Planned economy changes for August

[Stona_WT 72,761]

Changes based on collected feedback

Aircraft

The primary and important change, according to your feedback is the reduction of the cost of purchasing a rank VI aircraft as their prices are now about the same as rank VII aircraft which was introduced not so long ago.

 

Also, prices will be changed for some vehicles such as the MiG-17 (to match the neighboring Yak-30 and La-15).

 

You also noticed that after the division of the French second aircraft research tree into two, vehicles from the F-84 series were in both new trees and it makes sense to put them in one. However, the vehicles are noticeably different and the second tree needs the F-84G-23-RE. to be completed. Therefore the original change remains in effect.

 

Regarding the example of your suggestions on combining the Su-7BKL aircraft with the Su-7B and F-104A and F-104C - we do not agree with these. At the moment, there are only two vehicles in these trees at these ranks and they don’t deserve to be grouped.

Ground vehicles

The Japanese M24 will be moved to rank II in future changes, similar to the placement in other game nation trees.

 

The Olifant Mk.2 will receive a cost reduction in RP to match the price of the rest of the vehicles at that rank.

 

Caernarvon and Conqueror will move to the adjacent tree in this change, which some players disagree with. But their original tree is more suited to be filled with experimental and export vehicles. With this proximity these two British vehicles would look quite alien.

 

The Lvrbv 701 and Lvkv 9040C got your attention because of the Battle Rating which is in case that the second vehicle is lower than the first one in the research tree. Although this situation only happens with these two AA vehicles in RB game mode, in the next BR changes the rating of these vehicles in AB will be changed and we are ready to switch their places now.

Fleet

You noticed that it would be better to switch the places for Isuzu and Chidori in the Japanese Navy. Research of Chikugo > Isuzu (postwar ships) and Syonan > Chidori (ships from WW II) looks better from both a historical and game perspective. 

Plans for rewards in victory and defeat

Your feedback is divided, but we see a high level of interest in this part of the game mechanics and agree with the comment where you recommend making the survey more accessible to all players. That's what we'll do.

 

Next week we will prepare a more global poll for you and announce it right in the game. You will be able to vote for the future of the mechanics together with other players of all War Thunder game modes. The results will also be published at the end of next week.

[Stona_WT 72,761]

Reduction of research points for aviation

In the last economy update, we laid out the planned reduction of the research costs for aircraft and now we are ready to tell you more about them and apply them within the next week.

 

Please note! We are not only reducing the cost of research for aircraft, but also on some ground vehicles in conjunction with slightly smoothing the increase in cost with advancing along the research tree where the research cost for some vehicles will slightly increase, this is compensated for with the reduction of the similar indicator of adjacent vehicles.

Open the table sheet in a new tab

 

 

* Based on your feedback, the table sheet has been updated. Reduction in purchase prices (in SL), crew training and crew training to “Expert” level have been added. As well as reduction for all parameters for the MiG-17, J-4 and Olifant Mk.2

Reduced Silver Lion purchase cost for aircraft modifications

In line with the reduction in the cost of aircraft research, we will also be applying modification purchase cost reductions.

Open the table sheet in a new tab

 

* The table sheet has been updated. The purchase price for modifications on some vehicles have been adjusted. Information about the reduction of the cost for modification research has been added.

Changes in aircraft research trees

Along with the revision of the cost of researching individual aircraft, we also want to make little changes in the research trees themselves:

USA:

• F-82E — Moved to the position after the P-38L-5-LO.
• F4U-1C and F4U-4 — Grouped.
• F8F-1 and F8F-1B — Grouped.
• AD-2 and AD-4 — Grouped.
• B-17E and B-17E/L — Grouped.

