Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Make_Scenario_Great_Anew

If the credit income and post-battle cost of PVP triple at the same time....

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
1,570 posts
19,565 battles

Will it help improve the game environment and clamp down on BOTs?

Since BOT doesn't contribute to battle, it will significantly lose money. Therefore, they'll not be able to continue BOTing.

As for rookies, they can learn and earn by PVE, and come back to PVP with more XP.

As for ordinary honest players, this do good to them because their income tripled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,135
[TDA]
ST Coordinator
5,888 posts
8,765 battles
3 minutes ago, User_1145141919810 said:

Will it help improve the game environment and clamp down on BOTs?

Since BOT doesn't contribute to battle, it will significantly lose money. Therefore, they'll not be able to continue BOTing.

As for rookies, they can learn and earn by PVE, and come back to PVP with more XP.

As for ordinary honest players, this do good to them because their income tripled.

Probably make the game play worse as a lot of players also are scared of losing credits.  This is why WG went to a set post battle repair cost to try to stop the camping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,570 posts
19,565 battles
9 分鐘前,RalphTheTheatreCat 說:

Probably make the game play worse as a lot of players also are scared of losing credits.  This is why WG went to a set post battle repair cost to try to stop the camping.

But no matter your ship survive or not, the post-battle cost is the same. In order to gain rather than lose, you have to fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,219
Member
5,672 posts
9,487 battles
Just now, User_1145141919810 said:

But no matter your ship survive or not, the post-battle cost is the same. In order to gain rather than lose, you have to fight.

But surviving means you're gonna have more time to deal damage, and more damage = more earnings. There are also people who have too much credit and FXP already they couldn't care less if they lose credit in a few matches.

There are other methods to stomp the camping, and the botting is largely WG's responsibility and reaction, not something easily curbed by game mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[SMOKE]
Member
2,483 posts
18,013 battles

and even less incentive for any to actually do support, and tactical duties since basically most of such really reward none but present great danger to the one performing such .. DD for certain will be ever unlikely to go out front to do all the spotting, scouting, screening, and general flanking. BB and Cruiser will be ever more unwilling to brawl thus force battle to fight even longer ranged which then again effect the nominal CA CL and DD who then will likely simply abandon the mode altogether since they are forced into a no win situation.

Its by all mean a bad idea, what must be changed is how the reward system work ... it should reward good play and tactical play, team play and support and right now its not

Edited by Mechfori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,135
[TDA]
ST Coordinator
5,888 posts
8,765 battles

In the end the detection of bots is the key.  Not the changing of mechanics and rewards to make it undesirable.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,614
[CLAY]
Member
3,216 posts
14,151 battles

Hmmmm.

Ship income is a delicate balance, last thing we want to do is deter players from playing high tier battle.

Campy meta as this server is, it will probably encourage players to be more campy and passive. No one wants to be that first ship targeted. And for ships like DDs, whose high risk gameplay often means the first to die, would probably become unviable, meaning even less DDs than usual. Which will be very bad when Subs come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,618
[FORCE]
Modder, Member
3,011 posts
13,699 battles

This could go wrong because:

- More CV players will flood the T4 queue. As if their service cost is not that expensive to begin with.

- More veteran players will also retrain their high tier captains to low tier ships (for free because they stockpile a lot of elite commander exp) which increases the number of sealclubbers. This one will scare away all newbies because they stand no chance against players with at least 10 point captains, especially DD players due to the importance of having Concealment Expert (this skill needs to go away).

And this tactic would be completely ineffective because the bots will also gain profit when they get carried because the base earning is higher when the team wins.

Edited by Sir_Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,337
[TLS]
Member
4,836 posts
21,272 battles

*whispers*skillsbasedMM*/whispers*

Script players will have bad PR so they will be stuck in bottom tier. New players start in bottom tier but get a duck-shooting gallery worth of lame script players to practice and improve their PR. The rest of us will get quality matches in mid to high tier.

Also note that increasing income/cost won't work because of something called *premium account*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[KAMI]
Member
530 posts
6,381 battles

Everything in the game could give and take 10 times more and it would have no effect.

If you increase income and costs by the same amount, the ratio is going to be the same.

 

The case where it will actually have an effect, is where you choose not to upscale the income/costs as well. In which case, those things are now only worth 1/3 as much.

