Planned economy changes in May

[jamsey121@live 3]

These Helicopter AB repairs are insane, unless it's being balanced by the rewards gain receiving a significant increase I don't see how this is anything but a malicious kickback to heli pve, since it's addition it's already been put through the strainer of economy nerfs, it's actually more time efficient to rocket rush and die on repeat in ground rb and 1 death quit matches than play pve mode.

[VanguardX2 166]

This seems like another not so subtle push toward buying and using premiums.  I just did a long grind to get the French Mirage IIIe and Mirage 2000C-S5....both are really impacted in this economy update.  Exactly what data did you use for Mirage 2000 in particular since you just drove it up in BR, there is no way you have enough new data to support this.  It is not fun playing a game and constantly worried about every SL and each bad match.  Isn't the punishing RP grind enough?  Seriously.

Edited May 5, 2023 by VanguardX2

[Jarms 1,558]

Sorry for my bluntness, but I fail to see how any of this makes the game better. 

The whole point of foldered vehicles is to reduce the grind. Giving people an option to either flush out an existing line up or go up in the tree faster. Also, why are these changes also coming with increases to repair costs? The economy should see an improvement due to these changes to mitigate the increase in grind. 

 

Everything here is just terrible changes and makes every players life worse. 

[SPANISH_AVENGER 11,789]

I wrote a comment earlier with my first impressions; however, I removed it because I could see these weren't entirely accurate, now that I got home and had time to take a look at them up close.

 

I must say, I am glad to see an economy update finally arriving. It had been long overdue, so I am glad it's finally here!

 

THE GOOD

Battleship situation finally improving? From what I've seen, most Battleships are getting repair cost reductions by around 10,000 SL, which I would normally consider to be insufficient... however, it came to my attention that their SL reward multipliers are going up too, sometimes to quite significant degrees; so, maybe, this is a step in the right direction to achieve playable Battleships (they are currently unaffordable to play with). I will be looking forward to this update to try Naval again so I will be able to provide feedback on the new Battleship economy!

 

Extreme repair costs continue to stabilize to affordable and reasonable levels: For example, Tiger II (10.5 cm Kw.K) going from 14,553 to 9,844, or F-5E going from 18,193 to 14,448.

 

Some reward multipliers going up: Such as, for example again, F-5E going from 2.8 to 3.8, or USS Alaska going from 3.6 to 5.4.

 

THE BAD

Some repair costs remain too high: basically every Ground/Air repair cost beyond 10,000 SL (with their current multiplier standards). However, I am hopeful for future updates to keep polishing this issue as more updates come, further implementing and polishing the new system.

 

Some reward multipliers going down: I believe this is completely unnecessary. The game needs to be rewarding, satisfying and allow progress, not frustrating and tedious. Top  Tier MBTs are already punishing to play with if you are not an above average player, this needs to be corrected; not made worse. There's no reason why tanks such as Leclercs or Challengers need lower SL multipliers, let alone while also getting repair cost increases.

 

Removing vehicle groups/folders: R2, we need to be going up, not down! The community has always asked for identical or too similar vehicles to be grouped, in order to be able to advance faster if wished while also having the chance of researching the grouped vehicles at any time if desired... yet you do right the opposite thing. I believe this is only aimed at making the grind longer and slower and I think this is not beneficial at all; new players will become more frustrated by the apparent lack of progress of having to go through seemingly identical vehicles several times in a row, and veteran players become more and more burnt out and fed up with tediously burdened grind.

Edited May 5, 2023 by SPANISH_AVENGER

[Finsert 1]

I'm presently about 7 days away from unlocking the SKR-7.

 

How long do we have until this change goes live, and when it does go live will people like me suddenly find they have months more to wait before we unlock the ship, or will the increased Squadron point cost only effect people starting to research it after the update?

Edited May 5, 2023 by Finsert
Correcting a typo.

[jjk36831 1]

Curious - regarding the PTL02 change - currently you need to purchase 5 vehicles in rank 5 to move onto rank 6 in the chinese ground tree. This means you can move onto rank 6 without researching the any vehicles in the first tank line - just using the other 3. After the change, will the number of vehicles required to move onto rank 6 be decreased, or will it we still need to purchase 5 rank 5 vehicles and need to have tanks in all 4 lines?