Germany:

• He 112 V-5 — Added to the group with He 112 A-0 / He 112 B-0.
• He 100 D-1 — Moved to rank I.
• CL-13A Mk 5 and CL-13B Mk.6 — Grouped.
• Ju 87 B-2 and Ju 87 R-2 — Grouped.
• Ju 87 G-1 / Ju 87 G-2 (in the group) — Moved to rank I.
• Fw 200 C-1 and He 111 H-6 — Switched places.

USSR:

• Yak-9T and Yak-9K— Switched places.
• Yak-9U and Yak-9P— Grouped.
• MiG-21SMT and MiG-21bis — Grouped.
• Tu-2S — Added to the group withTu-2S-44 / Tu-2S-59.

Britain:

• Lancaster B Mk I and Lancaster B Mk III — Grouped.

Japan:

• A6M2-N and N1K1 — Grouped.
• Ki-45 tei — Moved to rank I.
• Ki-45 otsu and Ki-45 hei — Grouped.
• Ki-45 ko — Moved to rank II after the group with Ki-45 otsu / Ki-45 hei.
• D3A1 and B5N2 — Switched places.
• D4Y2 and D4Y3 Ko — Grouped.

France:

• H-75A-1 / H-75A-4 (in group) — Moved to the position after the group with D.500 / D.501.
• M.S.406C1 — Moved to rank I and grouped with M.S.405C1.
• M.D.452 IIA and M.D.452 IIC — Grouped.
• Potez 630 — Moved to rank II.
• N.C.223.3 — Removed from the group and moved to rank II.

 

Second research line has been divided into two separate lines:

Changes in ground vehicle research trees

Small changes are also planned for ground vehicles:

USA:

• M16 MGMC and M15A1 CGMC — Switched places.

Germany:

• Dicker Max and 8,8 cm Flak 37 Sfl. — Switched places.

USSR:

• PT-76B — Moved to rank III.
• SU-85 and SU-85M — Grouped and placed after the group with SU-152 / ISU-152.
• Object 906 — Moved to rank V.

Britain:

• Caernarvon — Moved to the place after the Centurion Mk 3.
• Conqueror — Moved to the place after the Centurion Mk 10.
• FV4004 Conway — Moved to rank IV.
• FV102 Striker — Moved to rank V and placed after the Swingfire.
• FV4333 Stormer HVM — Moved to rank VII.

Japan:

• Ta-Se — Moved to rank I.
• So-Ki — Moved to rank II.

Sweden:

• Lvrbv 701 and Lvkv 9040C — Switched places.

 

Other changes

• Chidori and Isuzu — Switched places.
• Sd.Kfz. 251/22 — RP reward multiplier has been changed: 1.3 → 1.24.
   

Discussing the revision of the mission victory bonus reward

We noticed quite a heated discussion concerning the earning of research points in missions and would like to lay out a little more about it and suggest one of the possible changes that could have a positive effect on the perception of the battle results.

 

Let us start with this message from one of our players and take a closer look at the earnings of his research points in the given mission. In total, they earned 9,372 research points that are made up of the following points:

 

• victory reward = time in battle * earned RP in battle victory per second * mode RP multiplier * vehicle RP multiplier * activity = 1054 * 1.4 * 2.04 * 2.2 * 1.0 = 6620 RP
• reward for destroying enemies (this is the second most important RP income value) = 226 + 264 + 226 + 226 + 239 + 226 + 251 + 226 + 239 = 2123 RP
• other actions (hits, critical damage, destruction assistance) and activity time = 629 RP

 

Thus, even when playing with a large number of frags, 70% of the RP was awarded during the game in the victorious mission. This is in line with our vision of earning RP and is customizable in this vein.

 

Next we will touch on the critique of the last economy update a bit and compare it with the results of the player above in a random battle but before the changes. This applies to a battle victory from the 17th of July with 4 frags and 6,582 RP:

 

• victory reward = game time * earned RP in battle victory per second * mode RP multiplier * vehicle RP multiplier * activity = 934 * 1.4 * 2.04 * 2.2 * 0.87 = 5106 RP
• reward for destroying enemies (this is the second most important RP income value) = 264 + 264 + 239 + 264 = 1031 RP
• other actions (hits, critical damages, destruction assistance) and activity time = 445 RP

 

It’s not hard to see that there are no striking differences and this is in line with our expectations because we didn’t make any adjustments to these calculations.

