Planned economy changes in May

[TwitchyNGL 595]

You've changed up some of the Premium rewards multiplyers, I want to point out EBR 1954 and M728 CEV especially have very weak rewards for a Premium of their BR.

[MountainBlack23 1]

9 hours ago, ミーナ said:

Personalmente, creo que el sistema de costos de reparación debería abolirse por completo. 

No tiene sentido castigar a la gente por hacer el bien en un juego.

 

Si se eliminaran los costos de reparación, las personas ya no jugarían un vehículo determinado una y otra vez solo porque jugar con su vehículo favorito es como un castigo en el que, a menos que logren matar 1 o 2, obtienen ganancias negativas. Esto es especialmente cierto en Sim, donde su avión puede costar más de 20,000 SL solo para generar, lo que desalienta en gran medida a los jugadores de jugar el modo de juego y al mismo tiempo fomenta el comportamiento sucio y el bombardeo de la pista.

 

Los costos de reparación actualmente solo tienen un propósito y es obstaculizar y castigar el progreso de un jugador promedio haciéndole perder Silver Lions cada vez que muere, mientras que los pocos jugadores que son extremadamente buenos en el vehículo no se ven afectados en absoluto.

 

En resumen:

Costos de reparación que se utilizan para equilibrar las ganancias de los vehículos por parte de las personas que hacen bien en ellos pero castigan a las personas que no hacen bien en ellos. Es por eso que se debe eliminar la función Costo de reparación.

 

 

Como respuesta al comentario de Smin1080p:

Para equilibrar la eliminación de los costos de reparación, los modificadores de SL podrían reajustarse para reflejar los ingresos que los desarrolladores desean que tenga el vehículo. Por ejemplo, si se ve que un vehículo tiene un promedio de ingresos bajo, podría tener un modificador SL más alto que un vehículo que tiene un promedio de ingresos más alto.

La eliminación de los costos de reparación beneficiará en gran medida a los jugadores que quieran jugar el juego de una manera informal, las personas que juegan el juego solo para divertirse y no para moler (Donde solo puede obtener 1-2 muertes por vida y ser feliz) sin tener preocuparse por quedarse sin leones de plata.

Simulator Battles, por otro lado, podría beneficiarse enormemente con una reducción masiva de los costos de generación combinada con un nerf en la eficiencia de la investigación. Air Simulator no es un método de molienda viable y nunca lo será debido a cómo se abusará de él, así que al menos conviértalo en un modo viable en el que la gente pueda divertirse.

 

 

Just yesterday 5/3/2023, I was playing with the SU25 from the research tree, I spawned 6 in a SB game in the CAS role with the units that I managed to destroy remaining at 30K of SL, each respawn with this plane costs 20K of SL roughly, SB is no longer fun to play, with rogue players attacking airfields, lack of ground targets to attack, AAAs don't care to use or don't use radar, they don't care how much insane of chaff that you throw they will give you. As also happened to me in a RB battle in 5.0BR with the G55 Italian premium plane, the game was 6v6, in my team it was 4 bombers and 2 fighters, on the contrary 2 bombers, 1 fighter and 3 ground attack planes , the latter finished the game in just 60 seconds of starting. In short, there are many things to repair in the game, I think one of them is the repair costs as a balance method, but who am I to comment on this game if I've only had almost 9000 hours in it.

[AlvisWisla 225]

Okay, rank-based repair costs. Great. HOWEVER, the 5 figure repair costs should not be getting more expensive.
14,000SL repair costs already prices out less skilled players. 24,000SL prices out all but the skilled players.

If skilled players are earning too much, create new money sinks.

 

However, things need to be playable for the average players and below average players.

And if below average players are earning too much over other vehicles, then reduce rewards rather than increase repair costs.

There should be a repair cap of 15,000SL for repair costs, or better yet, no more than 10,000SL. No more than that.

Edited May 4, 2023 by RazerVon
Adding "no more than 10,000SL as another option.

[kleinerPanzer 648]

Going to go a little bit out of order in terms of review. All commentary is based around RB.

 

Quote

Changes in the research tree

M3A1 Stuart — taken out of the M3/M3A1 Stuart research group.

