Jump to content

[Feedback] Economy Revision - Our Plan in Detail


Stona_WT
 Share

On 13/06/2023 at 22:30, MurkyShallows said:

This should be changed to mission score, as not every vehicle is equally efficient at getting the kill on another enemy (some get more assists, or scouts, than kills); as well as incentivizing kills in particular over other mission objectives, namely, zone captures.

Yes I second that, as per my previously posted suggestions. Top 3 players on losing team should recieve winning bonuses.
Making it destruction based, rather than score based will incentivise toxic behaviour.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is... in this game you pay for EVERYTHING. pay to get the vehicle, pay to put it in service, pay to upgrade the crew (and it costs the same as the vehicle itself). pay new modules (and this increases also the repair cost), pay the ammo. but when it comes to earning you seems to be so stingy. In a game with EIGHT ranks once you reach tier 3 you start losing lions af. 
10 years around here and still I can't play the vehicles I want because even when performing good games you lose lions again and again and again. Even some premium vehicles have an indecent repair cost. I won't waste a single cent anymore on this game. I just wanna see and check these new changes, but i'm quite disappointed the way you treated your player base during all these years. 

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the skill based RP rewards, despite all the vocal whining; it's one of the better items on the roadmap. Maybe also add an SL bonus.

 

Sincerely,

I

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The message I sent to the devs in the survey (https://poll.gaijin.net/survey/106/):

 

 

Hello!

 

I agree in general with the proposed SL economy changes. But there is one thing I hope you will consider changing in your plan:

Quote

"However, this new approach may lead to situations where certain individual vehicles are more effective at earning SL at a given Battle Rating than others. In such cases, we may use other methods, such as adjusting the vehicle's Battle Rating".

 

Changing BR of the vehicle that has good SL gains (by statistics) will lead to many issues in the future. And I'm sure a lot of players will protest about specific vehicles they like being moved up in BR.

 

Usually, players use vehicles they like and feel confident in, when they want to have some fun in the game. In most cases, this means vehicles that are relatively easy to play. Because of that, such vehicles are pretty good SL grinders, so people play them, have fun, and gain some SL same time. But this doesn't mean such vehicles are overpowered and should be moved up in BR. They are just good at their BR, because they are easier to play.

 

When you start moving such vehicles up in BR, a lot of players will surely be angry, because their favorite vehicles will start to be unpleasant to play at higher BRs. With how vehicles work in War Thunder, you can't take eg. a BR 4.3 vehicle and put it to 5.0 thinking you will "balance" it this way, just because it was gaining too much SL at 4.3. What you will achieve, you will just kill the vehicle. The more vehicles you "balance" this way, the more problems you create. We already have a situation, where some vehicles (usually from minor nations) are way too high in BR, just because they were played mainly by good players, so their stats are way better than they should be if more average players played these vehicles. Adding SL gains to the vehicle BR calculation will only make this problem much worse.

 

 

My proposition is to... allow players to grind SL on such vehicles! And before you say: "impossible!", please hear me out first.

 

Players will surely try to find vehicles with best SL gains, but I bet it won't be just one vehicle for everyone, simply because every player is different, everyone has a different playstyle. Some vehicles will work better for some players, other vehicles will work better for other players. Just let them find vehicles that suit them the most and play them. They are using their time after all and play the game to gain resource, so it's really not a problem!

 

The main thing is, when you allow players to gain more SL, you should also add more ways to spend excess SL! If you give players good ways of spending their SL, they will surely do that.

 

For example, you could allow players to use Convertible Research Points not only with GE, but also with SL, eg. with 1:10 conversion. What i mean by 1:10 conversion is, every 1 CRP requires 10 SL to become 1 RP. Right now I have 70M Convertible RP and I never even used that resource, it's just sitting there doing nothing. If you allow players to use that CRP with SL, there is no doubt I would use them! With 1:10 conversion, I would need 700M SL to convert whole 70M CRP into 70M RP. That's huge enough amount of required SL to be pretty much impossible to convert them all without spending GE. This would be a very good SL sink option.