 

At the same time we would like to note that the changes in the activity calculations had a positive effect on the results of the first mission in the example since according to the old formula, the activity would have been 95% and the reward for winning the mission would have been 5% (331 RP) less.

 

Now let's calculate what needs to be done in a victorious mission for Air Realistic Battles using the Etendard IVM in order to earn 17 thousand RP mentioned in the post. The maximum possible play time is approximately 24.5 minutes or 1470 seconds. At maximum activity, the reward for the victorious mission will be 1470 * 1.4 * 2.04 * 2.2 * 1.0 = 9236 RP. The reward for other actions and the active time is usually about 7%, and from 17 thousand it will be 1190 RP. On average, each destruction of an enemy gives 243 RP. Thus, to get 17k RP, you need to make… (17000 - 9236 - 1190) / 243 = 27 frags. It's an impossible number for a session in realistic air combat, in which there is no revival, and team size is limited to 12 players.

 

Now let's calculate RP earnings using the example of a losing mission. The only difference in this case is the "Earning RP in mission per second" factor, which for winning a mission is 1.4, and for a losing one - 0.6. This is a really big difference, and you must have noticed this significant bonus at the top of the battle victories — +120% RP (this value is less than the calculated 133%, as it tries to account for the lack of RP bonus for direct actions by the player). In the first example, the mission reward would be 2837 instead of 6620 RP, and the final reward would be almost 40% less and as a result 5589 RP.

 

We suggest revising the size of the reward for playing time per second. Instead of the current 0.6 RP/sec in a lost mission, we would set 0.8 RP/sec and instead of 1.4 RP/sec in a victorious mission, we would set 1.2 RP/sec. Thus, the winning bonus during the game will be 50%, but the reward for lost missions would increase significantly (by about 20%).

 

The bonus reward in Silver Lions for victory is simply calculated as 67% of all received rewards for actions and is calculated separately in the battle results. In a losing battle, this point is 0 SL. We also propose increasing all SL action rewards by 16%, but lowering the win bonus to 30%. In other words, if you now earn 10k SL for your actions, then in a lost mission this is a complete reward, but in a victorious mission you will receive 16.7k SL. We propose a reward of 11.6k SL for the same actions, but reduce the final reward for the victorious mission to 15.1k SL.

 

Earlier, we met your suggestions for additional rewarding of the best players of the losing team, but we are not in agreement with this for the following reasons. First, in different game modes in different types of vehicles at different times of the day, teams have a different number of players and it is unfair to reward a certain number of players (for example, top-3). Because 3rd place in a 4-player team is much easier than in a 16-player team, and rewarding a certain percentage of the best players by rounding in any direction is difficult for the players to understand and track. Second, we consider a bonus for winning the mission as a team bonus - a common achievement for all players in the team. And even if you are the best player on the losing team, you still lose. We also believe that this mechanic will encourage the best players on the losing team to try harder as they won't risk a significant portion of their rewards. Additionally, the best players on the losing team will not always actually play well enough to deserve the extra bonus.

 

Leave your comments regarding this proposal or suggest your own options for rebalancing the reward.
 

[Flak_Dancer 9,733]

- Dicker Max and 8,8 cm Flak 37 Sfl. — Switched places.

 

Now please move Flakbus to rank III.

[CodyBlues 323]

Here’s hoping they* pump up the rewards.

 

getting 7000rp while flying the Jaguar A+premium+70 percent booster+3kills on a win feels way too low.

 

edited: these to they.

Edited August 19, 2021 by CodyBlues

[島風 2,396]

Japanese Changes Pog!