Pz.III J — taken out of the Pz.III F/J group.

Pz.IV C — moved to the position before  Pz.II C.

Pz.II F — taken out of the Pz.II C/F group.

Pz.35(t) — moved to the position before Sd.Kfz.221 (s.Pz.B.41).

Pz.38(t) A, Pz.38(t) F — moved to the position after Sd.Kfz.221 (s.Pz.B.41).

Pz.38(t) F — taken out of the Pz.38(t) A/F group.

15cm sIG 33 B Sfl, Panzerjäger I, Sd.Kfz.251/9 — moved to the position before StuG III A.

Т-28 — taken out of the Т-28/Т-28E group and moved to rank I.

Ratel 20 — moved to rank IV to the position after Ratel 90.

G6 — moved to rank V to the position after Eland 90 Mk.7.

Spj fm/43-44 and Sav m/43 (1944) — switched the places.

PTL02 — moved to rank VI to the position after CM25.

Ki-109 — moved to rank I to the position after Ki-45 tei.

Ki-45 hei — taken out of the Ki-45 group.

J1N1 — moved to rank II to the position after Ki-45 hei.

Ki-45 otsu — moved to the position after J1N1.

B6N1 Model 11 — taken out of the B6N group and moved to rank I.

D4Y3 Ko — taken out of the D4Y group.

P1Y1 mod. 11 — moved to rank III to the position before B7A2.

H8K2 — moved to the position after Ki-49-IIa.

T18B and T18B (57) — switched places and moved to rank III; the requirement to open ranks IV and V have been adjusted.

The removal of vehicle folders in the low ranks is a rather curious choice to me. In most of the instances presented, the Battle Rating and combat effectiveness of the vehicles within one folder are already quite similar. The only ones that I would say are necessary are the Pz. 38(t), which now differ by 1.0 in BR, and the T-28, which differ by 0.7. The Pz. II C and F are rather similar in terms of in-game performace, as are the M3 and M3A1 Stuarts. 

 

The general shuffle to low-rank Germany is not entirely necessary but also not a particularly bad change either. I also have no opposition to the changes in the Japanese air tree, as some of the progression goes from a strong vehicle to a bad vehicle. The PTL02 change is also welcome.

 

As for suggested changes:

 - The P1Y1 and B-25J-30 in the Chinese tree should be swapped around. In the Japanese tree, the P1Y1 is in the attacker line, while in China, it's in the bomber line. The B-25 also has this issue, but reversed, as it is a dedicated bomber but is placed in the attacker line

 

 - Some of the changes presented here unify the rank of similar vehicles across different trees (e.g. the Soviet and Finnish T-28 are now both Rank I). I would suggest applying this across the board, such as with the M24 Chaffee (Japan is unique in having it at Rank III), StuG III G (Italy has it at Rank III, Germany at Rank II), and so on and so forth. Most of these instances occur at lower ranks, but they affect the repair costs (as they are rank-based) as well as the ability to complete Warbond and Event tasks (which require Rank III or higher). 

 

 - Most of the Naval research trees do not seem to have a defined rule to the progression, with the ship classes and types being essentially scattered around. Not all nations have a sufficiently diverse lineup to actually make defined research lines, but some do. For example, the Soviet Coastal tree has enough torpedo boats, armoured boats, and subchaser/gunboats at every rank to separate them into three distinct research lines, rather than have a torpedo boat (Pr. 123-K) followed by a gunboat (Pr. 1204) followed by a subchaser (BMO) followed by a torpedo boat (Pr. 183).

 

  - Rank VI ground currently has a very wide range of Battle Rating, and, more importantly, combat effectiveness. Although other ranks (e.g. Rank III) may have larger BR gaps, the change in power between an 8.3 tank (such as T 69-IIG) and a 10.3 tank (e.g. T-80B) is very great, especially with the recent BR decompression change. I think it would be worth considering moving the top of Rank VI (10.0-10.3) up to Rank VII, and the top of Rank VII (11.3-11.7) to Rank VIII. 