 

Another idea is to move the crew expert qualification from the specific crew slot to vehicle modifications screen (it would work like vehicle backups or a talisman, you buy it once, it will work on any crew slot). On most my vehicles I don't use expert qualification, not because it's bad (it helps a bit in battles), but because I just move vehicles between different crew slots often. So if I qualify let's say crew slot 1 to expert on some vehicle, and then that vehicle move in BR (and I have to use it in different preset) or I reorganize my slots and put that vehicle to eg. slot 2, it loses the crew qualification. Because of that, from my perspective, there is no sense to qualify crews, especially at higher ranks, where qualification costs are huge. But if the qualification cost would be on the vehicle itself, I would use this feature much more often for sure, and I'm pretty sure a lot of other players would do the same. Such change would also simplify the crew system, which is currently overcomplicated in my opinion.

 

I'm sure you can think of many other ways to get players to spend their SL. As long as there are attractive SL spending options in the game, excess SL won't be a problem.

 

So the idea is, instead of punishing players by making their favorite vehicles unpleasant to play at higher BR, my proposition is to allow them to gain SL and give them more options to spend SL. If anyone wants to use their time to grind SL and then spend SL in some area of the game, just allow them to do so. After all, it's not "free SL", players need to play the game and take their time to get this SL. And that's fine too!

 

 

BTW: I'm hugely disappointed that in your roadmap you didn't pay too much attention to "stock to spaded" vehicles problem. Right now stock and spaded vehicle feels like completely different vehicles! Stock vehicles are not fun, not enjoyable to play, and at higher ranks it takes ages to spade them. Before you can even enjoy them, sometimes you have to play (suffer) like 100-150 battles in Arcade, to get crucial upgrades. This is the main reason why I stopped progressing in the tech tree in Air and Ground. At top ranks spading vehicles is just literally no fun! So I decided not to play rank 6-7 vehicles at all. I also don't play all rank 5 vehicles, imo even rank 5 modifications cost is way too high and spading vehicles there is a horrible experience.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, enigmaz said:

what about crew training? for higher ranks is kinda expensive.

and 1.7 mil on a premium rank VII just to upgrade to expert?

why so much?

also changes you wana make for RP and SL is too low, those free to play players wont benefit much

If you're talking Crew Expert upgrade (so the one not for GE, but SL), then they will get reduced when they overall reduce SL cost to buy vehicles, because Crew Experting is linked to the SL purchase price of a vehicle (exception are some 1.0 vehicles). Meaning, when they reduce the price of a vehicle, the Experting cost also reduces. Now in terms of premiums it is also true that, for some weird reason, they are more expensive in SL than comparable tech tree vehicles (e.g. F-86 premium vs. tech tree is ridiculous), so that level of SL cost needs to be brought in line.

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.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2023 at 03:48, Stona said:

A More Detailed Battle Log

After a battle, sometimes it can be difficult to work out exactly how your final SL and RP reward has been calculated. The total is of course dependent on your actions in battle, so for transparency and clarity we have decided to make the post-battle results screen more detailed.

Now, the battle log will show exactly which actions each part of your total SL and RP reward came from, and this information will also be available in the Battle Results tab in your Messages.

We plan on adding this feature in the major update planned for September 2023, and will continue to improve and expand on it in the future as well.

 

I had analyzed the SL and RP rewards and published the reports on the forum.

I also asked them to display the rewards so that we could see how they were calculated.

I am very much looking forward to the changes!!

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it not be a good idea to be able to utilise convertible RP for crew training or being able to unlock squadron vehicles?

 

For the crew training it could somehow be made into x amount of convertible RP is z amount crew XP points, or it could even be a 1:1 ratio?

The squadron vehicle shout is a bit of a stretch(I know) as it basically ruins the whole point of having squadron vehicles that push players to join squadrons, but it is an idea.

 

Keen on thoughts :)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving more reward for capping points is a good idea, as is the idea of a sliding scale of rewards for more kills, but unless it is balanced properly, I can foresee a potential problem.

On some maps, people simply drive to the first cap point and stay there, trying to snipe enemies, without going further into the map to cap more points. This makes it harder to win the game. If the reward for capping the first point is high enough, and the scale for kills is also high enough, it might be more worth a player's time to simply sit at the first cap point and not move.

