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.

[Rieskaruisku 506]

Will there be "economical" changes such as changing the spawn points in Ground Realistic game mode for example? Tanks are currently way too cheap which leads to a lot of early CAS. It would be wiser to raise the tank costs rather than the plane costs.

[TheAtlntcPuffin 62]

While it's good to see the rp changes are finally here are you going to do anything about the 1.000.000+ sl purchase price for most of the rank 6 jets now? It's nice that rp requirements are going down for rank 7 aircraft as well 

2 hours ago, Stona said:

 

• 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

I feel like the rp you get is based way to much on rp multipliers, is there any way you could change it so that kills earn the majority of the rp so that skill becomes more important again?

[Miragen 4,546]

70% of the RP was awarded during the game in the victorious mission

 

I don't know why there is so much weight on the winning and so little on player performance, so it's good that winning and losing is going to be less important although it doesn't improve the overall poor reward system, you could increase the loss rewards without having to reduce the win rewards as neither are all that great to begin with.

 

additional rewarding of the best players of the losing team, but we are not in agreement with this

 

The only reason people bring this up is because of the former point, you can be by far the best player in a match but you get nothing to show for it because you lost, and when you have 30 players in a game, you make up a very small percentage, to get personally punished for something you have so little control over is very annoying.

 

Players should be rewarded for their time and effort, not for borderline arbitrary aspects out of their control, two players with identical performance shouldn't see a massive difference in rewards because one happened to be on a better team, or even worse, spawned on the right side on some of the horribly unbalanced maps and was granted an easy win that win whilst the misses out for another thing not in their control.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Miragen

[Stavroforos 15,367]

I haven't gone into the details of the reward rebalance, but surely the F-104s in the US tree should be foldered by now? 

[Stona_WT 72,761]

4 minutes ago, TheAtlntcPuffin said:

I feel like the rp you get is based way to much on rp multipliers, is there any way you could change it so that kills earn the majority of the rp so that skill becomes more important again?

 

Skill is important. But you win battles with capping points (Ground Forces) and stopping enemy team to do same. Focusing only on kills (or making it too valuable) will lead to camp battles. 

[LeGrandSarrazin 753]

 

2 hours ago, Stona said:

France:

• M.S.406C1 — Moved to rank I and grouped with M.S.405C1.
• M.D.452 IIA and M.D.452 IIC — Grouped.
• N.C.223.3 — Removed from the group and moved to rank II.

Second research line has been divided into two separate lines:

 

Alright, some of these are quite peculiar moves. I like the new line, but I think it could be much better:
 

Spoiler

 

Try something more like that! 

[DMYEugen 688]

Pretty good overall. Don't agree with the lowering of the win reward multiplier though. I think it'd be better to keep the win at 1.4 and move just the lose to 0.8 or maybe even just 0.7 as a compromise.

Edited August 19, 2021 by DMYEugen

[Bruce_R1 2,118]

29 minutes ago, Sproge said:

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

Staying alive while keeping a high activity is a skill too, of course, but it seems worth pointing out your activity % is also positively impacted significantly by the number of kills/assists/crits you get and has a big impact on the total RP reward. The RP bonus for individual kills given in the examples is on top of that.

[gromvoiny 12,771]

23 minutes ago, TheAtlntcPuffin said:

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?

 

Both planes you mentioned are in the first line, and the changes are planned for the second one - it will be split into two separate ones. 

[SturmWerwolf 793]

I think some of the changes are good. Trying to promote more active and aggressive play is a plus. Seeing hordes of King Tigers and other Heavies camping in the back of the map is a problem.

 

@Stona For the tree changes, I don't mind the shuffling of stuff. My only request is can you give us a date of when these update goes live ?

 

I don't wanna have to research something again when the tree shuffle happens.

Edited August 19, 2021 by SturmWerwolf

[NATORDEN 92]

Can we talk about the SL cost of tier 6 South African tanks? They cost more than the other Tier 6 British tanks, at higher BRs, take the VFM5 which is 9.3 and is much cheaper than the 8.7 Rooikat MTTD. The Olifant Mk.2 is 9.3 and costs more than the 9.7 & 10.0 Challenger Mk.2, Challenger Mk.3 and Vickers Mk.7. Is there a reason for this?

Additionally, I would believe some Tier 6 jets would get a SL cost reduction, like the F-86F-2. I find it funny that the Japanese F-86F-40 is cheaper, has missiles and is at a lower rank. I dont know why the F9F-8 is 8.3 at Tier 6 when its more or less a Tier 5 vehicle.

Edited August 19, 2021 by NATORDEN
Inquiry on economy change reasons

[Stona_WT 72,761]

2 minutes ago, SturmWerwolf said:

 

@Stona For the tree changes, I don't mind the shuffling of stuff. My only request is can you give us a date of when these update goes live ?

 

I don't wanna have to research something again when the tree shuffle happens.

 

We plan to implement it in next week. Most probably at start of it.

[Bruce_R1 2,118]

8 minutes ago, DMYEugen said:

Pretty good overall. Don't agree with the lowering of the win reward multiplier though. I think it'd be better to keep the win at 1.4 and move just the lose to 0.8 or maybe even just 0.7 as a compromise.

So right now, if you distribute 100k RP in a match, the breakdown is (lots of other factors involved, this is very simplified) is 70k for the winning team and 30k for the losing team, using the formulas given in OP. The proposed change would make that 70-30 into a 60-40 split. You're advocating for a net RP increase across the board for all players and modes of 5-10%. Not that I disagree necessarily (I certainly wouldn't complain), just stating it plainly.

