Are premium vehicles "pay to win"?

[Lenticulas 9]

I was wondering: are premium vehicles "pay to win"?
Or maybe just "Do You win More in a Prem than a normal Tank"

All this is in glops, although it might reasonably apply to the other modes
It's all just FYI, make whatever conclusions you want

Place your bets on the results now, my furry friends, and I'll continue...

How could I find this out?
Obviously if you have a Prem, you will have an increased chance of coming higher-up the scoring list, because Premiums have a better chance of being top tier.
Apparently Prems are supposed to be: just normal tanks that earn you more credits.
But ... if the MM balances the Premiums, you will have just as much chance of coming top of a losing team, as of a winning team. So that would be no advantage, in terms of winrate.
Well I thought I could see if having more Prems in your team gave you a better chance of winning.

So I looked through all the games I could find in my folder, and screen-shotted the team-results-screens.
And made a chart of the results of what happens, if your team has more Premiums than the other team.

... And remember that Prems are supposed to get no special winning advantages apart from extra Credit/xp earnings.

Here's the result. Out of 134 games. (i think)
The middle (grey) column is if the Prems are the same on both sides 2 vs. 2 for example, so these are irrelevant.
The scores along the bottom, are if you have more prems than the other side. +1, +2 +3 etc.
The Left side, is if you have more Prems than the other team, and LOSE.
The Right side, is if you have more Prems than the other team and WIN.
I have coloured the columns so you can compare the same +1 with +1 etc. win vs. lose




Notes.
I didn't take any account of Tier, whatever tank it is, who's in a platoon, who's not, who's a Strela+Ophelia stat-padder*,
who's in a top-shelf Batallion in a platoon over Skype, whatever. There wasn't much at tier 10,
because there aren't really many T9-10 premiums,
also you can't reliably get a Glops game at T5-6, so the results are mostly T7, 8, 9.
And I don't promise this has any statistical rigour or validity of any kind, or even that I didnt just cock the whole thing up, in some way.

*You should be ashamed of yourself: try that in a Sprut, you talentless seal-clubber.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Lenticulas
additional sacrifices to the Dark Lord of the Infernal Regions (see edit history)

[Komitadjie 13]

Keeping in mind that this is going to be heavily biased by progression line grinding.  Your *average* player who's grinding a progression line is going to have to go through some really bad vehicles, but will be playing them because they HAVE to for progression.  And also will very likely be playing only partially upgraded.  A premium (that people are choosing to play) is generally already at least decent, and is fully upgraded.  

 

So I don't think you really CAN get valid results here, without a lot deeper dive into what each player is running.  For this to work, you'd have to have "average" vehicles for a tier that aren't particularly strong or weak at a given tier, and you'd also have to have them all fully upgraded.  

[knutliott 41]

In addition to what Komitadjie said, you also have to factor in "early release" vehicles that are straight-up OPAF but get nerfed later.  Object 490, CATTB, I'm lookin' at you.  People will play the crap out of those while they're OPAF but they less once they've been "balanced" which to me could distort your results.

You also have people like me who simply play Premium vehicles as often as possible for the extra credits.  Unless I'm grinding something, I specifically play Premiums whether or not they're better so that I can continue to build up my credit stockpile.  I happen to be above average in PvE (which doesn't affect your GLOPS stats of course, but could affect PvE stats) so me in a Premium is a significant boost to a team that has little to do with the Premium itself.

[Lenticulas 9]

17 hours ago, Komitadjie said:

Your *average* player who's grinding a progression line is going to have to go through some really bad vehicles ...

 

10 hours ago, knutliott said:

"early release" vehicles that are straight-up OPAF ...

Good points, and definitely would have affected the results.
There was probably a lot of other stuff too: good players platooning with voice coms, platoons in general, people getting a rental and trying it out, wallet warriors who'd never been above T4 before, everyone and his brother-in-law grinding Seon-gun's...

