Original Missouri Special Mission Missing?

[Merc85]

I just played my original Missouri for the first time in a while and the credits earned seemed low to me.  So I went and looked for the special mission that gives the original Missouri a 30% bonus and couldn't find it.  What am I missing?  Thanks.
P.S.  In two battles I did around 85k damage in each and base credits earned were $335k which seems very low for the original Missouri.   No where did I see the 30% permanent missions addition that is supposed to be there per WoWS Wiki.

 

[Nevermore135]

12 minutes ago, Merc85 said:

What am I missing? 

The credit mission was reworked into the new permanent bonus package. Owners of the OG MO have one with a larger credit bonus than those that obtained her during her reintroduction event.

Edited February 7 by Nevermore135

[Merc85]

Great.  Thanks.  It seems that wiki is then incorrect.

[Merc85]

This is where you can see this extra 30% bonus since it's now baked into her permanent bonus (Missouri gets 40% credit bonus while other premiums get 10%).
 

[Admiral_Karasu]

4 hours ago, Merc85 said:

Great.  Thanks.  It seems that wiki is then incorrect.

No, technically the stated 40% is correct, and the change is covered by wiki in detail if you go and have a look at the ship change log in the article.

Quote

Update 0.11.6:

• The combat mission for +30% credits was removed. Instead, owners received an improved permanent Credit bonus of +40% instead of the default +10%.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Missouri

[Verblonde]

Besides the above, something similar happened with other ships that had 'extra bonus' permaflages before the split. For example, I think my Ashitaka has better than normal bonuses because I have the Kobayashi cammo for her...

[Merc85]

18 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

No, technically the stated 40% is correct, and the change is covered by wiki in detail if you go and have a look at the ship change log in the article.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Missouri

 

[Nevermore135]

18 hours ago, Verblonde said:

Besides the above, something similar happened with other ships that had 'extra bonus' permaflages before the split. For example, I think my Ashitaka has better than normal bonuses because I have the Kobayashi cammo for her...

To add to this, what WG did was combine the best of each type of bonus across all of a player’s permanent camos for each ship. For example, HSF Harekaze has two camos that were sold together with the ship at one time, one came with +100% FXP and the other one with +50% CXP. The bonus package post rework reflected both those bonuses.

Edited February 8 by Nevermore135

[ArIskandir]

22 hours ago, Merc85 said:

Great.  Thanks.  It seems that wiki is then incorrect.

Pinging @iDuckman

[ArIskandir]

5 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Pinging @iDuckman

Edit: Forget it Duckie, old news. That's what happens when you post before reading the full thread... 

 

Uhg... quoted instead of editing, cognitive performance at record low levels, it's gonna be one of those days... 

Edited February 8 by ArIskandir

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Edit: Forget it Duckie, old news. That's what happens when you post before reading the full thread... 

 

Uhg... quoted instead of editing, cognitive performance at record low levels, it's gonna be one of those days... 

I know the feeling..

[Andrewbassg]

On 2/7/2024 at 7:08 PM, Nevermore135 said:

The credit mission was reworked into the new permanent bonus package. Owners of the OG MO have one with a larger credit bonus than those that obtained her during her reintroduction event.

So.... Wedgie removed the bonus from the camo, made it a separate mission and then...... moved it back to be a bonus ?

 

Well,...... it seems legit, standard  MO for Wedgie ......

Edited February 8 by Andrewbassg

[Pugilistic]

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Edit: Forget it Duckie, old news. That's what happens when you post before reading the full thread... 

 

Uhg... quoted instead of editing, cognitive performance at record low levels, it's gonna be one of those days... 

 

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I know the feeling..

Good to know I am not alone. 

[Nevermore135]

11 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

So.... Wedgie removed the bonus from the camo, made it a separate mission and then...... moved it back to be a bonus ?

The credit bonus was never on the camo - it was baked into the ship itself at launch.

Edited February 8 by Nevermore135

[Andrewbassg]

3 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

The credit bonus was never on the camo - it was baked into the ship itself at launch.

Well...if we want to be technical about it, then part of it was in the ship and part of it on the camo, right? So... the point still stands, also as being quite hilarious.

[Nevermore135]

23 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Well...if we want to be technical about it, then part of it was in the ship and part of it on the camo, right? So... the point still stands, also as being quite hilarious.

If we want to be technical about it, the old permanent camo on Missouri awarded +10% credits. This was unchanged when WG reintroduced Missouri, as the camo remained unchanged but they altered the inherent credit multiplier on the ship. The +30% mission was intended to make up the difference from changing the inherent credit earning capability of the ship for OG Missouri owners, which was always independent of the camo.

Every owner of MO had a +10% credit camo prior to the economic rework. This is the reason why every player that obtained MO after her reintroduction (either through her event or as a container drop afterwards) now has a permanent bonus that offers +10% credits. This is the same as any other tier IX premium ship, before or after the rework.

