Main page

Its extremely low..

I can make profit even in standard account with the lousy tier IX T34 but its super hard for the AMX 50-100.

FYI, currently I have 85% hit ratio and nearly 2k5 damage per battle, so please dont say anything about " make your shots count" etc...

The problem with the 100mm on the high tier french 'heavies' (more like fat mediums, amirite?) is the fact that you put out such a huge volume of fire at 1k+ per shell. This huge volume of fire has two effects: it causes a huge amount of damage, and it costs a huge amount of credits.

Would you propose upping the earning coefficient for the 100mm? So that you earn more per unit of damage done than other T8 tanks? Would you really propose that you pay less than other T9's while putting out more damage than them? THAT would make the 50 100 overpowered. Right now, it's fair. The high costs help off-set the mass damage you can do. This doesn't need to change.

Lert, on Feb 05 2012 - 01:39, said:

My tier IX T34 has the same damage/battle but less hit ratio and survive rate than my AMX 50-100, but I've noticed ( actually, not "noticed", I in fact run the T34 to gain profit >.< )that the amount of credits earning is much higher than the AMX

If you want to count shots. Let say:
-average shot per match for my T34 is ~12 shots
-average shot per match for my AMX is ~14 shots

The gap is only 2 shot which is around 2k credit, isnt it?

Or I can use my tier VII T29. It has only 1k7 damage (1k credit per shell too) but be still a better credit printer than even the T34. ( Forget the myth "damaging higher tiers gives more credits)

___

About the AMX, even a win cant pay off the bill..like this

GardenofSinners, on Feb 05 2012 - 02:52, said:

Hit ratio doesn't include bounces.  For all we know, you may be aiming at weakspots in your T34, and spamming shots at the silhouette of the tank in your AMX 50 100.  This would explain how you do the same damage despite having more shots and a higher hit ratio.  In essence, you have less penetrating shots on your AMX.

Silty, on Feb 05 2012 - 03:04, said:

How about this pic.

A draw (just like a loss) in my T34

Only 814 exp but 47k credits. If I had won, it would have been 1,221 exp and 70k credits. I gain 6k credits for A LOSS.



And look again at the AMX pic.

A win , 1,725 exp and 46k credits



Dont you see the big hole here?

Yeah, I noticed the credit income of the 50 100 is fairly low by comparison to other tier 8, even tier 9 tanks...and though the gun puts out a large volume of damage, 2k+ damage games don't give as many credits as they should.

I don't have evidence to particularly back this up, mind you, but it definitely feels low.

I would have no problems compiling evidence that should prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is something wrong with this tank. I can tell after 200+ games with the 50-100 that it does not earn near as many credits as other tier 8s. Never on any of my tier 8s have I gotten over 1000 xp, won the match, and lost money. Such is the case with the 50-100. On a consistent basis, the tank only earns 0-10k with 10k being a particularly good game. My IS-4 earns a larger profit even if it gets obliterated.

Something certainly seems fishy about the AMX100s credit income getting 46k credits from a 1.7K exp match doesn't seem happen to other t8

Oh and just to put the early T34 loss in perspective

cipher12, on Feb 05 2012 - 23:39, said:

I mentioned the credit payout seemed low to clanmates a while back.  If the french 50-100 paid on par with the other t8's it would NEGATE any reason to BUY a premium tank.

Remember that exp and credits do not have a direct correlation. You can get a high amount of exp and low amount of credits, and vice-versa.

More than likely, the system works something like this.

Nichts, on Feb 08 2012 - 18:40, said:

The damage output compared with the payout makes no sense.  Especially when a lot of the damage is to t8-9-10 stuff.  2k damage to that stuff should more than pay for the "ammo" expenses which are comparable to the e50.  Comparable # of shots damage etc the e50 actually makes more money. Its pretty apparent when you play enough games and compare with the payout of say the e50 or panther2/t44 (for apples to apples comparisons).  The total cred payout is smaller on the 50-100 before the ammo cost.  I know the p2 and t44 are cheaper per shot but the base payout is smaller for similar damage output games fpr the 50-100.  Heck the 50-100 I know is pummeling much higher tier on average tanks than the t44 or p2 and getting less of a payout.  Am I wrong that damaging an e100 for 400pts pays more than a tiger2 for 400?

This isn't the first time I've seen this with new tanks. Two examples actually come to mind:

The first was when they introduced the American TD's, and the Slugger was earning hardly anything. I was actually losing money, and that was with a Premium account. From what I remember reading other people say this was quite common.