 

 - Reclassify the Sd.Kfz. 222 as a light tank. Even if the developers want it to be an SPAA, it currently is and will continue to be used as a light tank. It is functionally identical to the Sd.Kfz. 234/1, and even a recent 'The Shooting Range' episode basically ignored the 'SPAA' role it supposedly has. It should not be allowed to have a cheaper spawn cost due to being an SPAA (when compared to similar vehicles, such as the Sd.Kfz. 234/1) 

 

 - Switch the location of the Pz. III B and Pz. III E. This is a completely useless change as they are both reserve tanks, but it feels wrong that the Ausf. B comes after the Ausf. E considering the B is the inferior tank.

 

 - The Chinese ground tree could use some reorganization, especially in the ROC/Light Tank and Tank Destroyer/SPG lines. Personally I would suggest that

   1 - The current ROC/Light Tank line be split up into two separate lines, for a total of five research lines. The light tanks are PT-76, Type 63, Type 62, ZBD86, and ZTS63 (1980). 

   2 - The PTL02 and ZLT11 are moved into the new light tank line

   3 - The M4A4 and M4A1(75)W are moved into the new ROC line. Optionally, the M18 GMC could also be included, as it is a "light tank" instead of a tank destroyer. 

Such a set of changes would open up much more space for both ROC tanks (e.g. M41A3, M65/Type 65, Wan Cheng 4) and PRC light tanks (132 prototype, 211 prototype, 132B prototype, 211A prototype, ZTQ62 (1980), Type 62 w/ 105 mm, and plenty of IFVs)

 

 - PGZ04A should be moved to Rank VI. The Battle Rating and combat effectiveness are inappropriate for Rank VII, and the increased repair cost, research cost, and modification cost make it very unrewarding to play. The ZLT11 should also be considered for movement to Rank VI, as it shares the same problems.

 

Quote

Changes in the research and purchase cost of squadron vehicles

There will be changes to the research and purchase costs for a number of squadron vehicles.

Generally speaking I think the unification of purchase costs with a similar, research tree equivalent is a good idea. For example, the T-80UK being changed to the same price as the T-80U is a good thing. However, this is not uniformly applied, with the SKR-7 (610,000 SL) being 380,000 SL cheaper than the SKR-1 (990,000 SL).

 

Quote

Changes of the cost of the expendable modification "Crew Replenishment"

Repair costs are not the only expense in battle. Silver Lions will also be spent on ammo, suspended weaponry and the expendable modification "Crew Replenishment". All these expenses will be taken into account when calculating the repair cost and subtracted from the initially calculated value forming the final estimated repair cost. Moreover, the share of expenditures on consumables should be noticeably lower than the expenditures on repairs. However in the case of the “Crew Replenishment” modification this rule isn’t followed - the modification is too expensive for rank I vehicles but too cheap for rank V and higher and we will fix it in this economy update.

 

Now the cost of the "Crew Replenishment" will be linked not to vehicle rank but to the economy rank (rank and position in the research tree on the rank) which will allow to fine-tune the price of the modification for all vehicles. For reserve vehicles the price will drop from 100 to 10 SL, for other rank I vehicles it will drop from 100 to 40-70 SL, for rank VII vehicles it will increase from 700 to 1000-1100 SL. Once again, please note that an increase in the cost of an expendable modification does not mean an overall increase in costs, as it is taken into account when calculating the price of a vehicle repair.

I guess if the overall cost does not change, it is okay. If other modifications become cheaper as a result, then I don't think it's that bad. By comparison, Crew Replenishment has a significantly higher utility in battle compared to some other modifications, and it makes sense that it would cost more. 

 

Quote

Converting the repair time of vehicles in the hangar to the system of vehicle ranks 

Free vehicle repairs in the hangar allows you to save a certain amount of SL on vehicle repair. That’s why initially the time of free repair has been calculated from the repair cost of the vehicle. But for some vehicles in some game modes (aircraft in SB, fleet in AB and RB) the repair cost became very high due to the peculiarities of vehicles and modes (primarily because of the large average life span) which led to a very long time of free repair.

 

We decided to simplify this mechanics and fixed the free repair time depending on the economy rank of the vehicle (rank and position in the research tree) by analogy with such indicators as research cost, price, crew training price, RP multiplier and some others.