After the economic rework, there was no longer any more need to have a discrete +30% credit bonus mission for original owners, as it’s initial functional purpose was to provide a way to boost credits independent of either the ship itself (so WG could distribute MO again in the event and cease distributing credit-printing versions of the ship in containers) and camo (so OG owners could still use camos with good bonuses as they could before). The new permanent bonus feature provided the same functionality, making the mission redundant and a more complicated and bug-prone way to code in the credit bonus. Thus, after the economic rework OG owners no longer have a credit mission, but rather the +40% bonus (10 + 30 = 40).

Edited February 8 by Nevermore135

[Andrewbassg]

17 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

If we want to be technical about it, the old permanent camo on Missouri awarded +10% credits. This was unchanged when WG reintroduced Missouri, as the camo remained unchanged but they altered the inherent credit multiplier on the ship. The +30% mission was intended to make up the difference from changing the inherent credit earning capability of the ship for OG Missouri owners, which was always independent of the camo.

Every owner of MO had a +10% credit camo prior to the economic rework. This is the reason why every player that obtained MO after her reintroduction (either through her event or as a container drop afterwards) now has a permanent bonus that offers +10% credits. This is the same as any other tier IX premium ship, before or after the rework.

After the economic rework, there was no longer any more need to have a discrete +30% credit bonus mission for original owners, as it’s initial functional purpose was to provide a way to boost credits independent of either the ship itself (so WG could distribute MO again in the event and cease distributing credit-printing versions of the ship in containers) and camo (so OG owners could still use camos with good bonuses as they could before). The new permanent bonus feature provided the same functionality, making the mission redundant and a more complicated and bug-prone way to code in the credit bonus. Thus, after the economic rework OG owners no longer have a credit mission, but rather the +40% bonus (10 + 30 = 40).

Yes, that's how a proper argumentation based on technicalities looks like. However, my point was about merit and end result, because it was intended as humor.

Which is: they removed bonus , made it mission, then put it back 🙂. And that is as funny, as is also representative 🙂 .

[Nevermore135]

12 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

However, my point was about merit and end result, because it was intended as humor.

And I see neither the logic nor humor. *shrug*

12 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Which is: they removed bonus , made it mission, then put it back 🙂. And that is as funny, as is also representative 🙂 .

The thing is they never “put the bonus back.” They simply applied the same +30% credits from the old mission to the new economic bonus (which is independent from the ship, as evidenced by different players having different bonus packages for the same ship). They are doing the same thing as they were doing immediately prior to the rework, simply in a more efficient manner using the mechanics of the new economic system.

In fact, pre- and post-change MO has never had exactly the same credit earning. The new flat +30% bonus simply produces average results very similar to the old OG MO (more credits in lower-performing games, less in higher-performing games) per the LWM’s multiple studies on the manner on the old forums.

Edited February 8 by Nevermore135

[Admiral_Karasu]

6 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

The thing is they never “put the bonus back.” They simply applied the same +30% credits from the old mission to the new economic bonus...

 

Well that was the outcome back then. You may remember that the actual process of getting there seemed to cause WG some 'technical difficulties'.

[Andrewbassg]

8 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

And I see neither the logic nor humor. *shrug*

Well....not everybody has the same tastes in, or sense of humour. Which is a good thing.

 

8 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

The thing is they never “put the bonus back.” 

Ofc they did. 🙂 Is a bonus tied to a specific  ship? Of course,right? . So.....yep. It is back ON the ship.  Arguably not IN the ship.

Edited February 8 by Andrewbassg

[Nevermore135]

20 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Well....not everybody has the same tastes in, or sense of humour. Which is a good thing.

 

Ofc they did. 🙂 Is a bonus tied to a specific  ship? Of course,right? . So.....yep. It is back in the ship.  

Except it’s not. All Missouris in the game are exactly the same (one of the reasons WG changed things in the way they did was to avoid having to code two different ships). What is different is the discrete bonus packages attached to these ships: OG owners have one version that gives +40% credits, while others have one that only gives +10% credits. This isn’t the only case of the same ship having multiple possible bonus packages either. Several old camo bonuses were combined into new bonus packages with the rework. For example, I had two special camos for HSF Harekaze that were combined into a unique permanent bonus package that awards extra FXP and commander XP compared to a standard tier VIII bonus. I also had a National camo for Warspite that means that my Warspite’s bonus package now has a unique bonus that awards extra credits compared to the standard tier VI bonus that other owners of Warspite get.

As I alluded to earlier, the credit earning coefficient build into a ship and the bonuses from permanent and expendable boosters are not the same thing (hence why OG MO owners don’t see exactly the same credit earning as they did before the ship was changed). It’s been a while since I looked at the math (and the reference is gone with the old forum), but I believe the credit earning coefficient works multiplicatively with boosters, while the permanent bonus functions just like expendable boosters and works additively.