 

Japanese Air Tree Optimizations:

• Ki-32 & F1M2 Don't Sit Right, The Ki-32 Is A Light Bomber And Makes 10x More Sense On The Current Spot Of The F1M2 Instead Of Gatekeeping The Heavy Fighter / Interceptor Line While Playing Exactly Like A Bomber In A Compact Package, Meanwhile A Disconnected F1M2 In-front Of The Dive Bomber Line Would Be A Great Way To Give New Players A Free Skip On It If They Were To Grind Actual (Dive) Bombers And The Choice For A Floatplane In-Case They Want To Play Naval
• More Folders: The D4Y's, Ki-45's, A6M-N & N1K Are Clogging Up Their Lines. Thanks For Considering! On Note Of The D4Y's, Why Is The D4Y1 Separated From The Rest?
• Ki-61 / Ki-100 - How Exactly Are The Ki-100's Lower BR Than The Ki-61's They're Based Upon? They're Slightly Better In Every Margin And Yet Are A Lower BR Than The Last Ki-61 Tei. Move Them Up In Rank And Put The Ki-100 Into The Late Ki-61 Group Instead Of Early. (Also Ki-96 Would Do Fine With A Rank Lower Honestly, It's Just A Single Seat Ki-45 At The End Of The Day)
• Split JASDF Planes (T-2, F-1 | F-86's, F-104J, F-4EJ) From The Army & Navy Line And Make Them Independently Researchable. You Still Need To Research A Good Amount Of Jets Anyway To Progress And Without Them Being Forced Behind The Army Or Navy Line It Gives More Breathing Room For WWII & Post-War Vehicles Alike.
• My Draft (Find It On My Wiki Page):
  Spoiler

  

 

 

Japanese Coastal Fleet (Tier IV - V):

• Shonan & Chidori: Honestly Barely Make Sense In Their Tree Placement, You Grind Through IJN SC's/PT's, To Get JMSDF PT's/Frigates To Loop Back To IJN Coastal Ships. Is There No Better Way Of Doing This? Like Either:
  1. Transfer To Bluewater Tech Tree, They Play, Have Same BR & Are Essentially Starter Destroyers. Chidori More Than Shonan. They Get Destroyer Spawns, Play Like Low Tier Destroyers In Patrol Boat Battles Yet Sit In The Tree Of Patrol Boats.
  2. Weirdly Try To Allocate The Coastal Tree To Make Some Kind Of Sense. (Example I Drafted Includes Separation Of IJA Vessels):
     Spoiler

     

 

 

Feedback On Changes:

While It Is Sad To See The So-Ki Move Down In Rank, It Makes Sense And Never Really Understood Why Its BR & Rank Was That Different From The Ta-Se With Just Fewer Turret Protection And An Additional 20 mm.
Though This Begs To Differ What Next Patch Has To Offer To Fill Up The Japanese SPAA Gap. But That's Not For This Thread.

 

Also Here Just Throwing Again; Why Is The D4Y1 Not Part Of The Group? In All Honestly All D4Y's Are Very Similar (D4Y2 Is A Bit An Outlier For Ordnance Which Is Kinda Confusing) And Should Simply Be Easier In 1 Group.

 

While I Understand Why The Ki-45A/Ko Goes After The Ki-45B/Otsu And Ki-45C/Hei.. It Doesn't Make Sense In Technological Progression As It's An Earlier Variant And Would Rather Just See It In-front Of The Group, Regardless Of Being Better Than Its Other Variants.

 

Otherwise Reasonable Changes Overall.
 

Edited August 20, 2021 by ShimakazeChan

[dogeguy 51]

why is the MiG-17 still 990,000 SL in costs?
surely it should be somewhere in the 550,000 SL range, in line with the yak-30 and the La-15 in cost, after all, it is an end of rank vehicle just like those other two jets.

 

[spamanator500 94]

Might be a little bit unrelated but the Japanese M24 is the only M24 at rank 3 while the rest is rank 2. Is this ever going to be normalized?