If you can make (purely arbitrary numbers coming up) 2000 points by sitting at 'A' and sniping 4 tanks, at little risk of dying, and only 1500 points by capping A and B and killing 3 tanks, why move from A?

Maybe the rewards for multiple caps need to be more rewarding to tempt the shy commanders out of their safety zone a little?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who's been with the game since the beginning, I love these changes, and I'm very happy that the team are listening. I will say, unless I missed it in the articles, but if there is one thing I wouldn't mind seeing a change where you aren't forced to buy a vehicle in order to buy the one you actually want in order to progress the tree. Researching wise I understand that, but buying it makes no sense. As in for example, when I unlocked the Ferdinand, I couldn't buy it until I bought the previous vehicle which was the JPz 4-5. 

Despite having both of them unlocked, when trying to buy the Ferdinand the messaged popped up saying how "You must buy the previous vehicle to buy this one." I don't know about how others feel but to me this system of "force-buying" just wastes Silver Lions...granted I did it, I bought both because I want to progress the tree and love the Ferdinand but it costed me a lot of Silver Lions. But yea, if there is another change I would like to see it's that. Again making you research the previous vehicle before you can buy the one after it makes sense and I don't mind, but the force-buying system is frustrating and again wastes more silver lions. Again only other economy change I would like to see however I really do like these changes to repair costs, RP reductions, and battle earnings it's one step in the right direction! ^^

I will also say, I really do appreciate you guys and gals at Gaijin listening and going forth with these changes and again hope this will be a positive change for the game. I can finally play the Maus without loosing 10k - 20k silver lions and only making 3k per battle, wooot! o7

  • Sad 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the new bonus based on how many kills the player got in the battle, why making it by steps of three, three kills, six kills, nine kills and so on??

Making this bonus by steps of one is more natural and fair!!!

One kill then some bonus

Two kills then one kill bonus + some additional one

Three kills then two kills bonus + some more additional one

… and so on.

 

It is so easy, just progressive one by one.

Stop twisting thing up, please, be straight and natural.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And regarding the cross-nation bonus, you are talking about rewarding the research of just top tier vehicles based on researched similar ones in other nation, but what about all the time it takes to reach there in a new nation??? Why not to add some cross-nation incentives on lower ranks too??

 

And even more, some players prefer to research and try all vehicles in all nations, or at least as many vehicles and nations as they can, instead of mastering just a few ones to achieve ultra high kills/death ratios on them.

To have these players active is very healthy for the game, they give their time to sustain the activity of the whole variety of vehicles available in WT, why not to give them some direct (not twisted) and proportional incentives rewarding their time spread???

 

WT has grown a lot, it could be a good sign to finally appreciate players time dedication to the variety the game offers.

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks good, will probably get me back into the game (just reinstalled and played to be allowed to post).

A few suggestions from a sim aviation player who can't put that much time into the game:

  1. As others said, you shouldn't have to pay for spawns in Sim EC if you survive until the end of the match or J out on a friendly airfield. First use of a vehicle should not cost immediately but apply "needs repair" status on destruction like other modes. Next use in same session or joining next session would demand repair cost unless free repair timer has finished.
  2. Strongly agree with CptBolo, cross-tree research bonuses should be per tier to help less active and newer players and encourage researching multiple nations in parallel.
  3. The research system needs some feature that allows less active and newer players to "catch up" = research a majority of the content, while still leaving enough content to motivate highly active players and purchases. My idea for achieving this would be to flatten the cost progression over ranks and instead make all vehicles expensive as long as they are new and reduce their price over time:230486006_WTeconomy.png.fd97bb108c1ca87a
    This would have the following advantages:
    1. Averave players can research high ranks and multiple nations in reasonable time. They just can't get the newest stuff. If you are concerned that players could reach high ranks too quickly you could change the tier unlock requirement from 6 vehicles in the nation to something like 10-20 vehicles across all nations.
    2. You still give highly active players something to grind for.
    3. New low-tier vehicles become an actual RP and SL sink, so developing them makes more sense for you.
  4. Free RP should become useful. Ideas:
    1. Just massively reduce conversion cost so paying makes sense.
    2. Every day you can convert a moderate amount for free (effectively an additional login bonus).
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this line in the article concerning, gotta admit: "We have conducted long-time tests on thousands of random players, by increasing their progression speeds with different ratios and analysing their long term engagement compared to baseline."

