Planned economy changes in February

[Stona 72,426]

Revision of the bonus reward for victory and defeat

In the recent economy updates, we described the mechanics of earning Silver Lions and Research points, and proposed that you vote for one of the possible variants to change the bonus rewards at the end of a mission. This was followed by the second stage of voting in order to make the final decision with confidence. These are the results:

What RP reward distribution during a battle do you want to have in War Thunder?

• 56.7% 一 0.8 RP/sec for defeat and 1.2 RP/sec for victory
• 43.3% 一 0.6 RP/sec for defeat and 1.4 RP/sec for victory (same as before)

What SL reward distribution do you want to have in War Thunder?

• 66.1% 一 +20% for defeat and +47% for victory
• 33.9% 一 +0% for defeat and  +67%  for victory (same as before)

Thus, the bonus reward for defeat and victory in mission will be revised in accordance to the vote results. The changes will be deployed with an economic update, which we will announce later. 

Discussion on switching to the new economy model

Currently, the game features an economy model with a calculation of economic parameters for mid- and high tier vehicles based on the efficiency statistic for each vehicle. Efficiency is the sum of Silver Lions earned without taking into account the reward multiplier, Premium account, boosters, achievements and mission bonuses for the given time, divided by the number of deaths on this vehicle for the same period of time. That is, the more active rewardable actions are performed by players (hits, critical damage, kill assists, destruction of enemies, points captures, damaging and destruction of enemy bases), and the less often they lose their vehicles, the higher the efficiency is. The system is used in the game for most of its existence due to the specifics of gameplay. We may balance the vehicles by changing their technical characteristics very rarely and through a very limited range as this may contravene historical data that we rely on when we create the vehicles. As a rule, we balance vehicles by the Battle Rating (BR), but we can only change it within certain ranges due to the features of the given vehicle. For example, the vehicles with modern ATGMs with high armour penetration value can’t be below a certain BR level, even when their efficiency is low. The same is true for the early heavy tanks with good armour protection that can not be set with too high a BR, due to a weak gun. 

 

This inevitably leads to a situation where some of the vehicles find themselves in more preferable conditions, they are more comfortable to play and much more effective on their tier. While others can not equally rival with opponents and are far less fun to play. The current economy system (hereinafter, it will be referred to as the "vehicle efficiency economy") is built in such a way, that playing in a less effective vehicle is more profitable on average to avoid the “double punishment” - gameplay and economic - from the inefficient vehicle. At the same time, playing the more effective vehicles is more risky, and requires player skills to achieve a decent reward after deducting the repair costs.

 

However, with the growth of the vehicle number and the addition of new gaming nations, the uneven use of certain vehicles also grows. Some nations and vehicles are much more popular among players and this affects the efficiency statistics. Therefore, we are considering the option of introducing a new economic system, which will be completely based on the position of the vehicle in the research tree (rank and position at a rank relative to other vehicles). Further in the text, such an economy will be referred to as "the rank based economy". Such a system was originally used in the game for vehicles of initial ranks (currently these are ranks I and II, and also partially III and IV).

 

The potential transition to the rank based economy will also cause another noticeable change - the reduction of the maximum repair cost. Due to the constant growth of the number of high tier vehicles and the number of tiers themselves, the rank based economy requires revision of the repair costs and multipliers for all mid- and high-tier vehicles. Instead, we are planning to set these parameters on the almost fixed level for vehicles of ranks VI+ in order to minimize the following economic adjustments. In this case, the number of economy-equivalent vehicles will be quite big (all vehicles of ranks VI, VII, and following), and will be constantly growing. Keeping the current max repair costs level for such a number of vehicles would be wrong, so it requires a reduction.

 

Before comparing two economic approaches in numbers, it is necessary first to recall one of the features of the economy updates - the normalization of the economic parameters for vehicles. The normalization limits the maximum available change of economic parameters in every economy update in order to smooth the transition to the target values, as well as to avoid harsh changes for vehicles, whose efficiency may vary over time. 
Thus, two tables are presented to compare the two economies:

• with normalization of the values that allows a comparison of the two economies in the next economic update that is scheduled for February. Here you can also compare the parameters for a specific vehicle in the next economic update, depending on the economy used. 
• without normalization of values that allows the comparison of two economies at the target values that economic parameters would hypothetically reach for a significant number of economic updates for current vehicles at their current performance. We are not providing target values with details on specific vehicles, as these are hypothetical indicators that change with each subsequent upload of statistics.