 

As a basis for calculating the new free repair time, the average repair time rates of ground vehicles were taken.

This feature is often forgotten by the majority of players due to the absurd lengths of times it takes to undergo free repairs. Considering most high rank vehicles cost a few thousand SL to repair, having it take up to a month with is completely unreasonable. The free repairs should take at most a few hours, perhaps a day for the highest rank vehicles. Very few players are willing to wait a week with an Aced crew for their Rank VII tank to be repaired.

 

Quote

Maximum repair cost in the table sheet for economy changes

Usually in the table sheet, economy changes indicate the minimum repair cost of vehicles without taking into account used modifications. This is the “default” repair cost of vehicles that will be shown in the vehicle card for example before research or purchase. However in the case of different number of modifications in the vehicle and accordingly different additions to the repair cost from modifications it is not quite correct to compare the minimum repair cost. For example, right now (before the economy changes), the repair cost of the T-80BVM in RB when all modifications are installed will be changed from 3690 to 7405 SL and for the Leopard 2A6 - from 5410 to 8050 SL. We see the estimated (maximum) repair cost of these vehicles differs by only 8.7% while the basic (minimum) - almost one and a half times. At the same time the change in the repair cost of vehicles must be of interest primarily to those players who own these vehicles; play them and have already researched a number of modifications or even all of them. And accordingly see and spend no longer the basic repair cost.

 

Beginning in this update we decided to use in the economy change tables, the maximum repair cost of the vehicle by taking into account all installed modifications.

 

However, in this update, for the last time a table with minimum repair cost will also be presented, so that everyone can make sure that the repair cost of all vehicles hasn’t been increased several times and these are two different parameters - the minimum (basic) repair cost and the maximum (estimated) repair cost.

I don't understand why the SL Multipliers are being reduced across the board. In its current state, the SL rewards from games are already quite bad. By both increasing average repair cost and reducing the SL multiplier, players are punished even more for poor performance and do not get rewarded for doing well. 

 

At the bare minimum, getting 1 kill and 1 death in any single vehicle, regardless of Battle Rating, ammo type, number of modifications purchased, or whether the match is won or lost, should grant a net positive reward. It feels as though many times, even this requirement does not feel adequately met, as an 8 kill game with 5 or 6 deaths can still mean a SL deficit if the match is lost. 

 

Making the SL rewards even lesser disincentivizes people from respawning. In most cases, it is more economical to leave after just 1 or 2 deaths if the outcome of the match does not look favorable because the only result will be the continued loss of SL. This also gives even greater reward to the spawn camping tactic, and ultimately leads to matches that are not enjoyable to play.

 

As an additional suggestion, I would ask that repair costs be adjusted based on the the relative BR of the vehicle and the BR of the battle as a whole. For example, if a ZTZ59D1 (BR 8.7, 8675 SL) is destroyed in a 10.0 match, the repair cost should not be able to be greater than a vehicle at that BR, such as the ZTZ96A (7879 SL). An 80% multiplier for 1.3 BR difference would lower the cost to 6940 SL, which is more reasonable considering the combat effectiveness of the ZTZ59D1 in a 10.0 match.

 

Overall I think these economy changes are a turn for the worse. The changes that were voted for last February seem to have put a significant strain on the in-game economy already, and without a premium account, even an average performance at Rank VII ground only nets 5000-10000 SL for a victory. SL earnings at high rank should be higher. It is currently more economically effective to get 1 or 2 kills in a Rank 4 aircraft in Air RB than to get 7 or 8 kills in Ground RB with more than 2 deaths, and it should not be this way.

Edited May 4, 2023 by kleinerPanzer

[Maldphree@live 0]

So with the reduction in purchase costs of some vehicles will the people who purchased said vehicles get a refund of the extra silver lions that they spent?

[_Scarface1_ 5]

First, we need MORE folders NOT LESS. Folders are a great mechanic and universally loved.

Now about repair costs, Rank VI vehicles onwards are ballooning in price AGAIN and you are reducing SL multipliers at the same time, it's overkill; Absolutely no vehicle should cost more than 20.000SL to repair when spaded, if you think the vehicle is performing too well you should increase it's BR, increasing repair costs you're just weeding out lower skilled players while the ones who actually knows how to play will still dominate.

