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

Servicing Cost. Umm??

55 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
94 posts
678 battles

NOTE - yes, I do understand this is how the game *works* before anyone TL;DRs and posts that

 

So early tonight I made a rare achievement for myself - not only not getting sunk in the Leander, but somehow managing to take 0 points of damage and 0 modules damaged or destroyed.

Something I would have thought impossible, but hey, apparently no-one wanted to focus down the unarmoured bottom-tier cruiser for once.

 

I thought that this would allow me to eliminate the Servicing Cost for that match, since the 20-something thousand credits I normally spend is kinda painful. Just another thing I'm used to from playing World of Tanks.

Nope.

Spoiler

SU8ZGgb.png?1

C6FTu4M.png?1

This was pretty disappointing. So, all the time when I play like garbage, I get charged the same even when I don't take damage?

I understand, of course, that this was a specific change made in 5.12 for whatever reason. I don't understand that reason, also of course.

 

So why a fixed amount that doesn't reward a player for "good" play? It doesn't really punish "bad" play either for what it's worth, it just becomes an arbitrary silver tax on bothering to play the game.

Why not have a base "servicing cost" per tier, then extra fees are levies on top of that for damage taken and ship loss? So if my Leander dies, I end up paying say 25,000C instead of the 23,000 it is now, but surviving a battle is maybe only 8-10,000 credits charged, plus an amount based on how much health was remaining at the end of the match? (charging more for more damage taken than your total hitpoints would just make calculations weird and arguably punish "good" play, as while you can argue that taking that much damage is a symptom of poor play, powering through it and pumping out damage compensates).

 

So, 8k base servicing charge, +7k "recovery fee", +10k "damage fee" (100% of total HP lost at game end) if your ship is sunk adding up to 25kC;

Or, survive with 35% of your HP remaining (not total damage), 8k servicing charge, no recovery fee, and then 65% of 10k "damage fee" totalling 14,500C

 

I mean, I really don't get it as a system. Repair charges in WoT made plenty of sense, to me... this doesn't.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,170 posts

There is no repair cost in WoWs, there's a Service Cost that is fixed irrespective of damage taken and consumables used. I believe it was done as a counter to people running away to save silver and behaving in a cowardly manner (people who've played this longer can confirm).

 

It's not well publicised, but if you look here :-  http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Economy

In the Operating Costs section at the bottom it lays out the details.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
4,323 posts
7,937 battles
10 minutes ago, Parakitteh said:

 

 

 

So why a fixed amount that doesn't reward a player for "good" play? It doesn't really punish "bad" play either for what it's worth, it just becomes an arbitrary silver tax on bothering to play the game.

 

because taking zero damage is anything but "good play" in most ships and situations (Leander and RN CLs in general admittedly being somewhat of an exception, so don't take this and the following as a reference to your specific match). In what world does hiding in the back to avoid taking damage sound like good play that should be rewarded by lower repair costs to you? In what world does actually fighting the enemy, taking damage for your team in the process, sound like bad play that should be punished by higher repair costs to you?

If anything, the current system rewards good play - by rewarding combat effectiveness without regard to whether you survived in the end. It rewards fighting smart, because you're alive for longer to do your damage, but it doesn't punish actually participating in the fight. Someone that rushes in like a moron doesn't achieve much, and neither does someone that camps in the back like an idiot - and those players are not rewarded because they havent done much of anything except waste space.

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,719 posts
8,716 battles

Not taking damage isn't rewarded because it's not something that is useful for your team or winning in general.

If you end the battle with 100% HP left or 1% HP left has no direct positive or negative impact on the battle.

 

Indirectly, taking damage in a battle can help your team because the enemy only has a limited damage output. If they target you that mean they are not targeting someone else.

A team with 12 ships on 50% HP is much stronger than a team with 6 ships at 100% HP.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
10,055 posts
15,733 battles

This was a change made to combat camping and passive play.

It didn't work, partially because it was never communicated properly to the average player who doesn't read patchnotes.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,362 posts
10,835 battles

Because people hid to pay as little repair costs as possible rather than use their armour and HP to get into the action proper.

 

They still do, but at least now the cowards are paying for it and those who fight enjoy comparatively lower service costs compaired to a total scrap bill from before the economy change, meaning actually playing the game pays better and playing hide and hide some more pays much worse.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PUPSI]
Privateer
7,528 posts
Vor 4 Stunden, Parakitteh sagte:

Just another thing I'm used to from playing World of Tanks.