In general it is needed to note the following pros and cons of each economy for players:

Vehicle efficiency economy:

• (+) On average lossless play in less efficient vehicles of rank IV or higher without premium account.
• (-) Vehicles of the less popular game nations are often the most efficient and as a result unprofitable.

Rank based economy:

• (+) Repair cost and reward multipliers are identical for similar vehicles of different game nations.
• (+) There is a clear correlation between economic parameters (repair cost, reward multipliers, reward for useful actions) and position in the research tree.
• (-) Decrease in the demand for less efficient vehicles as they will become economically equivalent to more effective vehicles of the same rank which may also lead to the decrease in the variety of vehicles in the battles.

Generalized key differences between the rank based and vehicle efficiency economies can be summarized as follows:

• greater reward multiplier for popular high ranked vehicles;
• lower repair cost for unpopular medium-ranked vehicles;
• higher repair cost for popular high ranked vehicles;
• lower reward multiplier for unpopular medium-ranked vehicles.

Let us make some specific examples comparing the target indicators (not for the next economy update but for the final implementation for a hypothetically large number of economy updates at the current level of statistics) of the economy by the vehicle rank and the economy by the vehicle efficiency for vehicles discussed in the community:

• base repair cost for T95 in AB will be 8360 SL instead of 17010 SL with a reward multiplier of 1.1 vs 1.3;
• base repair cost for Strv 121 in RB will be 5350 SL instead of 7740 SL with a reward multiplier of 1.5 vs 1.6;
• base repair cost for Tu-4 in RB will be 12570 SL instead of 30170 SL with a reward multiplier of 2.3 vs 1.8;
• base repair cost for F-5A in RB will be 10210 SL instead of 5720 SL with a reward multiplier of 3.8 vs 2.9;
• base repair cost for “Parizhskaya kommuna” in RB will be 28430 SL instead of 50860 SL with a reward multiplier of 2.0 vs 2.3.
• base repair cost for F-86A-5 and CL-13 Mk.4 (Italy) in RB will be 11290 and 12410 SL instead of 6950 and 10490 SL respectively.

We would like to invite the War Thunder community to vote for one of the economy model described above - economy by vehicle efficiency (current system) or economy by vehicle rank.

[ Vote ]

Changes of the reward multipliers, repair cost and related vehicle economy parameters 

Please note that depending on the results of your vote the next economy update will be made based on the results of your choice, that’s why are publishing two separate table sheets of economy changes.

• Open the table sheet with economy changes with economy based on the vehicle efficiency (See the 2nd tab 一 eff econ, norm (20/01))
• Open the table sheet with economy changes with economy based on the vehicle rank. (See the 3rd tab 一 rank econ, norm (20/01)) 

The updated table sheet for changes in reward multipliers, repair prices and related economy parameters of vehicles has been updated taking into account modifications and corrections described in this message.

Changes of the research cost, purchase cost and related parameters for some vehicles

[ Open the table sheet ]

Changes in the research trees

• M1A1 Abrams and IPM1 一 switched places.
• Pz.IV F2 and Pz.IV G  一 have been grouped.
• Pz.IV H and Pz.IV J  (in one group) 一 have been moved to rank II.
• TAM and Begleitpanzer 57 一 switched places.
• Crusader AA Mk.I and Crusader AA Mk.II 一 switched places.
• Chi-Ha Kai and Ho-I 一 switched places.
• Ikv 103 一 has been moved to rank III.
• Ju 88 C-6 一 have been moved to rank II.
• Bf 110 C-7 and Bf 110 F-2 一 have been grouped.
• Tu-4, Tu-4 (China) 一 have been moved to rank V.
• F-104G 一 has been moved to rank VII.

[SPANISH_AVENGER 11,736]

I... I can't, I...

 

This...

 

Is this.. am I dreaming...?

 

Oh. My. God.

 

IS THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENING!? The mission, the nightmares, are they... over!?!?

 

I knew there had to be a reason as to why the economy update was taking so long; it will actually be something BIG!

 

EDIT:

 

I have seen many posts explaining why the new changes are presumably terrible, so I will try to show you that this change is actually good for the game and the playerbase and not the other way around, in order to stop some users' negativity over the change. To make things easier, let's use the number 1,000 as a base, and apply the bonuses and modifiers to it;

 

-OLD SYSTEM-

Base: 1,000, Win: 1,670 (+67%), Defeat: 1,000 (+0%)

Average 50% WR: (1,670+1,000)/2= 1,335

Average 55% WR: (1,670x0.55)+(1,000x0.45)= 918+450= 1,368

Average 70% WR: (1,670x0.7)+(1,000x0.3)= 1,169+300= 1,469

 

-NEW SYSTEM-

Base: 1,000, Win: 1,470 (+47%), Defeat: 1,200 (+20%)

Average 50% WR: (1,470+1,200)/2= 1,335

Average 55% WR: (1,470x0.55)+(1,200x0.45)= 808+540= 1,348

Average 70% WR: 1,029+360= 1,389

 

Now... is that incredibly slight difference in higher WRs worth the massive rage you have shown upon this change?