Anyway, overrall horrible update. It should ABSOLUTELY NOT go live in this state.

Edited May 4, 2023 by _Scarface1_
Spelling mistake

[bearteeth 139]

Air RB:

 

First, I want to remind people to pay attention to reward multipliers instead of fixating on repair costs. If you were going broke flying the J-7E before, the 437SL reduction to the repair cost isn't going to help you much... but the move from 2.3x to 3.5x sure will. That's a great change that was a long time coming. That said, I think Gaijin needs to pay attention to how strongly repair costs influence player attitudes, because even if this source of stress is out of proportion to our actual observed profits, it also has a disproportionate effect on which vehicles people choose to play. Seeing t6/7 aircraft gaining multiplier is nice, but that they're also gaining substantial repair costs makes me worry that this area, where the matchmaker is already stilted so heavily towards a handful of high-performers amid a sea of premiums, will continue to suffer from a lack of diversity.

 

I'm very curious about the timing of the statistics these economy changes are based on. Are they from the relatively brief period since the last BR adjustment, or are they based in part on statistics from an earlier version of the matchmaker that is no longer relevant to the current game? For example, both the US and Chinese F-5E are gaining substantial hikes to their multipliers, which would be eminently reasonable given their former 11.0 situation, but seems somewhat less so at 10.7. The Mirage 2000C is getting a much higher repair and slightly lower multiplier, but it hasn't spent much time at 11.7 yet, so it seems like that might be based on its former "efficiency" at stomping on hordes of F-5Cs, which it will no longer be doing.

 

There are also a few outliers that make no sense to me as an air RB player, but might be explained by ground performance? The Q-5A is getting a massive repair cost hike (9594->20574) and moderate reward nerf (3.4->2.8). Of course it's very strong at 9.0, but this seems excessive, and worries me that if it does rise to 9.3 (which seems plausible given that with its CMs it would do just fine there) nobody will ever fly it again. The Buccaneer S.2 does not seem very strong at 9.3, but its rising repair cost (17184->21571) and absolutely savage multiplier cut (3.0->1.3) make me wonder just how good the dozen remaining players flying it must be. I hardly ever see either of these planes, so it doesn't seem like they merit such drastic disincentives to flying them.

[TheGhOsTGeneral 239]

I'm still very confused as to where you're getting some of these numbers. The F-5E is almost 1k more in repair cost than the F-14 and F-16s. None of that makes sense to me

Edited May 4, 2023 by TheGhOsTGeneral
Accidentally put the repair cost, and not the difference in repair cost.

[Master_CN 27]

I noticed the Blagorodnyy's (a ship that isn't used by bot account farmers at all) SL modifier got nerfed by 2.1 from it's original 8.0 modifier (down to 5.9 in total), while ships that are well known for being used by bot accounts spammers (Moffett/Helena) got to keep their SL modifiers.

I'm really disappointed to see that Gaijin is punishing people that actually play the mode while rewarding bot account spammers. I guess I'm at fault for not bot farming as well and playing instead with my own hands, at least seems like it by Gaijin's balance decisions. I'm getting higher damage and more kills than said bot farmers, and getting my paid ship obliterated as result. Gaijin should be worried about getting bot scrip abusers out of the mode instead of punishing those that actually play it. And I can think on many possible solutions for it, such as increasing the repair cost of premium ships so bot abusers can't make SL profit of landing a couple of shells before ramming into an island and getting killed.

The repair cost of helicopters also have a very obvious reason behind (and I don't say this as someone trying to be rude but rather disappointed), just to gate-keep people from grinding it without a premium helicopter. There's no way anyone can use a stock helicopter that costs 25k+ to repair, with dumb rockets only, against accurate SPAA spread all over the map and don't lose a fortune doing it.

Premium tanks/planes are mostly getting their modifiers nerfed, I guess premium vehicles are just bound to be nerfed over and over again in this game? I sincerely don't remember the last time an economy change was mostly a positive net for premium vehicles. 