The other is the VK4502 Ausf. A, which Just barely breaks even each match I play. This is despite the fact that all other Tier 8 heavy tanks I've played have actually been quite profitable. it seems to be is way for new tanks they introduce, and I'm not sure why.


Now it you really want to get scared, your earnings in the AMX-50-100 (total money earned, not net gaimed)  appear to be the same as what I earned in my ARL-44. This is despite the fact that the ARL-44 has appalling damage output, especially when compared to the AMX series. I do nowhere near as much damage as you have been either. Heck, it seems you're having the same problem I do in the VK4502....no matter how much damage I do it barely pays for itself.

Could be worse though....ever tried making a profit with the stock T-54?  

Panzer4life, on Feb 09 2012 - 03:47, said:

Making profit with the E-75 >.< on standard account atm.

Aside from the credit factor, how come no one has pointed out the fact that the 100mm does a paltry 300 damage compared to the various other large caliber bruiser shells?
The King Tiger, coming in at 320 damage, as I recall doesn't make good income either. And the T-54 also suffers from only doing 320 while her competitors drop 390s.

To crank the same 2400 damage with a T34 requires 6 shells, the French 100mm requires 8, that alone increases operating costs by 2k before you even consider the credit factor.
If you're firing the same number of shots, the French tank invariably does 25% less damage, or the American does 33% more, depending on how you want to slice it.
I've heard that the AMX 50-120 makes good money, it's probably no surprise as it drops 400 damage for only a marginal increase in shell price.

im ok with the credits being low if its the price I have to pay from them nerfing this thing into the ground.

Skraeling, on Feb 09 2012 - 18:46, said:

It is only a DECENT/GOOD tank for its tier (the 100mm gun takes FOREVER to reload). In a bad game where my entire team sucks and I die, I can lose up to 20k credits just from one match. In a great game where I get 5 kills and our team wins, I will get a profit of 1-5k (usually I end up losing about 5k in a good game). I have stopped playing the tank because of how horrible the credit pay is. And you seem to have the mentality that "Because it's a good tank, it should get shitty amounts of cred". Your logic is that of a neanderthal, like saying "We deserve to lose money because it keeps them from nerfing it". There are plenty of other tanks even BETTER than the amx 50 100, do you think they all deserve to lose money because YOU think that they are OP? Let's put this into a different perspective, shall we? The king tiger is of equal tier, decent speed for a heavy, good gun, and tons of angled/thick armor. The AMX 50 100 has terrible armor for its tier, great gun, faster (if you get good engine). The only thing to benefit from the amx 50 is overall speed, which last time I checked, it wasn't a light tank. Now before you b*** to me about "the playstyle of the tank", yes you can play the tank well, but the reward for doing well still doesn't make up for price of repair and ammo. This is why I consider the amx 50 120 a premium tank because the only way you will ever get the money for it is with a premium account.
TL;DR The tank is ok, but the cred reward will never make up for the costs

This is the same for the Lorraine 40t. They have a bad credit income.

High xp, low creds.

With the 100mm, even on a win, with repairs and kit, its often just break even. And no, it's not that it doesn't perform, the average xp is ~950 for mine.

The 100mm is a credit sink.  For the amount you have to pay in ammunition costs it doesn't produce adequate results.  Now the 90mm...that is a pretty good gun for what it costs.  It is as if the AMX50 100 was made for the 90mm for it has the same reload as an AMX50 120 with the 120mm, has very good penetration, does decent damage, and is so cheap to fire it is almost criminal.  The profit margins you get with the 90mm are far beyond any of the other Tier 8 heavies, and in my experience I earned just as much (if not more) exp using the 90mm as I did with the 100mm because the lower reload rate of the 90mm allowed me to spend more time fighting and less time reloading.

I would highly recommend the 90mm over the 100mm any day of the week despite the fact that is seems counter-intuitive towards the AMX50's armament.

j0esj0es20, on Mar 11 2012 - 02:13, said:

Could you go just jump off a bridge next time before insulting someone? It will save you from looking foolish. Maybe try and check my profile?  Know a little back ground on the target of your baseless flaming before you open your beak and make a total ass of yourself?  I had a 50100.  Now I have a 50120.

Another fun fact I'm better in my 50100 than you are and pretty much the game in general in every single conceivable category it has.

Thank you thank you I'm here all week.

Idiot.

I stopped trying to grind credits in my AMX tanks.

The only way you make money with the high tier french tanks is if you take almost no damage or fire almost no shots. You can have a great battle and do over 2k dmg and still lose money. It sucks.