Honestly I think that's something that should have been an opt-in, like a double blind study. As it is, you're just making it sound like really the rewards are a black box we just have to trust, and you really are manipulating player results from behind the curtain. For example, I have a silly long streak of 1 million SL awards, whereas other people in my squadron who've played longer have none. Were they selected for poor results? Was I selected for good ones? Not sure any of us asked to be experimented on like that. We have a little faith in skill and random chance on a basic equality of results and you've really undercut that now with this admission.

Edited by Bruce_R1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good changes in total. most relavant for me is the hate speech reporting thing and ofc the insurance for premium player. (also i hope anyone will able to be equal in average.)

The dynamic repair coast as planed right now seems problematic right now. as i dont want my team to rush and die, players shall have a incentive to play a tactical role and be a advantageous to their teams.
i would like to see dynamic repair coasts tweaked so that it affects only 2nd+ spawn. this way it can help to turn the tides of a battle as one might be more likely to respawn an kill spawncampers. 

 

cheers pp

  • Sad 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good changes.
Kill based research boost sounds good, and I hope its implemented in that way. I see some people complaining about it and saying it should be score based. However that would cause more issues and reward skill less.
Example: A ground attacker killing loads of AI ground units in ARB and getting the most score for doing nothing that has skill.
Please keep it as a Kill based RP boost and don't make it score based.

  • Sad 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off I want to point out that if you're going to direct everyone to the forum to leave feedback but then prevent people who haven't played recently from posting thats a realllly bad look.

 

Personally this still ignores my main complaints other than stock countermeasures. Now stock countermeasures was my largest complaint so its still pretty good. I hope this includes stock countermeasure pods on aircraft that only have podded countermeasures, your wording makes it sound like some planes will still suffer.

 

I do think its very good that the game will be less painful for people without premium. I haven't played without premium for years but given how grindy the game is with it playing without seemed pointless. I also think the foldering changes are a good idea.

 

The research bonus to other nations if you have one nation with top of the line vehicles seems a bit meh. I have rank 7 planes bought in 4 nations and unlocked but unbought in 4 more. But I have no rank 8s at all so this bonus does nothing for me even though I've ground out a huge number of Mustangs, Spitfires, Sabres and Mig-15s. I really like the idea of a bonus to research rate for new nations but this doesn't get to the heart of the problem. From now on new nations are going to have a lot of equipment copied from the USA/USSR/UK/France. Grinding these specific vehicles out again is the pain point that makes me not that excited for a new tree. I'd rather see the bonus based on already owning a clone in another tree.

 

Making premium guarantee you can't lose SL sounds nice in theory. But it could easily attract RP botters. And bots just make the matches not fun and frequently lopsided blowouts. You'll need to be very on top of preventing abuse here.

 

IMO you're still missing the glaring issues with AIM-9G/L class missiles being too low in BR, RWR being an unlock instead of free and how painful it is not having radar missiles stock at high BR. Module costs in general are still too high in rank 6 and higher. For example I have 100 battles in the F-8E and its nowhere near spaded. To me this is the part of the grind that isn't fun, far more so than unlocking new planes. If I had a choice I'd reduce module costs rather than aircraft costs.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to see things that the community has been asking for a while, like the tk problem, vehicle folder, promoting the player who kills the most in the match, reduction of research points in tier VI and VII vehicles etc... But I didn't understand the economic change , the community wanted a fairer game for F2P and what I saw was a lot of lower tier vehicles going up in price , in fact a lot of vehicles had cost reductions, mostly VI and higher , I was really confused, all that noise from the community wanting the game to have a favorable economic balance and etc... and it kind of didn't arrive. F2P players will still have to pay a lot of money on repairs and premium players will get free repair. That was fundamentally the economic shift. The repair cost and RP/SL multiplier balance that was made is something that gaijin has always done on a recurring basis over time since there is always the addition of new vehicles and new Tiers ... That's why in my opinion this RoadMap is not what the community expected.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WarField_15 said:

I'm happy to see things that the community has been asking for a while, like the tk problem, vehicle folder, promoting the player who kills the most in the match, reduction of research points in tier VI and VII vehicles etc... But I didn't understand the economic change , the community wanted a fairer game for F2P and what I saw was a lot of lower tier vehicles going up in price , in fact a lot of vehicles had cost reductions, mostly VI and higher , I was really confused, all that noise from the community wanting the game to have a favorable economic balance and etc... and it kind of didn't arrive. F2P players will still have to pay a lot of money on repairs and premium players will get free repair. That was fundamentally the economic shift. The repair cost and RP/SL multiplier balance that was made is something that gaijin has always done on a recurring basis over time since there is always the addition of new vehicles and new Tiers ... That's why in my opinion this RoadMap is not what the community expected.

Not to mention the cost of the crew, specialization, ammunition and etc...

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaijin should address the issue of differential costs for differentially treated nations. 

Instead of charging $70 per high rank premium, Gaijin should price premium vehicles based on a preferential treatment index, in which preferentially treated nations have more expensive vehicles, and poorly treated nations' premiums cost less. For example, a Merkava 2D should cost only a quarter of the cost of a Turms, because the Turms belongs to the most preferentially treated nation. 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the time and effort to prepare the roadmap and changes. It appears to be a step in the right direction and is hopefully something the community can rally behind. While some suggestions aim at fixing current issues in the game, the biggest let down is still inexperienced players being able to access higher ranks that are not able to make a positive contribution to the matches.

 

Inexperienced Players in High Rank Premium Vehicles

While high rank premium vehicles are great to get new players into more modern setting matches, their inexperience directly result in lost matches. This leaves the experienced players to have to carry the dead weight after these players leave after one death. I sometimes have to expend my entire line-up of vehicles in the process, sometimes resulting in total repair costs in excess of 25K SL. Seeing that the majority of my matches are uptiers, these fights are hard as well facing much better equipment at times.

I can handle the occasional uptier, but injecting inexperienced players into matches that is almost guaranteed to result in a loss for that team in not fair to players. Being able to make night matches optional is a step in the right direction. You also introduced a step to get more players into larger matches at higher tiers which we will wait longer for - I haven't seen the fruit of this yet but hopefully it results in something positive.

 

Proposed Solution

Long discussion short - one solution to solve the early quitter issue would be to make it optional to join matches with lower than Level 100 players. Most large multiplayer games have skill based matchmaking that helps inexperienced players by not making the game too hard for them while they are learning. I am happy to wait longer for matches if I know that your matchmaking will result in more fair matches, as currently they are not. You have all the statistics available to you when you do the matchmaking, so why punish experienced players with scenarios that they are guaranteed to lose as a result of highly likely early leavers?

 

We fully understand the reasoning behind introducing these premiums from a business standpoint. It however results in a poor experience for the majority of your players and is something you caused and need to fix. A few extra backups for premium vehicles could help, but you are still injecting inexperienced players into matches that are not familiar with the game mechanics that results in a massive strain for the their teams.

 

Communication With Your Community

I applaud the way in which you prepared this roadmap to make it accessible and understandable to the community. It unfortunately took for drastic measures by members of your community to gain your audience, and is a direct result of the lack of communication (perceived) between you as a developer and the players. This is made worse by player opinions and concerns not being heard. I have personally logged issues with the community.gaijin.net portal (which I understood was the preferred way to lodge issues) which have been left unattended for months. One issue was dealt with 4 months later, and the moderator asked for more information that was not clear nor relevant. After 10 days without a response from me the issue was closed and left unresolved. The reopen button does not work and I had to resubmit the issue again. As it stands from today I have two issues logged; one from a month ago and another 18 days ago, neither have had any response.

If you want to improve the relationship with your players you need to show that you are interested in their concerns by dealing with these issues.

 

We all love your game and would like to support you. That is why we are here. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...