[Target1331 3,055]

Attempt 16 or more:
Japan: Switch back F1M2 and Ki-32... There was no reason for this switch, Ki-32 is a bomber, has bomber capabilities, and belongs therefore in the bomber line, while F1M2 is closer to the attacker/heavy fighters. There is no impact on research nor BR nor any other factors that cause position changes up/down or side-to-side in this case. Therefore, capabilities and historical placement should take precedent (as it actually should be again, like in the beginning of War Thunder).

The rest I don't care anymore, because by now it is clear that the majority of the changes are just there for monetization incentives, so the majority of the feedback will have little to no impact. The noted feedback about the F1M2 and Ki-32 is one of the few feedbacks that would have 0 impact on Gaijin's monetization, so is a change that would be easy to execute.
 

Best regards,

Phil

---------------- Manual signature until those and profile pics are returned ----------------
Bring back forum profile pictures and signatures!
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/578365-return-custom-avatar/

My complete tech trees (incl. all special vehicles) spreadsheet is updated to match 2.23 (only accurate atm for list & status of vehicles): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13bjEgsDhTjJhXt9N4fzIzvWa7cvy-KSDQc1HNNOZuaI/edit Contains probably all vehicles WT has published.

[__Val_ 1]

I generally like the changes being introduced for Arcade Battle in particular that the cost of SPAA is being reduced.

Would you consider being a little less rough on the Type 69 though?
 

[YO___LO___HI 7]

who increase repair cost of the air tech tree in German and why u decrease the F-4F reward multiply WTF. I want to know why? every time i ask mod or manager of this community they say like a
BOT: we have info why we need to increase and nerf SL reward your are player and we can't TOLD U Bra Bra Bra.

and now Germany air does not have any low repair cost aircraft to play anymore repair cost 20000+ but sl reward per kill is 4000 1 kill -16000 your just need ace for just a repair cost ? ? ?

[asd072 73]

Okay I did some basic math after reading some repair cost related posts.

The main issue top tier have is coming from repair cost circus.

In 99% of battles in top tier players will leave after losing a single tank. Why? Because otherwise they will be punished for playing the game

Being a japan player I will write example based on japan tanks.

top tier setup of TKX and TYPE 10 tanks will cost 15k SL for a single battle, most income come from kills and it is around 2900 SL for a kill

right now you need K\D ratio 5 to 2 to not being punished, not even talking about earning anything. And you are going to make this ratio worse.

And thats bulit around putting only 2 tanks into your setup, you can type93 and type16, with that cost for a single match will rise to 32k SL in repairs.

Since type93 is a joke player can add f-16AJ to fight air vehicles, with that if you manage to use all vehicles repair cost rise to 46k SL for a single battle, thats about 15kills in a single match to net get punished for playing.

 

 

Players DON'T like to be punished and that's why we just leave after single death.

Other nations with propper top tier vehicle setup is probably in even worse position.

 

You need to give player some discount for using multiple vehicles or hard cap on repairs. Something like "You can't pay more then 20k sl for repairs no matter how much vehicles you used" with d iscussion on exact number.

I believe with this you can get rid of at least half of posts related to top tier complains, please just try it.

 

I didn't take exact numbers because it is irrelevant and just make it harder to understand

I know about match awards, but they have constant income and don't help much at top tier. Also I believe they should be a small bonus to a battle, not your main focus and that's why I didn't take thier in impact into everything above

 

Oh right all above is for premium account, for f2p it is simply impossible to play top tier without losing all thier SL at some point

Edited May 5, 2023 by asd072

[N4CR_ 537]

The only good change in this update is the SKR-7 getting quadruple Research point change. That OP thing needs a damage model update though, but changing a database value is much cheaper and faster, rather spend that effort making another new premium top tier vehicle for whales.

I don't really care about these changes because I have zero interest in playing over BR6-7. But the people who do, I feel sorry for you.

The funniest part is the contrast between this carefully curated thread and reddit. I see this happening more and more. Hiding stuff on the forums doesn't stop people being furious outside of them, the ostrich approach to development doesn't work forever, then you wonder why your daily users have gone.

[lovewing 7]

Air SB changes do not seem to be good enough to help the mode become popular.