Don’t you think making defeats far less painful by making their reward gap smaller by making each individual's rewards depend more on themselves rather than the team they happen to be in, for a healthier War Thunder experience overall, is beneficial compared to earning 50 more SL or not…?

 

2 kill victories are a thing, as are 10 kill defeats. Let the rewards depend on YOUR own performance every match, instead of having 67% of them depend on which team you happen to be in.

Edited February 1, 2022 by SPANISH_AVENGER

[WheelchairGamer 1,387]

2 hours ago, Stona said:

 

Changes in the research trees

• F-104G 一 has been moved to rank VII.

Which F-104G will move to Rank VII?

We already have them in Germany and Italy also, China.

Edited January 27, 2022 by ReleaseTheMiG17

[Eila_Deker 123]

oh boy the rank based eco looks quiet good but i dont like getting less for winning

[MJPIA 468]

Was it really too much to ask for gaijin to just straight up buff rewards for losses instead of using a monkeys paw to take the increased rewards for losses away from the wins?

[WreckingAres283 4,245]

3 hours ago, Stona said:

F-104G 一 has been moved to rank VII.

which one ? XD (answered)

 

less for wins -> bad change: wins should keep thier rewarding, only rewards of loses need an slight increase

 

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by WreckingAres283
typo

[Stona 72,426]

6 minutes ago, ReleaseTheMiG17 said:

Which F-104G will move to Rank VII?

German

5 minutes ago, Eila_Deker said:

oh boy the rank based eco looks quiet good but i dont like getting less for winning

There was a time to vote on it.

3 minutes ago, WreckingAres283 said:

which one ? XD

 

less for wins -> bad change: wins should keep thier rewarding, only rewards of loses need an slight increase

 

As above.

[MJPIA 468]

Also the link to the poll in the article directs to a page not found error currently

[LudiKruc 131]

Well all this economy stuff in my honest oppinion is shooting yourself in the foot. 

You take all this time to model and create these vehicles and mechanic for what? To make players not play them because they are not "meta" or not the best or mediocre or just bad, or because they have higher repair cost then what they are capable of earning? This whole economy system to me makes 0 sense both for the company and players. Just look at Enlisted with its minimalistic economy system. You get both bronze and silver for playing the game (these are both orders which you need to upgrade weapons/soliders, get better weapons/soliders and equipment. Thats it. There is no buy cost for new squads, there is no cost to spawn your units, there is no tiddious grind for "money" so you can keep playing. Play to be able to play system isnt good. 

On that note I dont think the equal tier system would do any good to the game, as it is already mostly meta vehicles running around with very rare instances of support or not so popular vehicles. At least now you can play them and not be in negative silver. WHAT is the bigger problem is removing the activity for beeing in enemys "line of sight" this one change DRASTICLY reduced the ammount of "activity time" even when you kill 5-6 enemys in jets WITH A PREMIUM ACC you only get 5-6 000 RP which is insultingly low and you get that little squable Bcause your activiy was 15s for some odd reason even tho you were in a furball or a dogfight for more then few minutes. This change didnt only effect RP but also SL since activity time was THE money and RP maker rewarding activing playing MUCH more then camping or passive gameplay. 

This one change was the so impactful and I DO NOT undersand it for the life of me, it promotes camping and bad play for players and barely rewards players who actually play the game and know what they are doing. After 8 years of playing this game I believe I have a right to be rewarded well for my skill in battles and knowledge and if this company believes that THIS is unfair advantage then what is even the point of playing this game other then to make money to greedy chairmen. Cost of tanks planes helicopters and ships just goes up both in RP and SL yet player earnings go down or stay the same and that is frustrating A LOT of people. 

[Eila_Deker 123]

5 minutes ago, Stona said:

There was a time to vote on it.

i know but its a BAD idea Gaining less when winning means a longer grind wich means Players are less Happy

Edited January 27, 2022 by Eila_Deker

[Stona 72,426]

1 minute ago, MJPIA said:

Also the link to the poll in the article directs to a page not found error currently

 

Just checked. Works fine. Are you sure you are logged in on page? Without it, it will not works for you.