[legogeorgia@psn 1,486]

This is terrific! I can't believe my eyes. Gaijin doing good things.

[CompleteGamerLV@live 725]

Lower the silver lion cost as well for rank 6 planes no reason they should still be 1 million

Edited August 19, 2021 by CompleteGamerLV@live

[R_nminbiY_n 159]

A small thing, but I think there should be a change in the Japanese Coastal Naval Research Tree

 

Isuzu and Chidori - Swap Places, I think it simply makes far more sense progression and history wise to have these 2 swapped, Isuzu and Chikugo are similar vessels so it makes sense for isuzu to come after it, and likewise, Syonan and Chidori are quite similar, being ww2 vessels, and lays out 2 good progression tracks

Ikazuchi (gunboat with 2 single 76 mm guns) -> Syonan (gunboat with 2 120 mm guns) -> Chidori (torpedo boat with 2 120 mm guns and 2 torpedoes)

Chikugo (Frigate with dual 76 mm gun and torpedoes) -> Isuzu (Frigate with 2 dual 76 mm guns and torpedoes, plus anti sub launcher)

[Vonarian 2,888]

I overall like these planned changes, decreased costs means you care for our time and health

Moving Caernarvon and Conqueror to another line, hmm... not bad IMHO, I mean there is a balance between these two lines now, heavier guys at left and medium-light ones at right.

 

F-104 planes in American can also be grouped as they aren't very different planes TBH, both are needles at last 

 

So many vehicles are grouped, thank you so much, we will be in need of playing repetitive vehicles lesser

 

Something to note is the SL cost of Rank VI planes, they cost more than expected tbh, they are not latest rank sitting vehicles anymore, so please consider decreasing them.

 

Thanks for your attention.

[Kwoh 192]

Why lower the RP in a winning match? This literally goes against what everyone said about stop reducing the rewards. Just raise the loosing match to that number but leave the winning multiplier the way it is. Everyone is saying to increase the rewards why you gotta reduce the maximum reward so you can cripple us less when loosing a match? It shouldnt be less than 1.0 to a lost match to begin with. Punishing players for loosing instead of just giving a bonus for winning. But that is just lowering the max reward so the game punishes us LESS for loosing. Either raise the lost match to 1.0 and then reduce the winning match to 1.2, or raise the lost match to 0.8 and leave the 1.4 RP multiplier there. 

 

it's literally like saying "we are reducing the max reward, but lowering the punishment"
It is still lowering the rewards.


 

[RytisLTU1 2,585]

I dont like that for most rank 6 end vehicles thier RP cost is going up from 250k to 270k. They shouldnt be touched, 250k is enough. Now jum simply will be bigger(from 220k to 270k) which is against your "slightly smoothing the increase in cost with advancing along the research tree where the research cost for some vehicles will slightly increase".

Edited August 19, 2021 by RytisLTU1

[squeakyduck 26]

I think it is a good step to more "balancing out" the difference  between losing and winning. For some weired reason i have much ,more losing streaks as winning streaks. 

On the other hand, now it will hurt both times when i have to repair my swedish bicycles..

[Knaagdier 232]

When are end of the line RP costs going to be removed? they make no sense
I'm of course referring to how any vehicle that is the last in it's tech tree line will have almost double the RP cost per module

Edited August 19, 2021 by Runecraft

[CompleteGamerLV@live 725]

Increase rewards for winning and make rank 6 jets not cost 1million but at least 500k that’s what we ask

[UnePintade 10]

Is this WIP because right now almost all the rank VI aircraft are getting a tremendous reduction in RP cost but no changes at all to their SL costs ?

[Xanthropod 711]

2 hours ago, Stona said:

We also believe that this mechanic will encourage the best players on the losing team to try harder ...

Yeah we know you did pretty well, but just try harder bruv!  

