Stona

Feedback thread for economy changes. February 2017

My personal favourite:

USA P-51 - AB: 2039, RB: 6051

UK P-51 - AB 5980 (x2.9!!!), RB: 10630 (x1.8)

 

Gotta admit, these prices making no sense really make me itching, and lack of consistency, or clarification how how they're calculated sure don't make it easier to let go.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ooooooooooooooi said:

The increase in hunter price is unfair. It's fine for the players that ahev had it for ages and can afford it, they are the ones making it OP. Us new hunter players are balanced, and we can't afford that upgarde cost. You should make repair costs proportional to the number of upgrades. Please.

 

Each installed modification increases repair price already, except ammo belts, bomb/rocket pylons and crew replacement (they have reload costs instead).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, where is Flakpanzer I Gepard,its not listed in the table, only Gepard? Will it be affected by the changes?

This is GOLD. Previous post was discarded, I asked why Flakpnzr I Gepard takes 21K SL in AB to repair.... this post was a follow up question. So much about acknowledging the problem at at hand... I have to wait 21 DAYS to play Gepard again...

BTW, will you refund lions or time wasted if this is a bug?

Edited by wisielec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So have they actually finalized the new repair cost? (where is the list?) The costs now are still different then the list at the start of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is kinda unbelievable that I'm the first to post it, but whats with the Hunter? 

Currently, only missing air-frame, my repair cost is 52k SL. That's simply not ok. In a decent game i can get 3-4 kills before i die, and then the Tu4s will bomb the airfield. 

End results? -2k SL for 3 kills. And that's with a prem account. I cant even begin to imagine what playing the Hunter feels like on a standard account. 

Please, put it back as it was before the update, otherwise allied teams in general are doomed to fail 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay what's up with the Hunter? I don't mind paying more because it is good however.. my problem comes with the mig 17... if piloted by a skilled player its better than the Hunter and yet there is a 37k (when spaded) increase for Hunter pilots. it makes flying the hunter pointless because even if you have a great game with 3 kills and then get one shot by a tu 4 or outrun by a mig 15 bis you lose a significant chunk of your money. if you're going to make one top tier jet 55k to repair why would you not then increase its competitor to the same cost? Its got to the point where i hardly ever see hunters anymore which means all i see are the tu 4's one shotting planes while destroying every base. The mig 17 was added to counter the hunter (even though the mig 15 bis is the perfect rival) but now no one wants to play the hunter? lol have fun allied teams getting rekt by migs and TU-4's.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally feel that making top tier SPAA in AB to 20K SL + was a very bad idea. Now planes are becoming more rampant in tank arcade (most commonly at high BR (6.7 onward)). Mainly because players do not wish to take top tier SPAA because they don't want to risk losing 20K SL by getting killed too early (too early as in too few or no kills) whether by planes (because it can happen) or most likely by camping tanks. But in RB, they are dirt cheep. EG: Gepard is only 810 SL repair in RB. That's right, 810 SL, and SPAA in RB is common, because they are cheep both in SP and SL. And they are good on the battlefield for scouting and providing anti-air cover, and best of all, flanking and spanking. Sure, the person who plays the other game might say: "Quit playing arcade and play realistic". Sure, but there are times I want to play with my friends who prefer arcade over realistic for various reasons, and I still want to use my SPAA, again, for various reasons. But I don't want to get punished for using them because of a high repair cost. Another silly argument: "Do they force you to use expensive SPAA?" No, but it does not help when you wish to contribute to your team by providing anti-air cover in arcade, but high repair costs hold you back. The main solution is to reconsider the repair costs and tone them down. even the old 6K for the Shilka was acceptable. On the part about "Do they force you..." think of this: Imagine a person is on a diet, and his friends want to take him out to eat and get some high carb, high fat food. Sure, he knows they are not forcing him to eat bad food, but they don't help because 1: The food would taste good, and 2: They would have a good time. But at who's expense? His diet, and his attempt at getting a healthy lifestyle becomes much harder. Therefore, I really feel this should be reconsidered because I want a challenge when going into an air battle in arcade, not killing fish (tanks) in a barrel (no AA defense). And with people complaining about planes in arcade for good reason, the high repair costs for top tier SPAA does not help anyone.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2017 at 9:54 PM, Prophet1313 said:

It is kinda unbelievable that I'm the first to post it, but whats with the Hunter? 

Fact is the Hunter has been priced out of the game so that Tu-4 players can resume ending games in minutes with no opposition.

 

As it stands now, ALL Russian 9.0 fighters can be repaired for less than the cost of a stock Hunter... this is simply absurd and indefensible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So considering that SPAA is what the kamikaze players aim for first and seeing "Aircraft Destroyed" doesnt mean it's really dead (as they aim their criticley damaged aircraft at the SPAA that "shot it down"),  its nice to see that certain SPAA vehicles are punished by nearly tripling the repair costs

i.e. M-42 Duster  from 6800 to 17220.   I fail to see the reasoning.

M42 Duster   610000 610000 0 6800 17220
M42 Duster   610000 610000 0 6800 17220

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that changes needed to be made to the economy, I do not agree with the sheer amount of cost increases. You may claim that there are neutral offsets, but they are skewed by a couple vehicles. Also, I vehemently disagree with your blatent screwing over of level bomber pilots. Increasing the strength of bases is good, but reducing rewards, starting bombers lower, and the increased focus on ground vehicles is bad to say the least; you try taking out a moving tank with a pe-8.  

I also want to point out a major discrepancy:

 

Canberra B mk.2 AB repair cost: 21,140 SL

B-57A: 4523 SL

Canberra B mk 6: 6000 SL

B-57B: 3500 SL

 

They are the EXACT same vehicle, why the discrepancy? I suspect a not so clever algorithm(s) may be the culprit.

