[2021] Missouri's Earning Data 10.6 vs 10.7

Thanks for the nice visual represenation of data you've collected (and also to everyone here for staying cool)

We've also collected our data on Friday and started to analyze it, but regrettably couldn't complete it and prepare a statement. We will be back in the beginning of the coming week with information and further actions.

We don’t think players are dumb. In fact, we believe it’s reasonable for us to assume that players will generally be able to identify the ship by using its name and description. It’s also worth pointing out that while you seem to generally dislike the idea of cloning ships, the player you are quoting is saying that doing that would have been better. With Mo we chose not to clone because we thought that players would want “the original Missouri”, rather than a clone – we saw similar comments with Belfast.

Also, your example with Vampire II is curious, considering that is an actual surviving vessel. https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-vampire-ii

Not sure how to address the fact that you’re confused by its similarity to the other Vampire.

As for your characterization of effort, it’s worth pointing out that the two examples you give have nothing to do with each other, save for a QA and deployment process. Other than this they require different people, have a different complexity, require a different amount of workload and different tools to be used. Since it’s not the same person working on them, they can be addressed at the same time and one of them is easier than the other, so will be fixed faster. I believe this is normal.

The torpedo bug involved game logic, so while the solution was found within a week, it had to go through all the regular quality assurance processes, because just deploying the fix to production could have made the things even worse.

Best,

I think this has been mentioned already, but I just wanted to reiterate that we are going to bump it up if Missouri's credit earning aren't in line with other Premium T9s.

Thank you for spending the time to create this @LittleWhiteMouse!

Thanks for the comments, guys.

First of all, the nerfed average earnings are not an intended outcome. As we've said, we will fix those.

As for the "original MO" point - we obviously knew that there would be groups of players with different motivations. Those who want her for the historical aspect, those that want her purely for the earnings and those that care about both. However, not releasing the ship (in any form, whether original or clone) with the original boosted earnings was a requirement so we knew we simply would not be able to make that group of players happy anyway. The reason we chose to do it this way is purely technical - its the only ship which has a modifier built in, so being able to move that into a different area of earnings calculations gives us more freedom to work on the credit economy as a whole, without always having to check whether we didn't break Missouri either way. I'm sorry the chosen implementation might not be fully equivalent at the moment. Once that is achieved you will functionally have the original Missouri again.

Whether it would have been clearer with different naming that the ship has different characteristics - I'm not sure about that, based on observances made around the "B" variants. It's possible, but more likely split down the middle.

There are many purchase motivations, to be sure. There are also many undesirable side-effects of a booster like that: players will overplay MO when they are grinding, causing too many of them in MM at certain periods, credit-related missions and achievements become unbalanced, credit flags become devalued, etc. The original MOs are generally fine, because they are comparatively few and because, as you pointed out, for veteran players they do not have the value anymore. Getting a flood of new boosted MOs would alter the ways those players interact with the game's economy over time and this would be unhealthy for the game.

Also, @Mademoisail meant that that we will adjust the mission for the old Missouri to match pre-patch. We're all a bit tired, since the team is understaffed.

Best,

Thanks for that. It's well written.

I understand your perspective on the MO, but it was not "nerfed all around". What I said is that there are further technical benefits of moving her credit earnings bonus to another mechanism that weighed in on the decision.

Maredraco was trying to account for the same and I've already stated this before. As we promised, the boosted earnings bonus for the original MO will stay permanently. Right now it has been moved to a mission and we are working on making sure that the earnings match expectations. However, we also need to have the flexibility to later switch this earnings bonus to another mechanism so that we can operate on the economy of the game.

You are absolutely correct that we need to be precise in our communications and that there are too many examples of where we were not. This is an organizational struggle we will always have as a huge and distributed team, and we will probably have some mistakes in the future as well, but still we are committed to improving this over time.

Best,