Eg. Not 3x the cost of buying a new ship.

Eg 2. Not 3x the amount of credits on player accounts.

 

 

This makes no sense. What the hell am I reading?

Edited by Verytis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,456
[LBAS]
Modder, Member
6,751 posts
43,405 battles

here the thing,

3x service cost, I'm fine

3x Income, holy Missouri, 3x1M credits without any booster then max out all credits booster >> 6M credits per battle << broken or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,219
Member
5,672 posts
9,487 battles
Just now, dejiko_nyo said:

improve their PR.

How can new players improve their Payto Rico if they cannot even have that ship? :fish_book:

 

5 minutes ago, Verytis said:

If you increase income and costs by the same amount, the ratio is going to be the same.

Triple the service cost: T10 tech tree 90k (with premium camo) x 3 = 270k. Triple the credit earning: say 200k (with premium time) x 3 = 600k. The difference is 330k credit.

Compare that to the 'normal' 200k - 90k = 110k, the absolute difference in number is staggering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[KAMI]
Member
530 posts
6,381 battles
5 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

Triple the service cost: T10 tech tree 90k (with premium camo) x 3 = 270k. Triple the credit earning: say 200k (with premium time) x 3 = 600k. The difference is 330k credit.

Compare that to the 'normal' 200k - 90k = 110k, the absolute difference in number is staggering.

Earning 3 times as much, does not matter, if everything also costs 3 times as much.

What matters is relative value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,385
[MRI]
Member
3,786 posts
16,832 battles

How about WG just tackle the problem at its source and clamp down on the bots instead of playing around with the economy.

One problem with this suggestion is that credit-making in WoWs is heavily weighted towards doing damage. So it will cause even more people to just focus on farming damage. And because you can't farm damage when you are dead, this will just encourage people to play safe, making the game more passive and stale.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,337
[TLS]
Member
4,836 posts
21,272 battles
12 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

How about WG just tackle the problem at its source and clamp down on the bots instead of playing around with the economy.

One problem with this suggestion is that credit-making in WoWs is heavily weighted towards doing damage. So it will cause even more people to just focus on farming damage. And because you can't farm damage when you are dead, this will just encourage people to play safe, making the game more passive and stale.

I have a crazy suggestion on level with crazy Shark ideas: Why don't we drop money crates in the cap zone? Whoever caps gets say... 500k credits. >_>  Or better steel, 100 still. I mean still and steel respectively. <_< Or even better steel, I mean still, random loot crates in the middle of the map containing goodies.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,219
Member
5,672 posts
9,487 battles
2 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

I have a crazy suggestion on level with crazy Shark ideas: Why don't we drop money crates in the cap zone? Whoever caps gets say... 500k credits. >_>  Or better steel, 100 still. I mean still and steel respectively. <_< Or even better steel, I mean still, random loot crates in the middle of the map containing goodies.

And some people are complaining about having too much credit >_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,337
[TLS]
Member
4,836 posts
21,272 battles
5 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

And some people are complaining about having too much credit >_<

Whatever the means, wg has got to incentivize aggressive play instead of passive sitting back. They are probably looking from the other servers' prespective where competitiveness is lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[KAMI]
Member
530 posts
6,381 battles
23 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

How about WG just tackle the problem at its source and clamp down on the bots instead of playing around with the economy.

One problem with this suggestion is that credit-making in WoWs is heavily weighted towards doing damage. So it will cause even more people to just focus on farming damage. And because you can't farm damage when you are dead, this will just encourage people to play safe, making the game more passive and stale.

Ideally, dealing with the source of the problem would be ideal.

 

But playing around with the economy isn't a bad idea either at discouraging botting.

You could make it a bad idea to throw matches by costing them credits. Rework it so that, the typical WR of a bot would incur negative total profit, via losses even when you hold premium time. Buff the income for winning, while reducing income for losing.

Key here is that WR should be the major factor for income, instead of damage.

 

Again, WG is unlikely to want to promote that kind of stuff since I don't think they don't want players to be good at the game.

 

I expect to get shot for suggesting something about punishing people for bad play, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,219
Member
5,672 posts
9,487 battles
Just now, dejiko_nyo said:

Whatever the means, wg has got to incentivize aggressive play instead of passive sitting back. They are probably looking from the other servers' prespective where competitiveness is lower.

Competitive at what, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×