economy May 2023 Economic Changes Summary and Findings (With Excel Sheet!)

[richthofen122 1,455]

4 hours ago, SKurj said:

everyone complains about what happens when they lose their vehicle but how often is that?  it's not one match that matters...

 

Trust me, thanks to poor map design, volumetric, server issues, uptiers etc, your vehicles and Teammates will drop like flies. Especially at 8.0+

 

And all of a sudden you have lost multiple 10k SL.

[Spider_Enigma@psn 2]

On 28/04/2023 at 01:28, CoffeeBean100 said:

So the repair costs were dropped by a considerable amount already, last year? I do not see them furthering this to any extreme considering this.

 

They could unnerf Free Repairs on hangar however since this was forgotten during that particular update (repair costs dropped but time to repair stayed the same, therefore SL saved per hour was actually reduced).

 

TT will always be a zone of the harshest costs purely by the lateral design of the grind mechanic which is the basis for the entire game. If it were "easy" to stay SL buoyant at this "peak" of the tech trees then many more people would probably join the fully free to play section of the population, hoping whales are enough to keep the game attractive to the company.

 

Someone out there must be keeping on top of SL to continue to play these top tiers, not everyone is suffering.

they lowered the cost but also lowered the liver lions so that u make less then before even with the lower repair cost, meaning even if u lose no plains and get hit 0 times, u still make less then before

its easy to get a game where u get 5 kills and 3 deaths, but go negative at tier 4 in arcade

[supersaiyan9751@live 366]

I would say they need to lower repair costs on tanks and aircraft(helis and planes) while not lowering the earnings. However when it comes to repair costs for ships, I can only agree to that to some extend since certain ships like the Kronshtadt which only just got its repair cost increased after it was obliterating naval, need to go up more. Some battleships are a pain to actually destroy but can wipe your team out most of the time. Sure most can’t but it depends on which ones you fight, for example most German battleships/dreadnoughts and battlecruisers  have high repair costs yet die easily when hit by HE with the exception of the Scharnhorst. So imagine losing 40k or more(stock helgoland experience) due to bot accounts spamming HE from 10km. Other ships like the Alaska are the complete opposite until they engage at ranges around 6km or below where HE shells usually reliably damage them. However certain ships like the Kronshtadt deserve their repair cost if not a higher one considering any ship that behaves in the way it does will wipe an entire team out before it dies if not wipe out half and considering how many squadrons there are that run them with ace crews, it is quite bad. Before I end this I am not saying focus on naval repair costs or anything but remember to account for them when considering if all repair costs need to be lowered.

[AquaUselessGod 156]

 

Having seen the replies from Stona (no offense to you since you're just conveying the reply from the dev team), I am certain that they have lost touch with the player base AND the situation on the ground.

 

WE are not just concerned about the repair cost, that is one of the main points yes. What we WANT to address is that the repair cost are going up WHILE the SL multiplier is going DOWN . And MY concern is that repair cost should NEVER exceed a set value as it completely kills off the ANY grind for F2P players. Devs, you need to play your own game, with a new account, with no help and support whatsoever, AND stream it.

 

Edit: the AI SPAA in Helicopter EC, they might not be a threat against helicopters above 10.0, but they certainly pose a threat against helicopters that are required to get close range to kill targets. There, there's one of the reasons you guys have lost touch.

Edited May 12, 2023 by AquaUselessGod

[rpsgc 787]

"We have noticed that there is a lack of understanding of the principles of the vehicle rank based economy"

 

Translation:

"No, no, the economy isn't bad, you're just too stupid to understand it"

[SneedSellsFeed 110]

You don't get it bro - we reduced the repair costs by 0.1% while also reducing actual gains by 15%. This is good for you - it's written in a green background. That's how you know it's a net gain.

[Rupert64 39]

playing naval arcade with the top of german coastals you often get a loss of SL even when you manage to kill some ships/planes and cap. Alone the frigate Koeln has repair of about 15.000SL . In direct match with destroyers as Muffet it has no chance to survive and is a easy kill. As far as I remember (I am not  online in the game actually) the SKR7 has less repair cost...