[ThatAcer 544]

Something wrong there. @Stona the VMF is the Event Variant 

[HR_Jazavac 6]

Wow Gajin..those are really good news, I really like RP and SL changes of vehicles, but don't decrease RP gain from winning match, there is no reason for doing that, but I like RP increase in winning battles.

[Sproge 7]

Wow, the reward for kills etc is incredibly low, I had no idea but it does explain why it feels like the games when you do *really* well does not get rewarded, it's almost all tied to just being in the match and getting activity. I guess the best way to get RP is to just stay alive for as long as possible and try to game the activity stat to be as high as possible, there's very little point in actually killing the enemy unless said kills makes your team win the match, and even then you don't personally get rewarded especially much. I really think being rewarded based on your actions to a much higher degree would reduce the frustration most players are feeling, there is no worse feeling than killing the entire team by yourself and winning the game for the team yet you almost get no increase in your reward.

 

As for rewarding the best player(s?) of the losing team, the reason they are the best is just *because* they're not giving up, and saying that they don't always "deserve" to be awarded is like taking away the awards for the winning team because not everyone there always deserves it either. Overall it seems like a very emotional response, not one rooted in logic. Just my 2 cents, no offence intended. 

[Bruce_R1 2,118]

2 hours ago, Stona said:

At the same time we would like to note that the changes in the activity calculations had a positive effect on the results of the first mission in the example since according to the old formula, the activity would have been 95% and the reward for winning the mission would have been 5% (331 RP) less.

 

Now let's calculate what needs to be done in a victorious mission for Air Realistic Battles using the Etendard IVM in order to earn 17 thousand RP mentioned in the post. The maximum possible play time is approximately 24.5 minutes or 1470 seconds. At maximum activity, the reward for the victorious mission will be 1470 * 1.4 * 2.04 * 2.2 * 1.0 = 9236 RP. The reward for other actions and the active time is usually about 7%, and from 17 thousand it will be 1190 RP. On average, each destruction of an enemy gives 243 RP. Thus, to get 17k RP, you need to make… (17000 - 9236 - 1190) / 243 = 27 frags. It's an impossible number for a session in realistic air combat, in which there is no revival, and team size is limited to 12 players.

Seems a lot of players have been mis-remembering how much RP they used to get.

[Soldier_676_ 17]

A lot of good stuff in these economy changes. Especially getting that reduction for aircraft RP costs is really nice to see (finally). 

I want to express that I am definetely a fan of the changes, I have however one suggestion I would love to see.

 

Please remove the 'mechanic' where every vehicle that comes last in a vertical line of a tech tree gets an artificial RP cost increase.

The modification costs of such vehicles is really offputting and daunting, whilst some updates fill up remaining holes when it comes to lines not going to the highest ranks; we've also seen that vehicles such as the M113A1 (TOW) has been last in line for Italy for a long time, the task to spade such a vehicle is already hard on it's own but when it also is last in it's line you get like 20- 30k rp costs for modifications, that is not fair. I hope that this mechanic can and will be removed in this set of changes if not a future one. It feels quite artificial and I am not aware of a specific reason this mechanic exists in the first place.

 

Thanks for coming to my TED talk!

[Lucarelli25@psn 152]

Overall very nice changes!

 

My only suggestion is to reduce the SL price of rank 6 jets, as because they cost the same as rank 7 ones.

[TheAtlntcPuffin 62]

With the revised french tree it isn't stated where the VB-10c-1 and the VB-10-02 will be located, in what line will they be?

[__sparrow__ 167]

I like those changes! The insane 380k RP per plane grinds were keeping me from even bothering playing jets lately.

And even more so I like the changes to the winning/loosing multiplier. In a 16-vs-16 match the influence on the outcome for a solo player is limited. Being punished by having half of the rewards stripped, only because the matchmaker lottery sent you into the loser team was always a terrible experience. The lower, but still noticeable, difference between winning and losing that we will have after the change is much better.