[Kicimijazawa 293]

Remove repair cost entirely and balance vehicles by how much they can earn for each of their actions.

1. players will not be penalized for playing your game

2. it will incentivize using more vehicles from the lineup and lower ODL numbers even in battles that went terribly

3. by adjusting sl rewards you will ensure a steady progress in game

4. reward multiplayer can get lower the more spaded the vehicle is (the fully spaded one will earn less than stock)

5. effective vehicles will earn less than underdogs sitting on the same BR

6. entire system can be made fair and transparent

 

All you need to do is make a list of how much SL/RP each action provides (eg.: a kill 100SL/RP, cap 150SL/RP) and manipulate it by setting reward multiplayers on each vehicle.

In case you will still have issues with some players having too much SL, you can still run your lotteries... 

[Wilson_Edward 0]

I know the option of cancelling repair cost is not a viable option, so what about setting a repair cost cap in a single battle. For example the cap for level VII ground realist battle should be 25k, so that only players willing to fight with 3 or more vehicle can befinit from the change . This will also encorage players to fight to the last of their vehicle, plz take this advice

[mwwdyinglight 0]

The earnings for almost all jet bombers are decreasing, while maintenance costs are rising. This makes me wonder, who would still play them if they can't bring in enough silver coin revenue? Bombing itself is not as interesting as aerial combat, yet they are such an important part of War Thunder. Not to mention in high-level ground battles, the silver coin earnings for various ground-attack aircraft are already very low, but the risks are extremely high, and taking off often means losing money.

[Fruiko 0]

9 hours ago, MAUSWAFFE said:

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.

Exactly this.

 

Imagine im not very good player and im spading F-8E, the repair cost just hits hard. I need to have 2-3kills to make 0 or some profit in Air RB. Its crazy how this plane is expensive.

If im reading the table correctly the new repair price will be even higher, what the hell.

[Szatanshow 208]

So another repair cost/income madness.

If your goal is to make less ppl interesting in this game and even less buying premium vehicles (why bother if you nerf income) you are slowly being successful. 

I personally cant justify buy any new premium now if you punish me from playing your game even more (so you just lost a customer).

Also playing above rank V will be even more punishing that it needs to be.

There should be fixed max repair cost depending on rank no more than 15k.

Balancing anything by repair cost not counting average player experience (that you make more and more frustrating to play) is quick way to lose of interest in this game.

All you do is trying to force ppl to spend $$ and what will happen ppl will be less interested in doing that.

No wonder this game grow so slow in 10y if you punish players for playing and having fun.

 

As for vehicle folders - we should rly get same vehicles folded so we are not forced to research another of the same vehicle then spend annoying time grinding modules for it again only because it have one more antenna on the turret or is slight faster etc. Unless you made a change that modules researched on one of it will transfer to the rest and we only have to research new modules that was not available on previous model.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Szatanshow

[Rezeroth 0]

It's increadible that SL rapair cost and modifiers are used for balance.

 

I understand the approach form the developer side to even out effective earnings across different performing vehicles to keep the net SL gain the same indepentet of the vehicle usage.

It is just totaly pointless during a match. You play to win and not to earn SL/h. This whole repair cost and SL modifier thing does impact a match absolutly to 0%, it's all depending on the vehicle performance within it's BR range.

 

If a Nation or vehicle is overperforming you need to adjust the vehicle itself or the vehicles around it, not it's earning.

 

[HyJetV 3,063]

I don't understand some of these changes.

 

You've got aircraft that are technologically more advanced than others, with far superior weaponry, getting repair costs reduced and an increase in SL Multiplier, yet on the other hand, you're increasing the repair cost and decreasing the multiplier of aircraft that are inferior, but sit at the same BR but rank below.

 

 

Any aircraft with BVR capability shouldn't be cheaper to repair and have a higher modifier than something that can only fight WVR.

[野戦ウィッチ憲兵隊 142]

Repair fee does nothing but encourage the player to do one death leave in a disadvantaged battle. once you increase repair fee for top tier vehicles, the game will be even further toxic.

[Dirtbag_Jim 97]

Suggestion: Change Comet I reload rate from 8rpm to 10rpm (i.e. 7.5s to 5.9s).