[Shirazz 192]

Forum bugged out

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Shirazz

[Shirazz 192]

Ok @Stona,  asking for a 30% reduction in repair costs across the board is not the same as a legitimate feedback thread. It's disappointing and it seems like you are trying to bury legitimate feedback on the blog because you know it is controversial, which is almost certainly why you didn't make the thread yourself in the first place. 

 

Its fairly obvious from this you understand that the Rank Based Economy changes you proposed in your blog do not in any way reflect what was promised, what was communicated at the time or what the community understood it to be.

 

Saying 'There was a misunderstanding' on the communities end is entirely untrue. The move to a rank based economy was sold specifically as a way to move away from the spikey repair costs of the past, where vehicles with small numbers of drive/ fly outs could have their costs easily manipulated by a few good players. This new 'Rank Based Economy' does not address that issue at all: vehicles the a small number of good player are still going to create huge repair costs and smaller nations will still suffer from the larger repair costs in general that the larger nations.

 

From this proposal: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7537-development-planned-economy-changes-in-february-en

 

 

How does this correlate with the position we are currently in where identical vehicles in different trees still have different repair costs?

 

 

The answer is it doesn't.

 

The changes you have now proposed fix nothing because it was not what was proposed, it is a way for the devs to go back on what was promised without having the courage to state that is what they are doing. Your post is an attempt to gaslight the community into thinking otherwise.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Shirazz

[AquaUselessGod 156]

26 minutes ago, Shirazz said:

Ok @Stona,  asking for a 30% reduction in repair costs across the board is not the same as a legitimate feedback thread. It's disappointing and it seems like you are trying to bury legitimate feedback on the blog because you know it is controversial, which is almost certainly why you didn't make the thread yourself in the first place. 

 

Its fairly obvious from this you understand that the Rank Based Economy changes you proposed in your blog do not in any way reflect what was promised, what was communicated at the time or what the community understood it to be.

 

Saying 'There was a misunderstanding' on the communities end is entirely untrue. The move to a rank based economy was sold specifically as a way to move away from the spikey repair costs of the past, where vehicles with small numbers of drive/ fly outs could have their costs easily manipulated by a few good players. This new 'Rank Based Economy' does not address that issue at all: vehicles the a small number of good player are still going to create huge repair costs and smaller nations will still suffer from the larger repair costs in general that the larger nations.

 

From this proposal: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7537-development-planned-economy-changes-in-february-en

 

 

How does this correlate with the position we are currently in where identical vehicles in different trees still have different repair costs?

 

 

The answer is it doesn't.

 

The changes you have now proposed fix nothing because it was not what was proposed, it is a way for the devs to go back on what was promised without having the courage to state that is what they are doing. Your post is an attempt to gaslight the community into thinking otherwise.

 

 

 

 

You do know this has nothing to do with Stona right? He's only conveying the message from the devs, so you should be talking about the devs instead.

[Shirazz 192]

20 minutes ago, AquaUselessGod said:

You do know this has nothing to do with Stona right? He's only conveying the message from the devs, so you should be talking about the devs instead.

 

I can't talk to the devs directly, and Stona is the one who saw fit to post what he did. Of course the devs deserve more the the blame, but Stona has his part to play by lying to the community.

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,789]

10 minutes ago, Shirazz said:

 

I can't talk to the devs directly, and Stona is the one who saw fit to post what he did. Of course the devs deserve more the the blame, but Stona has his part to play by lying to the community.

Lying? He have no need and no requirement to even answer to all of us,... 

 

You are making yourself to be in a bad situation,... as CM's are the ONLY interface players have to Devs, they surely need to limits fantasist demands,... they won't go for any demands of any players ,this would be stupid to do that,... and they literally aren't paid enough for that,...