[Stona_WT 72,761]

11 minutes ago, DMYEugen said:

Pretty good overall. Don't agree with the lowering of the win reward multiplier though. I think it'd be better to keep the win at 1.4 and move just the lose to 0.8 or maybe even just 0.7 as a compromise.

 

We do not plan to make such action. This topic is on balancing the RP rewards, not significantly increase it to one side, like you suggest.

[Faster_Boiiiii 753]

I recommend switching the Lvrbv 701 and Lvkv 9040C in the Swedish ground tree as the Lvrbv 701 is at a higher br but before the Lvkv 9040C. Additionally, I'd like to see especially the ground RB rewards be reworked as they are very low after the most recent change to "Battles with multiple respawns". Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the increase in RP cost for primarely Rank VI (especially ground) vehicles. However, overall I'd say it's very appreciated that the costs of vehicles are finally addressed.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Faster_Boiiiii
grammar errors :D

[Stuhlfleisch 3,762]

I want to suggest that the JPz 4-5 should go to rank V and after the Jagdtiger, because it's playstyle is so different from all the heavy tank-hunters like the Jagdpanther and Ferdinand, having a light tank inbetween makes little sense in terms of pregression, even if the BR is lower than the one from the Jagdtiger, if it would be rank V and come after the JT, it would lead much better into the ATGM carriers.

 

(also, not really related, but I am also of the opinion that stock HESH was a bad idea, it should receive HEAT-FS as stock round and go up to 6.7 or 7.0, this way it would make even more sense, progression wise)

[Pixelated_Gamer 156]

So a really good suggestion of rewarding the best players om the losing team is turned down because of 4 man teams? In my near 3000 hours I have never seen a 4 man team. I would like to see the stats on how many games start and end with 4 people. I have played multiple games where I would win 150K sl and who knows how much RP but lost because the team was poor and the enemies where better, but this with 14 kill games and still, and now you flat out say "No you shouldnt be rewarded for doing good even if you lose" this something you know the community hates yet the suggestions and feedback we give that would actually help the game is declined because of a 1in ? whatever chance of a 8 player game (4v4). Sometimes I really do question if anyone who works on this game actually plays and understand how bad the changes they and the all mighty spreadsheet make.

[BagelIsMyWaifu 838]

3 hours ago, Stona said:

CL-13A Mk 5 and CL-13B Mk.6 — Grouped.

Just to make sure, is the requirement of buying 5 german rank VI aircraft to procede to rank VII going to get lowered as well?

Currently there are only 5 aircraft of that rank in the entire TT, so grouping them would do basically nothing when you need to research and buy both anyways

 

[Salieri_SG 15]

Decreasing rewards for winning is a terrible idea, the game is already frustrating for many players, punishing them with taking away the satisfaction of winning is the worst thing you could do for the game.

Increasing the reward for losing is definatly needed, as there are certain BRs where some nations have a huge advantage, and winning is a rare occasion for others, yet I am against it if it will require nerfing the reward for victory that is already beed lowered

[Hunter12396 3,520]

I disagree with moving the Caernarvon and Conqueror to the medium line, that line is already very full and takes a long time to get to the Challengers. They should stay in the heavy tank line, but the Vickers MBT Mk. 1 moved after the Conqueror, and the Caernarvon and Conqueror possibly grouped, since they share the same hull.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Hunter12396

[SturmWerwolf 793]

10 minutes ago, Stona said:

 

We plan to implement it in next week. Most probably at start of it.

Perfect, thanks for the quick reply. 

[Stona_WT 72,761]

1 minute ago, Pixelated_Gamer said:

So a really good suggestion of rewarding the best players om the losing team is turned down because of 4 man teams? In my near 3000 hours I have never seen a 4 man team. I would like to see the stats on how many games start and end with 4 people. I have played multiple games where I would win 150K sl and who knows how much RP but lost because the team was poor and the enemies where better, but this with 14 kill games and still, and now you flat out say "No you shouldnt be rewarded for doing good even if you lose" this something you know the community hates yet the suggestions and feedback we give that would actually help the game is declined because of a 1in ? whatever chance of a 8 player game (4v4). Sometimes I really do question if anyone who works on this game actually plays and understand how bad the changes they and the all mighty spreadsheet make.

 

Many navy battles for example are not very populated. Same with air battles on different BRs.

And please, stop with that silly "you do not play your own game". Many of us and devs got thousands of hours in it (me, for example). This argument is just boring and adds nothing to discussion.

[Salieri_SG 15]

7 minutes ago, Stona said:

 

We do not plan to make such action. This topic is on balancing the RP rewards, not significantly increase it to one side, like you suggest.

It is what the game needs though, players are very frustrated by your recent "genius" changes of rewards.

People are not going to understand why are they suddenly earning less for victories, this is BAD, it's going to be another hit to your reputation.

[Despeao 947]

If the reason to reward the best players on the losing team is being limited by the 4 man games, then it's obvious you can/should reward the top 25% players of a team. In a 4 man game, a single player will get the reward, in a 16 players game, the top 4 will be rewarded.

I see no reason to punish good players even further; if my entire team decides to sit and watch me play the game, at least give me a reason to stay in the match as it will be better for both sides.

 

Lowering rewards for winning is a bad move. If you want to keep it balanced just tie the rewards to Battle activity so the people that cap, scout and kill will be rewarded for that, while the guy that didn't contribute to the team effort will get lesser rewards, garanteeing a balance experience for everyone. The players that leave after one death will not be rewarded as his battle activity should be pretty low. This way everyone that actually plays the game is rewaded and it's a great measure to prevent one death leaving - this will be good for everyone.

[Dms110 224]

I am glad about the suggest improvements in the average RP gain per matches. However, I'm still a bit saddened by the relatively low seeming impact on reward outcome due to frags scored by the player.