 

I really hope that WoT will borrow the service cost idea from WoWs...makes much more sense, and it is better for gameplay (although so many I-ignore-everything-players are not aware of it)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
17,828 posts
11,758 battles

Then you do not understand how the game works.

 

Good play - getting alot of credits and XP

Bad play - getting few or negative credits and few XP

 

To get to negative credits, you need upkeep costs. That is why they got implemented.

This motivates you to get better, get premium or play lower, cheaper tiers to make credits.

This increases WGs income and results in a better distribution of players over the tiers.

 

In short - basics of the game....

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
4 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

This was a change made to combat camping and passive play.

It didn't work, partially because it was never communicated properly to the average player who doesn't read patchnotes.

Na, the average player just bought T10 Perm camo and just yoloed happily ever after :Smile_sceptic:

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
535 posts
6,302 battles

And this is one more thing that WG never did advertise like they should and now we have steam newbies ( maybe not you OP but like at least 50% of others ) that think the same, in fact they are sure that if you take less damage = you will pay less credit at the end ...

 

So WG PLEASE make it big and strong and in the port - simple one line - "No meter how much damage you take in battle = you will pay the same full cost is credit, so do and give your best" - or something like that, but put it in port ( every port ) so every player can see it because you can not believe how many players don't know that and that is why ( one of the main reason ) we have so passive games on higher  tiers ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KURLA]
Players
4,367 posts
16,858 battles

You're exactly the reason why flat fee was introduced. People who think camping and avoiding damage is good play are the EDIT of this game. If anything, players should be awarded for taking damage and penalised for not taking damage - not otherwise.

Edited by Kampa1987
Insult
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
On 1/26/2018 at 9:17 AM, 44smok said:

You're exactly the reason why flat fee was introduced. People who think camping and avoiding damage is good play are the EDIT of this game. If anything, players should be awarded for taking damage and penalised for not taking damage - not otherwise.

Yeah it would be weird but WG should give reductions on servicing for surviving on low HP.

 

Like a bonus for living on the edge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,492 posts
11,670 battles
45 minutes ago, Cime said:

And this is one more thing that WG never did advertise like they should and now we have steam newbies ( maybe not you OP but like at least 50% of others ) that think the same, in fact they are sure that if you take less damage = you will pay less credit at the end ...

 

So WG PLEASE make it big and strong and in the port - simple one line - "No meter how much damage you take in battle = you will pay the same full cost is credit, so do and give your best" - or something like that, but put it in port ( every port ) so every player can see it because you can not believe how many players don't know that and that is why ( one of the main reason ) we have so passive games on higher  tiers ..

<- this

 

I can't believe (after all this time) so many players still don't know about repair costs

 

 

Btw, 20k servicing cost is nothing.

I usually spend three times as much on Premium consumables alone :cap_money:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BONUS]
Beta Tester
2,819 posts
8,084 battles
24 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

Yeah it would be weird but WG should give reductions on servicing for surviving on low HP.

 

Like a bonus for living on the edge...

You don't gain any Xp or credits but there are medals in WoT for having suffered severe damage and surviving or doing over enemies while in a near death condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
748 posts
11,447 battles
6 hours ago, Parakitteh said:

Why not have a base "servicing cost" per tier, then extra fees are levies on top of that for damage taken and ship loss? So if my Leander dies, I end up paying say 25,000C instead of the 23,000 it is now, but surviving a battle is maybe only 8-10,000 credits charged

More like paying 40k, iirc tier 10 repairs were about 300k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[F_D]
Alpha Tester
1,194 posts
5,297 battles
37 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

Yeah it would be weird but WG should give reductions on servicing for surviving on low HP.

 

Like a bonus for living on the edge...

Dreadnought. You even gain 10 very benefical flags from that achievement every 24h.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,762 posts
9,405 battles
5 minutes ago, Adwaenyth said:

Dreadnought. You even gain 10 very benefical flags from that achievement every 24h.

 

You'll have to explain how you get dreadnought in a ship without repair, or without the niche captain skill giving more HP. 