 

So, stfu,... make your demands much more completed, based on numbers and arguments, explain and show results of your own tests,... you have access to Development softwares in order to create tests into custom battle.

[Lucesan_TTV 45]

To be honest, those economy changes are making me depressed, it was not what was promised, I really hope you guys will reconsider this terrible decision

 

I'm likely among the people who spent the most money on this game because I genuinely love it, but with those economy changes I'm really starting to be tired of the game not letting its players have a sane and funny experience

 

That's rather sad, it really feels like the devs are not playing the game they work on, if you guys saw the state of 10.0+ in GRB at the very least and see some player stats, you would see there is an issue, what's the point on playing a TT vehicle anymore ? Air RB is hit pretty bad too, and this statement about Helicopter PVE and the efficiency of the AA vehicles is just a straight lie...

 

Please, I beg you, reconsider this

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,789]

9 minutes ago, Lucesan_TTV said:

To be honest, those economy changes are making me depressed, it was not what was promised, I really hope you guys will reconsider this terrible decision

 

I'm likely among the people who spent the most money on this game because I genuinely love it, but with those economy changes I'm really starting to be tired of the game not letting its players have a sane and funny experience

 

That's rather sad, it really feels like the devs are not playing the game they work on, if you guys saw the state of 10.0+ in GRB at the very least and see some player stats, you would see there is an issue, what's the point on playing a TT vehicle anymore ? Air RB is hit pretty bad too, and this statement about Helicopter PVE and the efficiency of the AA vehicles is just a straight lie...

 

Please, I beg you, reconsider this

what was promised btw? have you read the whole planned change that we had to vote?

no because it wasn't prepared,... wasn't explainned in details and wasn't contractual.

so we just voted to get baited, and gaijin now can use it against us,... 

#GaijintookexempleonFRpoliticsandmastereditEZ

Edited May 12, 2023 by Cpt_Bel_V

[Guest]

Maintenance cost system is not reasonable at all and should be cancelled, it makes common players have large probability to lose sliver lions after a battle. It is not proper if the award of a kill can't afford the maintenance cost . What's more, the income of each battle can't afford the price of the new vehicle. Also, the income and award of this game is being reduced all the time, the income of the contract is halved, the vehicle of the battlepass is one less now. Players in the battle now get fewer scores as before and get less reward after each battle. And I can't understand why don't make players earn sliver lions easily.

[SkyesRain7 4]

agreed it just needs to be removed entirely, all it does is ruined the game and hinder players from wanting to keep playing their game and making progress. all it is is a pay wall for players to give straight to the devs wallets, it does nothing to serve the players or to enhance the games experience, it does the complete opposite actually. iv been hating this repair cost system for a long time and felt like it just should be removed. the repair costs are so unreasonable that it takes so much points you have to get in a match to even come close to break even if you lose your plane or tank. not to mention the trash points it takes for even taking out ground targets or doing damage to bases in AR compared to player air kills. the eco system is just so unfair and needs a complete overhaul, from what i have noticed it only punishes players for even playing their bloody game which Gaijin needs to listen and do something about it cause it is not a good look.

[SkyesRain7 4]

Like honestly think about this for a second, you have to pay a crap ton of lions to even buy the vehicle after you take forever to fully research, which takes forever to even get the amount of lions you need ontop of the lions to crew it, you also have to buy the vehicles before you can even move down to the next tree, have you pay lions for modding your vehicle which at higher tiers can cost a lot, have to pay lions for using certain ammo types which can add up, and on top of all that have to pay an absurd amount for repairing your vehicle after a match like are you freaking serious. oh yea and lets not forget if your teammate decides to be a jerk and kills you in a AR battle, you have to pay the repair cost for that too even though your teammate killed you when it wasn't your fault. like whaaaaat! like come on Gaijin. i just can't see how they don't see a problem with their system, i'm actually becoming a developer myself and even i can see it clear as day lol

[jd_hog77 332]

7 hours ago, Lucesan_TTV said:

To be honest, those economy changes are making me depressed, it was not what was promised, I really hope you guys will reconsider this terrible decision

 

I'm likely among the people who spent the most money on this game because I genuinely love it, but with those economy changes I'm really starting to be tired of the game not letting its players have a sane and funny experience

 

That's rather sad, it really feels like the devs are not playing the game they work on, if you guys saw the state of 10.0+ in GRB at the very least and see some player stats, you would see there is an issue, what's the point on playing a TT vehicle anymore ? Air RB is hit pretty bad too, and this statement about Helicopter PVE and the efficiency of the AA vehicles is just a straight lie...

 

Please, I beg you, reconsider this

Top tier is a known money sink, been that way for years. As for Heli PVE AA is only a problem for low tier Heli’s. 

[jd_hog77 332]

12 hours ago, Shirazz said:

Ok @Stona,  asking for a 30% reduction in repair costs across the board is not the same as a legitimate feedback thread. It's disappointing and it seems like you are trying to bury legitimate feedback on the blog because you know it is controversial, which is almost certainly why you didn't make the thread yourself in the first place. 

 

Its fairly obvious from this you understand that the Rank Based Economy changes you proposed in your blog do not in any way reflect what was promised, what was communicated at the time or what the community understood it to be.

 

Saying 'There was a misunderstanding' on the communities end is entirely untrue. The move to a rank based economy was sold specifically as a way to move away from the spikey repair costs of the past, where vehicles with small numbers of drive/ fly outs could have their costs easily manipulated by a few good players. This new 'Rank Based Economy' does not address that issue at all: vehicles the a small number of good player are still going to create huge repair costs and smaller nations will still suffer from the larger repair costs in general that the larger nations.

 

From this proposal: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7537-development-planned-economy-changes-in-february-en

 

 

How does this correlate with the position we are currently in where identical vehicles in different trees still have different repair costs?

 

 

The answer is it doesn't.

 

The changes you have now proposed fix nothing because it was not what was proposed, it is a way for the devs to go back on what was promised without having the courage to state that is what they are doing. Your post is an attempt to gaslight the community into thinking otherwise.

 

 

 

 

The main push of the Econ change was to fix high repair cost IV and some rank V vehicles. Furthermore it was stated later that the same vehicles in different trees would have different repair cost based on their efficiency. 

[Waelse 277]

If repair costs are removed, peoples will use only the most powerful vehicles. OP vehicles must have high repair costs, but based on their technical data, not the effectiveness. 

[DogeDN 53]

24 minutes ago, Waelse said:

If repair costs are removed, peoples will use only the most powerful vehicles. OP vehicles must have high repair costs, but based on their technical data, not the effectiveness. 

If a vehicle is OP then nerf it or move it in br??? why give it a high repair cost so its harder to play

[SkyesRain7 4]

then that is a 

24 minutes ago, Waelse said:

If repair costs are removed, peoples will use only the most powerful vehicles. OP vehicles must have high repair costs, but based on their technical data, not the effectiveness. 

then that is a developing issue having OP vehicles when there shouldn't be at all, shouldn't punish players with repair costs of using anything trying to play the game and progress just cause the devs are incapable that makes no sense, they need to do better in developing the game and balancing. so i respectfully do not agree

8 minutes ago, DogeDN said:

If a vehicle is OP then nerf it or move it in br??? why give it a high repair cost so its harder to play

facts totally agree

[Waelse 277]

It's same IRL - powerful and advanced vehicles cost more.

Mass production vehicles must have low cost. But things like the Mouse must cost 100 000 to repair, but also must have relatively low br based on service era.

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,789]

Repair cost only need to get 30% reductuion across the board...

 

The rest is fine, as it's not the rounds that are increase the cost.

[jd_hog77 332]

3 hours ago, DogeDN said:

If a vehicle is OP then nerf it or move it in br??? why give it a high repair cost so its harder to play

They do, repair cost balances out its SL earnings.