All the changes seem to aim at making the playerbase's experience just worse. I'm just really disappointed and frustrate with all the changes, and I imagine to share the same opinion as the majority when I say it.

[Major_Shaker 2,633]

3 hours ago, Horizon333 said:

Can we please acknowledge and lower the cost in rp and sl for HELICOPTERS

if i remember right since the big economy change where you lowered repair cost for all vehicles helicopters have not been touched once.

why is there basically no difference in rp and sl cost between a 9.0 hely and a 11.7 hely, from 380000 to 400000 rp.

for the love of god lower it, it has been like this for years now untouched

 

THIS!

 

Anyone playing Heli PVE RIP especially if you are F2P. The new changes just killed this mode. So much nerfs all over the place. 

SL weill be gone if I read it correctly. 

Repair prices too high. Rewards too low. Anyone below average will just quit the game and if enyone was thinking about going premium I do not believe they will stay.

Something tells me that this change will not have positive effect.

But I might be wrong.

[Conte_Baracca 4,547]

These changes are amazing.  I support 100%.

 

Still, what are you going to do, economy wise, about the botting in Naval?  I know you already changed the refer a friend program.  But that is neither a long term solution, nor is it fixing the botting of premium ships.

[BadassOscar94 68]

Hello,

 

Why is the Kfir Canard hit so hard from 5.3 to 3.7 Reward multiplier?

 

[nOoBiE 26]

So TLDR is repair cost is going up and Rewards are going down for the 4 or 5th time.

I am glad my idiotic brain allowed me to buy only 6 months of premium time (40 days left) and spent 70€ in this game overall. I am gonna buy a different game with the next 70€ I save.
 

Edited May 7, 2023 by nOoBiE

[MAUSWAFFE 194]

Gaijin has made it abundantly clear that repair cost is a mechanic they intend to keep, and that they have reasons for that. 

 

But these mechanics still harm players, specifically during the stock grind of vehicles. Not only are these vehicles harder to play since they perform objectively worse than they should for their given BR, but for many vehicles they are also very expensive. While the vehicle may have some justification for the price when spaded, that doesn't really apply when it is lacking key factors like ammunition, missiles or parts/fpe.

 

The frustration players get when spending many battles in sub-par vehicles, which is already rather unpleasant, and then also loosing money from this unfair match up, is simply unnecessary.

 

A solution would be to stop negative SL from games. So a game where the player earns 40.000sl, and has repair cost of 50.000sl, the total would be 0sl. This would mean that by playing normally a player can't loose money, only by actively hurting the game (through teamkilling, for example). Repair cost would still balance rewards, but not actively hurt the player.

 

This would remove stress from players while retaining the basic function of the repair cost mechanic.

 

Edit: My wording makes this seem weird but it is a suggestion, and reasons why I think it is a good Idea. There is no intention to discredit Gaijin, as I believe they also work with the intention of creating an enjoyable game for us.

Edited May 4, 2023 by MAUSWAFFE

[CptRy4nFinn@psn 57]

Quote

Hello! We have noticed particularly that newer players don't tend to research grouped vehciles. As such, they miss out on learning important parts of the game and also the significance of lineup composition can easily be seen to have negative effects without these vehciles. These changes help those players to have complete lineups in the early stages of the game. We have made some changes to balance out some of these changes as part of the economic update which you can see from the graphs. As for higher rank vehciles, similarly we have noticed groups tend to have a negative effect on their stats, as they are researched less and thus played less. So more grouping actually has a negative effect for some key aspects of these vehciles that must be taken into consideration.

@Smin1080p have you considered that newer or older players alike don't research grouped vehicles because they have the same research and purchase cost as a complete separate vehicle, including having to research their modifications again and again?

 

i have several almost complete trees where i've left whole folders untouched because i can't, nor wish, to spend another whole month for a tropical variant of a F109, a slightly faster spitfire, or yet another MiG-21.

 

I am confident in the opinion you're looking at this from the wrong perspective, and the many several replies above mine show that this decision, along the increase of repair costs beyond tier V, create a hard to understand and swallow divide between the community and the development team.

Edited May 4, 2023 by CptRy4nFinn@psn

[milansoede 2]

Just make the whole system simpler. A fighter of rank X costs X amount to repair across all nations. This goes for Air, Ground and Naval.