 

Spoiler alert : you can't. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,524 posts
19,238 battles
7 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

There is no repair cost in WoWs, there's a Service Cost that is fixed irrespective of damage taken

 

Actually, there was a repair cost before, but it promoted camping, sniping and passive gameplay, especially in high tiers, so it was changed to how it was now. Considering the BB play I ve seen, it s hard to say it worked

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Players
2,640 posts
9,896 battles
7 hours ago, Parakitteh said:

So why a fixed amount that doesn't reward a player for "good" play camping?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,091 posts
2,423 battles
1 hour ago, Cime said:

And this is one more thing that WG never did advertise like they should and now we have steam newbies ( maybe not you OP but like at least 50% of others ) that think the same, in fact they are sure that if you take less damage = you will pay less credit at the end ...

 

So WG PLEASE make it big and strong and in the port - simple one line - "No meter how much damage you take in battle = you will pay the same full cost is credit, so do and give your best" - or something like that, but put it in port ( every port ) so every player can see it because you can not believe how many players don't know that and that is why ( one of the main reason ) we have so passive games on higher  tiers ..

You can make it easier. Add a line in the end screen with the credit breakdown that is named "repair cost"  and have it permanently at 0. There should also be a mouse over popup that says "repair cost is covered by fixed servicing cost" 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
2,792 posts
11,013 battles

WG should make  ingame vids about the game and game mechanics and afterwards a short quiz with related questions.

Neither the vid nor the quiz can be skipped or aborted and all players are forced to participate in their 'education'.

 

For every wrong answer a short and also not abortable video explains the wrongly answered questions.

After the vid the player has to answer another quiz, this time a shorter one with an emphasis on the previuosly answered questions.

 

Rinse, lathe, repeat until the player gets all answeres right.

 

If players still have wrong answeres after the fourth, or lets be generous the fifth attempt, the client shuts down and it starts over when they restart it.

After three shutdowns, the client uninstalls automatically, the account gets perma banned and the player gets a link to Hello Kitty online with 2 weeks premium time and a set of premium consumeables as compensation for money spend on WoWS. ^^

 

Granted, only about 5-10%  might pass and stop camping or doing other stupid $hit, but i'd say it's worth it and for the rest...well, nobody will miss them.

 

 

WG should hire me, i'd improve the $hit out of this game!

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,658 posts
10,306 battles
8 hours ago, Parakitteh said:

I mean, I really don't get it as a system. Repair charges in WoT made plenty of sense, to me... this doesn't.

 

In Tanks there are many people, who are afraid to get a scratch on their TX, because of the repair cost. 

 

We do not need more DDs avoiding the caps, and hiding behind their torpedoes all game. 

 

We do not need more BBs hiding at 20km.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HEROZ]
Players
763 posts
6,588 battles

Personally i tend to stay in second line as BB, because if i fall out early from the game, due to loss of firepower it may make a problem for winning and I am not manuverable enough to get out and survive if the flank collapses. But when i see that match is 99% lost I usually go agressive, to get as much dmg on the lost cause as i can, often resulting even in ramming. If service cost was associated with dmg taken i would start camping, and on lost games do even more camping and hiding. That would be bad.

 

Players camping in BBs or heavy cruisers is associated with two thing that make it different from WOT.

1) Ships are much less manouverable than tanks,

2) Armor cant negate all damage due to fire flooding torps and he.

 

Also in WOWS hp can be recovered. In wot there is no way torecover health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
94 posts
678 battles
2 hours ago, 44smok said:

You're exactly the reason why flat fee was introduced. People who think camping and avoiding damage is good play are the scum of this game. If anything, players should be awarded for taking damage and penalised for not taking damage - not otherwise.

And yet, in this game (which I pointed out as being highly unusual), I was doing everything a CL should be doing. DD-hunting, smoke cover for other ships, a limited amount of AA and then from the mid-game onwards, pushing pushing pushing with the top-tier friendly CAs.

 

The reds left a flank open, so we only had to deal one-by-one with a bottom-tier BB, and a mid-tier and top-tier CA and then their mid-tier CV.

Then we won by cap, and I was also on the cap, leaving just a red DD trying to cap our base, and a red BB trying badly to hunt our CV.

 

To quote Rick &  Morty, You don't know me!

CLs can't tank damage. The clue is in the name "Light" Cruiser. If I'm screening, covering, pushing and capping in standard battle, and I take no damage in an unarmoured ship, that is good play.

 

I don't often make good play.

I was a little bummed this wouldn't be reflected in a servicing cost I wasn't aware of that isn't explained anywhere but the wiki.

 

I'd like to think my stats would show I'm not a "camper", rather quite obviously, "the guy who gets overextended because he forgot that ships don't slow to a stop inside of 20m like tanks do".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×