Missouri Credit Earning Data: 10.6 vs 10.7
forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/243733-missou...Posted Aug 28, 2021, 12:37 AM UTC
53753
forum.worldofwarships.com
You are a legend sister, unbelievable this, really now, great job as always.
131
Thus, while the two look close, 10.6 Missouri still stands out as being better than 10.7 with the +20% credit earning mission.
Players who already own the ship at the moment Update 0.10.7 goes live will, on average, earn the same number of Credits as before
So wargaming lied, again. The last minute increase from 17% to 20% credit bonus is still not comparable to pre-nerf.
Thank you for the work LWM
118
The twins covered it best on one of the EU-Twitch streams. When modifiers are applied, there's no way for a mission to equate the multiplicative value received from 10.6 or prior across all variables. They can get close (kinda), but they will always be off. So they're left with the following possibilities:
- Make it so it's accurate for base credit earning.
- Make it so it's accurate for the theoretical maximum credit earning.
- Go for something in the middle.
- Not fuck with it in the first place and leave Mo as she was and stop using her as loot-box bait.
Based on the data I have (which is admittedly flawed and limited in scope), it appears Wargaming is going with #3 with the 20% option. 20% appears to give more credits than Mo received previously without modifiers but it appears to be fewer credits than you would get with all of the modifiers applied. It's close, but it's not the same. Don't be surprised if we see the mission nudged up a percentage point or two to better obfuscate the difference.
118
I see. Thank you for the thorough explanation!
11
Great work as always, Thank you.
7
They should have waited to make Missouri B which could have had its own credit earnings and perhaps Missouri 1945...
as a separate ship no one would have been harmed
5
They should have waited to make Missouri B which could have had its own credit earnings and perhaps Missouri 1945...
as a separate ship no one would have been harmed
They should have made USS Wisconsin or USS New Jersey instead if they wanted another of the Iowa-class in game with different mid or late war config.
Missouri is obviously Missouri, but the others have their own accolades and achievements.
2
They could have. But some people would have complained about getting a different ship nonetheless. If for no other reason but for ship collection purposes.
1
Basically, you proved that wargambling weegee broke their promise about "Never Ever Changing Premium Ships".
Not that they have a reputation to defend anymore, but solid proof helps sometimes.
3
Couldn't they not just copy-paste Missouri, name one "Missouri 2" or something and give that one the original credit modifier and only people who originally owned the Missouri can have that ship? That should be coding work of at max 1-2 hours.
2
Someone at Wargaming once tried to tell me that it takes an enormous amount of time to copy and paste a clone.
Yeah, I didn't believe 'em either.
16
I guess when too many bundles of $100 bills are littering your workstation, it really makes it hard to move your extremities around.....like your hand from control-c to control-v.
3
Watch as they eventually remove the "permanent mission" like UU ones and forget about it all together.
1
LWM is forced to do what WG cannot do because, apparently, math is hard.
There is no way to equate the BXP credit multiplier with an add-on mission. We knew this, WG apparently did not.
This could have easily been resolved by making a MO clone. But WG chocse not to. Intentionally.
29
Realistically if they wanted to make things stay the exact same they could have just done a missouri '45 thats the exact same previous missouri but without the credit modifier. Slap a shiny camo on it themed for VJ day, done. Would have saved so much headache.
29
Or they could just admit mistake and convert all old MO owner to MO'45 now. Ez.
1
So TLDR I should stick to my Georgia
22
[removed]
-11
whats the average percentage of extra credits that the old miss did compared to the roma with the credit camo? 20% extra?
8
Continuously disappointed by WG, but not surprised…
Good work as always, u/AprilWhiteMouse.
7
[deleted]
1
Did you have time to run a linear regression on the data? It could be useful to get an approximate credits/exp based on the entire dataset and it's not too tricky to run in r or Matlab.
4
Nuh uh -- that's beyond me. But most of the submitted results are public and can be found here and on the NA and EU forums. That should be enough for those inclined to do further analysis.
4
Oh you can easily do it actually. You can get a regression just through Excel, it does it all for you. Instead of a dot cloud, youd get nice lines which would help you haha.
0†
or better yet, python
2
import numpy
2
yes, almost half of the of the job is "import numpy as np"
wham bam thank you ma'am it's 60$/hour
2
This is amazing, love your work, April.
What this continues to prove though is that the precedent for not fucking with premium ships is well and truly busted. You can bet (pun absolutely intended) Missouri won’t be the last premium ship to be messed with. *Belfast and MK look nervous
4
Can you share the data set so we can do statistics on it?
1
[deleted]
1
If you got it years ago, you have the original. You only get the 'new' version if you got it this month, more or less, or later.
How to test it? I don't have either so I can't say for sure, but you could check your combat missions to see if you have the +20% credits mission for the Missouri. It should be valid til the end of the year after which it should renew for another year. At least in theory.
2
[deleted]
2
I’m still not spending any money to obtain it.
1
Thank you LWM
1
I`m a bit confused.
The game says Missouri +20% credit mission is valid for 124days as of now.
Wasn't it suppose to be indefinite?
1
WeeGee Spaghetti code can't actually make indefinite missions, so they just set it to expire at the end of the year and refresh it.
And sometimes, you know, don't.
2
LWM spreadsheet > WG spreadsheet
1
No, their spreadsheet is better, no question. They have access to more data and they have automated tools to collect it all and render it. Their interpretation of said data and what data they choose to look at in order to reach their game design conclusions is questionable. I'm kinda tired of hearing: "Dude, trust me," when I ask to see their homework.
6
The dog eating it would be more convincing...
1
[deleted]
1
the mission only compensates for the nerf if no credit boosting flags or camos are used.
i did the math here.
the TLDR is that the amount of credits lost by the 17.5% income nerf is multiplied by any credit boost from flags/camo, while the reward from the bonus mission is a flat percentage of base income.
when using no credit boost, missouri now earns 1% less than previously, with a 100% credit boost its roughly 9% less, and with the maximum boost possible (195% afaik) it's roughly 12% less.
1
Ok, time to uninstall ..... they should have given original owners the option to get free exp or doubloons back....
1
So... WG lied again... somehow this doesnt surprise me anymore
1
Thank you everyone who took the time to submit results.
Your welcome
No problem, glad to help!
-⁰(◠_◠;)⁰v-