So +20% credit earning coefficient (that is, the baked-in property of the ship) would be calculated:

1.20*X, where X is the “+%” boost from expendable boosters,

while a +20% permanent bonus would instead be calculated: 1*(.2 + X).

 

Edited February 8 by Nevermore135

[Nevermore135]

31 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well that was the outcome back then. You may remember that the actual process of getting there seemed to cause WG some 'technical difficulties'.

It’s still not the same, per my posts above. LWM did an analysis with crowd-sourced earning data on the old NA forum, and average earnings over time with the mission/bonus package are merely similar for OG MO users compared to before the ship was changed with the “Return of Missouri” event.

Edited February 8 by Nevermore135

[Andrewbassg]

2 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

It’s still not the same, per my posts above. LWM did an analysis with crowd-sourced earning data on the old NA forum, and average earnings over time are merely similar for OG MO users.

Yes she did. Now if your argument is that is not the same bonus, that's a different point, which has its own, separate merits. However, if the defining criteria is that it is different from all other ships, then for all intents and purposes, my point still stands.

Even your own examples  (Warspite, etc) underscore this, coz one can't separate the bonuses from those  ships, nor can transfer them. They are not baked in, but tied to, which is, in effect, the same thing.

[Nevermore135]

39 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yes she did. Now if your argument is that is not the same bonus, that's a different point, which has its own, separate merits. However, if the defining criteria is that it is different from all other ships, then for all intents and purposes, my point still stands.

My point is that mechanically and functionally, OG Missouri with built-in credit bonus was one unique thing, both technically (how it worked) and functionally (what it does/the results it produced). Let’s call this state “A.”

The intermediate “Missouri + mission” between the rework of the ship and the economic rework was a completely different thing, both mechanically (mission vs. built in credit multiplier) and functionally (it does not produce the same results). Let’s call this state “B.”

The current state of things (MO with +40% permanent bonus), let’s call this state “C,” is both mechanically and functionally different from “state A.” One actually could argue it is functionally identical to state “B” (MO with mission), though, as while it applies the +30% credits in a nominally different way (it’s part of the bonus package rather than a separate mission) it produces an identical result.

This is why I took issue with your (apparently humorous) assertion that the situation with MO has returned to how it was before the mission was a thing. WG didn’t revert things back to state A, either in form or function.

39 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Even your own examples  (Warspite, etc) underscore this, coz one can't separate the bonuses from those  ships, nor can transfer them. They are not baked in, but tied to, which is, in effect, the same thing.

The fact that I have a different bonus from others on the server does in fact indicate that bonus packages are distinct from the ship they are attached to. The bonus is different in the game’s code, not the ship. The same is true for Missouri.

I’ve already explained the functional difference between a credit earning bonus that is part of the ship (multiplicative) and an external bonus (additive). If your argument boils down to there being a meaningful difference between a bonus package “tied to a ship” and a mission “tied to a ship” but not between the bonus package “tied to ship” and the inherent credit multiplier “baked in/tied to the ship” I think we’ve exhausted this conversation, as I find your logic just a contradictory as you apparently find mine and we’re just going in circles. 🙂

 

 

 

 

Edited February 8 by Nevermore135

[Andrewbassg]

4 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

My point is that mechanically and functionally, OG Missouri with built-in credit bonus was one unique thing, both technically (how it worked) and functionally (what it does/the results it produced). Let’s call this state “A.”

The intermediate “Missouri + mission” between the rework of the ship and the economic rework was a completely different thing, both mechanically (mission vs. built in credit multiplier) and functionally (it’s does not produce the same results). Let’s call this state “B.”

The current state of things (MO with +40% permanent bonus), let’s call this state “C,” is both mechanically and functionally different from “state A.” One actually could argue it is functionally identical to state “B” (MO with mission), though, as while it applies the +30% credits in a nominally different way (it’s part of the bonus package rather than a separate mission) it produces identical resul

Yes. However...

5 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

assertion that the situation with MO has returned to how it was before the mission was a thing.

.....I never claimed that Wedgie reverted to status A. Moreso, also never claimed that the bonus iterations were the same. I found it hilarious that they removed the bonus, only to end up in the same place. Which is, for an admittedly outsider  (not owner of the ship) quite hilarious and also representative, regardless of why ( if not making it even more). i can certainly understand that for an owner not being the case.

16 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

The fact that I have a different bonus from others on the server does in fact indicate that bonus packages are in fact distinct from the ship they are attached to. The bonus is different in the game’s code, not the ship. The same is true for Missouri.

 

Nobody questioned that, but they are still permanently and, to the user, inseparably attached to, their, respective ship .

21 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

I think we’ve exhausted this conversation.

Pretty much. There wasn't a difference of opinions (all being factual), but rather differing povs.