 

Also repair costs are already slowing down peoples progress a lot so lowering it in general would help out a lot of people.

[SkiesUnknown349@live 653]

4 hours ago, _ChiyomiAnzai_ said:

Why are reward multipliers for some $70 premium pack vehicles going down?

 

I know some people will call me a wallet warrior, but I am not wasting $70 on a plane that not only is bad to begin with, but it now has a horribly bad multiplier. Why is the F-4EJ ADTW going to 370% reward multiplier? That's honestly, not only ridiculous, but also just BS. The Kfir Canard and F-4J (UK) are ALSO going down to 370% multiplier, and it's bonkers to me, as many in the community were already complaining about the rewards of these vehicles being way too low for a pack vehicle. The sole purpose for Rank VII premiums is to literally grind everything faster, and these examples I just gave are not even doing excellent at their assigned BR. The Kfir and the F-4J (UK) are decent, sure, but you can't tell me the same for the F-4EJ ADTW. 

Because their time has expired, you will need to purchase a new $70 premiums that will arrive soon if you want to keep up with the rewards 

[GeneralPattonO7 8]

In my opinion these changes are going to cause more grief for an already demoralized playerbase. These huge increases should not be implemented. If anything, repair costs should to stay the same (mostly) or be eased. 

[milansoede 2]

Taking away 1.6 of the modifier on the kfir canard is not warrented at all. Same goes for the 2.0 takeaway on the F-4Ej ADTW

Espescially when the F-4S, Mig21lazur, Mig-23ML, J-7d, F-104S TAF, Mirage F1C-200 all receive notable increases in modifiers.

This would only make 2 of the already lesser performing and less populair struggle even more. 

They used to be on the higher end of the modifiers but by bringing the others up this difference was already made up. Lowering the Kfir and F-4EJ would then make them the odd ones out. By only letting through the increase of the other planes they would fit right in.

Edited May 4, 2023 by milansoede

[SPANISH_AVENGER 11,786]

1 hour ago, CptRy4nFinn@psn said:

@Smin1080p have you considered that newer or older players alike don't research grouped vehicles because they have the same research and purchase cost as a complete separate vehicle, including having to research their modifications again and again?

 

i have several almost complete trees where i've left whole folders untouched because i can't, nor wish, to spend another whole month for a tropical variant of a F109, a slightly faster spitfire, or yet another MiG-21.

 

I am confident in the opinion you're looking at this from the wrong perspective, and the many several replies above mine show that this decision, along the increase of repair costs beyond tier V, create a hard to understand and swallow divide between the community and the development team.

I agree. Vehicles that are identical or near-identical must be foldered in order to be optional for whoever may want to make use of them for their own reasons.

 

Otherwise, the only purpose they serve is hindering and slowing down progress unnecessarily.

 

Specially at high and top tier, where you may find up to 3-4 near identical vehicles in a row with extremely high RP and SL requirements you have to go through until you get to an actually different vehicle.

 

These vehicles are fine to optionally flesh out lineups people want to use more thoroughly, for example. But they shouldn’t be a requirement to move forward.

Edited May 4, 2023 by SPANISH_AVENGER

[_Hackett_ 8]

Yet another update that changes a huge amount of stuff but actual solves nothing.

 

probably on the whole makes the game worse as all the good vehicles seem to go up quite a lot in repair costs rather than lowering the ones that no one plays.

 

huge cuts to rewards as well across a lot of different vehicles 

 

3 hours ago, bearteeth said:

The Buccaneer S.2 does not seem very strong at 9.3, but its rising repair cost (17184->21571) and absolutely savage multiplier cut (3.0->1.3) make me wonder just how good the dozen remaining players flying it must be. I hardly ever see either of these planes, so it doesn't seem like they merit such drastic disincentives to flying them.

Yea that might be my bad. If you flew the thing correctly avoiding combat, because you are a sitting duck with no guns, you can bang out 8K RP a game and 30-50K SL. I have flown over 200 battles in the thing and died less than 30 times. it's super boring but you have to gain SL somehow and the game doesn't reward fun

 

even a loss nets you 4K RP.