The matches were anything from this:
Total Prems everywhere chaos

 

To this:
1 platoon of good players all with OP tanks (and Ophelia, FYI) and maybe voice too,  while the blue team had nothing

 

I suspect ...
most of the differences in the first chart was a mix of:
genuinely OP pre-nerf tanks,
and Good players, platooning who would have won in any tank probably, but just had prems anyway, for the credits

Edited June 29, 2020 by Lenticulas
spelling, grammar, oneiromancy (see edit history)

[JintoLin 9]

I think the biggest factor is how you are treated by the match maker that day. The MM with either bless you or curse you, there is no prem tank that can save you from it's wrath.

[di_duncan 24]

I don't think there can really be a direct correlation between the premiums and winrate. Even if there are statistical connection(s) between premium vehicles and performance, I doubt anyone would be able to find causation to definitively indicate that premiums improve the odds of victory. 

While I understand the OP does not claim premium vehicles are P2W, a generalization of said degree can be easily disproven with a battle such as this:

Two premiums (Type 10s) vs no premiums. Even though our team were against a skilled heavyweight platoon led by Flavio's Type 10 and despite my grievances with the current Type 10 (which you can read about in the "far east fighter" thread), we managed to pull of a miraculous victory. Premiums ≠ Victory

On 6/28/2020 at 3:13 PM, Lenticulas said:

Obviously if you have a Prem, you will have an increased chance of coming higher-up the scoring list, because Premiums have a better chance of being top tier.

Can I get a reference for this claim? I seriously doubt premium vehicles have preferential matchmaking, especially considering how [relatively] small the current playerbase is. 

Overall, my matchups have been fairly diverse. While tier 10 premiums must be top tier, most of my tier 9 games have been uptiers. The games I've played from tier 8 to tier 5 have been a mixed bag, with approximately a 50/50 chance of either an uptier or a downtier. I personally haven't noticed any matchmaker preference between queuing in premium vs. non-premium vehicles.

On 6/28/2020 at 3:56 PM, Komitadjie said:

Keeping in mind that this is going to be heavily biased by progression line grinding.  Your *average* player who's grinding a progression line is going to have to go through some really bad vehicles, but will be playing them because they HAVE to for progression.  And also will very likely be playing only partially upgraded.  A premium (that people are choosing to play) is generally already at least decent, and is fully upgraded.  

While I agree that progression vehicles are more likely to suffer from poor performance as a consequence of their grinds, I believe the general trend for victories follows team composition, vehicle combat effectiveness (capabilities/potential) and player skill above all else. In view of these considerations, occasionally I can correctly predict the outcome of a match before it even begins. Unfortunately, singling out individual players/vehicles may be unproductive when discussing the likelihood of victory in a team-based game. This is especially relevant in GlOps, where failure and success hinges on a teams ability to PTFO; in this case, capping objectives.

 

Team composition is often a significant factor in deciding the outcome of a battle. As I've mentioned previously in one of my previous posts, MBTs (and some other vehicles of note) are currently the most valuable class, as they are resilient, versatile and adaptable; as such, they can consistently carry. Meanwhile, vehicles such as the Wilk and MGM are tragically one-dimensional. Without armor or flexibility, these snipers are often extremely frustrating to play against, but usually contribute little to nothing when it comes to objective play. It's often no surprise then, when such mismatches result in a loss:

 

Note the number of T-15s and MGMs. Surprisingly, this specific match ended with a double-digit difference in tickets between teams. We lost because a MGM failed (or refused) to reset the middle cap during the final phase. 

 

While essentially a secondary evaluation whilst reviewing team composition, [combined] vehicle combat effectiveness is yet another significant aspect to consider before a match commences. First, a general assessment of the utility and aptitudes of various vehicles is required to formulate a comparison between the vehicles on either side. Some appraisals can be obvious (eg: T-15, CATTB, etc.), while others will require some deliberation (eg: ADTU vs 2AX). 