 

In the past the Comet was increased in BR to 5.7, and had its reload rate slowed down from roughly 10 rpm to 8 rpm (5.9s to 7.5s aced). This was to balance how powerful it was with its APDS round.

However since the APDS nerf for the Comet it's combat efficiency has drastically dropped. First its BR was decreased from 5.7 to 5.3, and now in this set of planned set of economy changes we can see its repair cost is going down (for all 3 Comet I's in game). The BR being decreased, and repair cost being decreased, must surely indicate that the Comet I's efficiency must have dropped according to the behind the scene statistics.

 

The Comet I currently has a combination of worse penetration, worse reload rate, and worse post penetration damage when compared to pretty much any of its contemporaries. With its APDS round largely useless now, it's main round is the same as the BR 4.3 Concept 3 (and the Concept 3 even has a better reload).

 

Please use this opportunity to revert the Comet I's reload rate to 10 rpm.

[Insanerobert 307]

 

14 hours ago, Major_Shaker said:

 

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.

 

That is correct, the Helicopter PVE needs improvements in gameplay and activity, as well as ballancing in matchmaking and AI spawns according to BR levels. We do not need to punish everyone because a certain playerbase spams Ka-50s to obtain a lot of SL, the only times when SL gain is higher than average is if the match is going more than 1 hour and 1 or 2 players are left to play the match.

 

What I would suggest instead for Helicopter PVE is to implement the following:

 

1. Replace Gepards from lower level convoys, they are more powerful than previous M163s due to their extended ranges of 3.0 km engagement, many helicopters lack the weaponry to engage them safely and will get killed before being able to even hit a Gepard (same applies for ZA-35 for the Canyon map), as can be seen below:

Spoiler

 

 

Units like ZSU-57-2, Bosvark or M42 would be ideal for first BR bracket, they will allow helicopters like AB.205, AH-1G or Japan's UH-1B to approach and have a better fighting chance and their open-top design will allow even a 7.62mm machine gun to fight back.

 

2. Introduce an extra BR slot, 7.7 - 9.0 would be just fine but we need a 9.3 - 10.0/10.3 bracket and the last range to be 10.3 +, helicopters like AH-1F, Bo.105, Mi-24s, Z-9WA etc struggle against higher BR helicopters with double the loadout and range of ATGMs like Ka-50s and AH-64s and can't defend against Rolands, this is badly needed and will not harm the matchmaking but instead will improve it

 

3. limit the matches to 5-6 people max, it is enough for players to not compete against each other and reduce the ammount of players leaving the match while it's still going, usually more than half of the people are leaving the match due to this issue, as can be seen below:
 

Spoiler

 

 

 

These are easy fixes that MUST be implemented to improve this mode. There are more I could discuss about Helicopters where we need improvements like AI hitbox sync issues with visual 3D model, 9.0-10.0 BR helicopters with end-of-the-line costs for crew and RP unlcocks etc, but the ones above related to Heli PVE should be prioritized to improve an existing game mode, especially since they're not hard to implement.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Insanerobert
Grammar improvement

[ArmorBattalionZ 0]

I'm very upset about the incoming change on F-4C Phantom II. She used to be one of the cheapest supersonic jet in American tech tree(RB), and I have spent much time driving and bombing. After the great increased repair cost(+65.48%) and decreased reward multiplier, I guess that happy memories will eternally gone.

[Conte_Baracca 4,547]

14 hours ago, MAUSWAFFE said:

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.

What everyone fails to understand is Repair costs exist to make you buy Premium, GE for gold or modifications, or to buy Premium Vehicles.  They run a fine line between alienating F2P players and convincing those with money to spend it.  Arguments like this are pointless.  The ONLY way to get substantive changes to Repair costs is for all free to play players to quit.  And we know that isn't going to happen.  Nor should it.  

[DerGrafVonZahl 4,229]

On 04/05/2023 at 11:10, OrsonES said:

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.

 

 

Can you elaborate on this?

 

Math knows three different kind of averages, without clarification it isn't certain which one is meant:

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=20669&section=2.1

 

So it is either the mean, the mode and the median.

 

While the the mean is the one people usually refer to when talking about the "average" it is also the worst one, since it isn't robust. Since it does not work for skewed distributions it can cause massive problems (especially since the lifespan distribution is skewed by it's very nature).

Which is why i need you to elaborate further.