Edited by *maxmillian
Additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2017 at 5:37 PM, SAUBER_KH7 said:

I personally feel that making top tier SPAA in AB to 20K SL + was a very bad idea. Now planes are becoming more rampant in tank arcade (most commonly at high BR (6.7 onward)). Mainly because players do not wish to take top tier SPAA because they don't want to risk losing 20K SL by getting killed too early (too early as in too few or no kills) whether by planes (because it can happen) or most likely by camping tanks. But in RB, they are dirt cheep. EG: Gepard is only 810 SL repair in RB. That's right, 810 SL, and SPAA in RB is common, because they are cheep both in SP and SL. And they are good on the battlefield for scouting and providing anti-air cover, and best of all, flanking and spanking. Sure, the person who plays the other game might say: "Quit playing arcade and play realistic". Sure, but there are times I want to play with my friends who prefer arcade over realistic for various reasons, and I still want to use my SPAA, again, for various reasons. But I don't want to get punished for using them because of a high repair cost. Another silly argument: "Do they force you to use expensive SPAA?" No, but it does not help when you wish to contribute to your team by providing anti-air cover in arcade, but high repair costs hold you back. The main solution is to reconsider the repair costs and tone them down. even the old 6K for the Shilka was acceptable. On the part about "Do they force you..." think of this: Imagine a person is on a diet, and his friends want to take him out to eat and get some high carb, high fat food. Sure, he knows they are not forcing him to eat bad food, but they don't help because 1: The food would taste good, and 2: They would have a good time. But at who's expense? His diet, and his attempt at getting a healthy lifestyle becomes much harder. Therefore, I really feel this should be reconsidered because I want a challenge when going into an air battle in arcade, not killing fish (tanks) in a barrel (no AA defense). And with people complaining about planes in arcade for good reason, the high repair costs for top tier SPAA does not help anyone.

I totally agree with you, the repair costs in AB is just ridiculous for SPAA ! Even tier 4 SPAA are stupidly expensive, i like playing SPAA in AB after i get killed in my main tank to provide protection from the suiciding pilots that think it will be a free kill. This will sometimes help my team to lock down the win if someone is providing some protection from suicide pilots, but it seems that Gaijin wants to give the protection to the planes that continually ruin AB games by getting free kills by suiciding into tanks and rocketing at the last second. Now what they should do is try and add a mechanic in to stop that xxxx. Bring back down the repair costs for the SPAA and stop favoring the pilots that suicide!.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just saying, but these changes aren't attracting me to the game. Sure there are improvements here and there but I still don't see sim battles being worthwhile with the current gameplay, matchmaking and SL problem for high end battles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its nice to see the Maus getting its repair price finally reduced. The repair price increase of the E-100 however is a bit too much in my opinion and was not really needed too. Even though I do not own the vehicle myself (unfortunately) I have heard and seen from other people who do own it that it plays a lot like the Maus. I think the old repair price for the E-100 was fine as it was, being slightly higher than that of the Maus which seems fair. It really does not deserve the new huge repair prices in any and all modes however. 

 

When comparing the E-100 to the T-10M, M103 and Conqueror for example you can already see that most stats of the E-100 are worse when compared to these tanks. The E-100 has the worst reload speed, turret rotation speed and horsepower to weight ratio. The shells of the E-100 are also worse penetration wise at all distances than those of the T-10M, M103 and Conqueror (+ it doesn't get HEAT-FS like the T-10M and M103 get). The only thing that makes the E-100 better than those other heavy tanks is it somewhat stronger side armor (which still mostly gets negated by ATGMs and HEAT-FS, especially since its so big), both its slightly better max speed and that all shells have an explosive filler when compared to the M103 and Conqueror and that it gets a secondary cannon which can be good for disabling lightly armoured vehicles.

 

The E-100 is still a big, loud and fairly slow target though which makes it an easy prey for most tanks. The frontal turret cheeks is probably the biggest weak spot on the tank and it gets penned very often when facing most tanks. I know this from my time playing with the Maus which uses the same turret. Like I said before, I really do not think this tank deserves the massive repair price increase as it is only slightly better than the Maus. Making the tank cost 4x as much in AB and SB and almost 2x as much in RB compared to the Maus, T-10M and Conqueror is just way too much of an increase.

 

At last, I really hope you guys will change the repair prices of the E-100 for all modes back to their old price which was already high enough and I think most players can agree with me on that, even if they do not own the tank like myself. I hope my post was clear enough for you guys as English is not my first language too.

 

And as always, keep up the good work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2017 at 4:27 PM, Fa11enPhoenix said:

Fact is the Hunter has been priced out of the game so that Tu-4 players can resume ending games in minutes with no opposition.

 

As it stands now, ALL Russian 9.0 fighters can be repaired for less than the cost of a stock Hunter... this is simply absurd and indefensible.

 

The 262 cost 30k to repair now mean while all American jets fighters at the same br cost less than 10k to repair. The 262 cost more than 3 times the repair cost of American jets at the same br.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I disagree with the increase in repair costs on Era 5.0 AAA, it already was on the high side at around 8k lions, 26k lions is excessive and seems to just punish you for selecting to play AAA. Could we get some clarification on why this decision was made, if you don't want players playing AAA just remove the arcade "kill streak rewards".

Edited by Blunt_Object

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2017 at 10:59 PM, SeventhRank said:

P51-D30 costs 18,819 Lions in RB, not the cited 14,110 nor 14,290.

20170306175646_1.jpg

your pi fify one is fully spaded... my Me262a1a costs almost 40k to repair and is fully spaded...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.