 4% dispersion buff instead of baking it into all the ships. This will open a can of worms because it's essentially a discount Deadeye that is permanently active for all.

The problem with Dead Eye was that it required BBs to camp. A flat decrease to dispersion under all circumstances does not have that problem.

[Ubertron_X]

17 minutes ago, Belustigungspanda said:

• service costs: 102k + 35,5k ammunition costs (which are both flat numbers no matter what you do) => fixed costs of 137,5k

Afaik this is not correct, ammunition cost is calculated on a used in battle basis...

[J0tt]

Vor 1 Minute, 300ConfirmedKills sagte:

The problem with Dead Eye was that it required BBs to camp. A flat decrease to dispersion under all circumstances does not have that problem.

It's a direct and uncalled nerf to cruisers and destroyers.

 

If they consider the game now "balanced" (yes, I know) with the 4% taken into account, just removing those 4% will shift the "balance". That in turn will make them more work down the line because they will have to restore "balance" in some other way. Just preserving the 4% would mean less work for them ... According to the US forums it's for technical reasons. The game's code seems to be a lot worse than I thought.

[Yedwy]

7 minutes ago, 300ConfirmedKills said:

Do I understand correctly that this means, in order to obtain both an economic bonus and a skin for a TX ship, it will cost the player at least 9800 doubloons, whereas currently players can buy permaflages incorporating these perks for 5000 doubs

I am perfectly fine with that, I want my 5k dubs back and they can take the permaflage and her bunuses, I will later use that gold to buy the 360% variety and have the max bonus available instead of being stuck with an unlimited supply of +20 that is utterly useless as its unstackable....