Edited May 4, 2023 by _Hackett_

[Wormborn@psn 1]

People generally have lost aversion. If gaijin really thing about balancing (milking the player in ethical way), why not just keep repair cost low but adjust the reward? 

 

Also how its fair that you received the same award/penalty when up tiered. Shouldn't I be rewarded more if I out performed like in real life??

[ScorpionM4A1@psn 2]

3 hours ago, Master_CN said:

I noticed the Blagorodnyy's (a ship that isn't used by bot account farmers at all) SL modifier got nerfed by 2.1 from it's original 8.0 modifier (down to 5.9 in total), while ships that are well known for being used by bot accounts spammers (Moffett/Helena) got to keep their SL modifiers.

I'm really disappointed to see that Gaijin is punishing people that actually play the mode while rewarding bot account spammers. I guess I'm at fault for not bot farming as well and playing instead with my own hands, at least seems like it by Gaijin's balance decisions. I'm getting higher damage and more kills than said bot farmers, and getting my paid ship obliterated as result. Gaijin should be worried about getting bot scrip abusers out of the mode instead of punishing those that actually play it. And I can think on many possible solutions for it, such as increasing the repair cost of premium ships so bot abusers can't make SL profit of landing a couple of shells before ramming into an island and getting killed.

The repair cost of helicopters also have a very obvious reason behind (and I don't say this as someone trying to be rude but rather disappointed), just to gate-keep people from grinding it without a premium helicopter. There's no way anyone can use a stock helicopter that costs 25k+ to repair, with dumb rockets only, against accurate SPAA spread all over the map and don't lose a fortune doing it.

Premium tanks/planes are mostly getting their modifiers nerfed, I guess premium vehicles are just bound to be nerfed over and over again in this game? I sincerely don't remember the last time an economy change was mostly a positive net for premium vehicles. 

All the changes seem to aim at making the playerbase's experience just worse. I'm just really disappointed and frustrate with all the changes, and I imagine to share the same opinion as the majority when I say it.

 

Agreed, Why are buyers of Blagorodnyy being punished this way?? 

[AquaUselessGod 156]

Devs please, you are creating a bubble between us honest players and you amazing people who pushes out content. But we don't need more content for the next 2 years, what we want is a strong focus on improving the core game, lessening the grind (however it may impact the game's income in the short term), and fixing things that should've been fixed a long time ago.

 

Content isn't as important anymore, it's all about making a game more inclusive to the community, not one that pushes everyone away and dooms the game imminently.

 

Edit: I've taken a look in the Chinese forums and a friend has peeked into the Russian forums, they're all about as displeased as us, in fact maybe more too, so please relook into these changes.

Edited May 4, 2023 by AquaUselessGod

[AAArnold 3]

Could someone enlighten my why the F-4F's repair cost is going up by more than 50% to 17874, (highest increase + highest sum overall) and on top of that they're decreasing the SL multiplier to 2 (again, making it by far the worst)? This is going to cripple the F-4E for no good reason. (Sorry for the xxxx table, it wouldn't let me upload a picture)

                                                  Repair Cost (RB)                  Reward Multiplier (RB)

         Current   New        Change        Current        New     Change

 

F-4C                                  7970    13249        5279             2,9             2,2       -0,7
F-4E                                  12928    12258      -670              2,9             2,6       -0,3
F-4J                                  14297    13138       -1159            2,6             2,5       -0,1
F-4F (Ger)                        11772    17874        6102            2,7             2          -0,7    
F-4F Early (Ger)               11402    13821        2419            2,7             2,5       -0,2
F-4EJ                                12396    14036       1640            3,2             2,6       -0,6
F-4EJ Kai                          13734    15883       2149            2,6             2,3       -0,3
Kurnass                            12456    14770        2314            2,7             2,2       -0,5        
Kurnass 2000                   13765    16072        2307            2,6             2,3       -0,3

 

F-4EJ ADTW                    5400       4777        -623              5,3             3,3       -2
F-4J(UK) Phantom II        5400       5143        -257              4,2             3,7       -0,5
F-4S Phantom II               5400       5059        -341              4,2             4,6       0,4