1 minute ago, Eila_Deker said:

i know but its a BAD idea Gaining less when winning means a longer grind

There was time to convince other Players for Your opinion. Now it's too late, sorry.

[Samogitian_Bear 50]

The losers will get more, the winners will get less. All that is missing is that the losers are randomly declared the winners. It is even clearer that defeating but losing fewer vehicles, that is, spending less on SL repairs, is more beneficial than winning.

[_Takyon 65]

8 minutes ago, MJPIA said:

Was it really too much to ask for gaijin to just straight up buff rewards for losses instead of using a monkeys paw to take the increased rewards for losses away from the wins?

No rewards are apparently a finite resource that you can't just grab out of nowhere. Incredible.

[Stona 72,426]

Just now, Samogitian_Bear said:

The losers will get more, the winners will get less. All that is missing is that the losers are randomly declared the winners. It is even clearer that defeating but losing fewer vehicles, that is, spending less on SL repairs, is more beneficial than winning.

As above. Guys, there was time to discuss it and convince other Players for Your opinion. You see the poll results on that. 

Now we have new poll, focused on way we should calculate vehicles economy.

[mk8_kox 8]

Did you know that by reducing the multiplier for less popular machines even fewer people will play them. I don't know how you can ruin the economy so much.

[MJPIA 468]

2 minutes ago, Stona said:

 

Just checked. Works fine. Are you sure you are logged in on page? Without it, it will not works for you.

There was time to convince other Players for Your opinion. Now it's too late, sorry.

I just double checked and it seems the forum discussion link works fine.

The link here in the forum is https://poll.gaijin.net/survey/93/, the link on the war thunder website currently goes to https://warthunder.com/poll.gaijin.net/survey/93/

 

(E) scratch that its been fixed to go to the proper link as well

Edited January 27, 2022 by MJPIA
its been fixed

[SPANISH_AVENGER 11,736]

12 minutes ago, Samogitian_Bear said:

The losers will get more, the winners will get less.

 

No.

 

Now, EACH player's rewards will depend more on THEIR own performance every match, rather than on being in the right team or not.

 

I am tired of having ace matches and being punished by not receiving 67% of the rewards just because I happened to be on the wrong team.

 

Rewards have not been "cut"; they have been re-distributed more evenly.

Edited January 27, 2022 by SPANISH_AVENGER

[Samogitian_Bear 50]

1 minute ago, Stona said:

As above. Guys, there was time to discuss it and convince other Players for Your opinion. You see the poll results on that. 

Now we have new poll, focused on way we should calculate vehicles economy.

Players wanted and voted. I have my opinion and I keep it, although I often lose due to the degraded experience of the players in team. I like this game and will adapt to any changes ...

[DarneliusOBalls 17]

thanks for ruining the rewards, I dont care what the bad players get, now every above-average player is going to get less rewards because of this stupid change.

[ᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁᆁ 7]

They're making the game even worse, let's gooooooooooooooooooooooo

[NATORDEN 91]

If the German F-104 moves to rank VII will that mean that I will then need 4 aircraft again to purchase the rank VII aircraft? (possibly to begin grind on F-4F as well?) 

[Stona 72,426]

3 minutes ago, notDoorFrame said:

thanks for ruining the rewards, I dont care what the bad players get, now every above-average player is going to get less rewards because of this stupid change.

 

You (Players) selected that option.

 

1 minute ago, Renamed50267 said:

They're making the game even worse, let's gooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

Explain please. Right now your feedback is useless

 

Just now, NATORDEN said:

If the German F-104 moves to rank VII will that mean that I will then need 4 aircraft again to purchase the rank VII aircraft? (possibly to begin grind on F-4F as well?) 

 

Rank requirement will be decreased by 1, yes.

[Red4113 12]

Will this mean that if this goes through planes like the Sagittario will be playable?

[Dodo_Dud 5,074]

Ok, so the new win/loss economy will be an overall nerf, simply from the percentage math.

[Chickbecombo 96]

2 hours ago, Stona said:

What SL reward distribution do you want to have in War Thunder?

• 66.1% 一 +20% for defeat and +47% for victory
• 33.9% 一 +0% зfor defeat and  +67%  for victory (same as before)

I really like this, dont know why people think its an bad thing, you cant always win, even though  you are playing like a god, you gonna lose alot. Very nice, thanks for listening. 

 

The new  economy also seems good.