I shall use this battle as an example, addressing only the MBTs and valuable well-armored vehicles (therefor, that excludes me):

• Note how our team has an additional T-15, this likely improved our chance of winning, as the T-15 is overperforming and has the capacity to counter nearly any foe.
• While our opponents have one additional MBT, their advantage was likely mitigated by the weaknesses/mediocrity of the vehicle in question (Type 99A2).
  • Our MBTs:
    • One XM1A3 (weaker frontally, excellent DPM, trollish side armor)
    • One T-14 (good overall)
    • One Leclerc T4 (highest MBT DPM, powerful main gun)
    • One Type 99A2 (mediocre, recent frontal armor nerf and extremely thin sides)
  • Opponents wielded:
    • Two Type 99A2
    • One XM1A3
    • One K2 (decent burst damage, strong against AP, weak against HEAT)
    • One Object 490 (excellent frontal armor, poor DPM)

Ultimately, I would have predicted the opponents seizing victory, as their armored assets outnumbered ours. But alas, such a comparison fails to account for individual player performance/ability (to be discussed next). Consequently, it can and should only be used as a vague, preliminary judgement of the battle ahead. 

 

Finally, there are battles where the skill/ability of opponent(s) can be recognized prior to engagement. While most players encountered are often random/unknown, there are some cases where you may be able to identify skilled players by battalion tag, platoon and/or name. Take this interesting battle for example:

Here we see a trifecta of skilled players (all platooned).

• DONETSK and Deca from the newly formed A1arM battalion (who are all relatively proficient)
  • These two in particular are known for their aggressive (and often dominant) play, often in CATTBs or T-15s
• Flavio, ivand, and dranddad; with the former two from NASTY, a veteran (but less active) battalion with experienced players
  • While Flavio is sometimes less predictable (playing the CATTB and T40 among other strong vehicles), most of these players excel with the T-15
• Shrek and I representing Y33T, by far the best battalion in AW a silly little battalion for shits and giggles
  • Shrek can shred with basically any vehicle, but both of us usually play less competitive, yet "fun" vehicles which we enjoy (PL for me)

In such a situation, most of these aforementioned players would recognize each other (and most likely a number of randoms would as well) and prioritize/focus-fire on opposing members (except for me, none of them would likely deem me as a threat). If any player encounters some of these particularly skilled adversaries, it may be wise to focus on them as well, since their presence on the battlefield can be the difference between securing a flank (and/or point(s)) and being pushed back into spawn.

Unfortunately, encountering one of these tryhard/hardcore platoons usually forecasts a loss, regardless of personal effort/performance. That's not to say you should quit, go AFK, grief, etc. though... (𝑫𝒐𝒏'𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒂 𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒅) Fight on and hope for the best in the next battle.

On 6/28/2020 at 11:50 PM, knutliott said:

You also have people like me who simply play Premium vehicles as often as possible for the extra credits.  Unless I'm grinding something, I specifically play Premiums whether or not they're better so that I can continue to build up my credit stockpile.  I happen to be above average in PvE (which doesn't affect your GLOPS stats of course, but could affect PvE stats) so me in a Premium is a significant boost to a team that has little to do with the Premium itself.

This is why I mostly play premiums as well. However, I'm not necessarily seeking additional credit income, but reputation instead. 

On 6/28/2020 at 11:50 PM, knutliott said:

In addition to what Komitadjie said, you also have to factor in "early release" vehicles that are straight-up OPAF but get nerfed later.  Object 490, CATTB, I'm lookin' at you.  People will play the crap out of those while they're OPAF but they less once they've been "balanced" which to me could distort your results.

I believe this elaborates on overall vehicle combat effectiveness. Unfortunately, this phenomena has been exacerbated during this BP, as the new mission terms require vehicles from the current BP for completion. This has flooded many games [at their respective tiers] with Type 74s, SG915s, and Pindads... I hope the next BP reverts these changes.

Additionally, I (and many others) would argue that the CATTB is still overperforming, especially in PvP modes. As shown previously, it is a common sight among hardcore/tryhard players/platoons.

18 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

Total Prems everywhere chaos

I rest my case.

18 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

1 platoon of good players all with OP tanks (and Ophelia, FYI) and maybe voice too,  while the blue team had nothing

Yep... Three man tier 10 A1arM platoon in a downtiered game. Recipe for disaster. Defeat is almost assured. 

Can't blame anyone really... 

[Lenticulas 9]

1 hour ago, di_duncan said:

 ... lots ...

thanks for the very in-depth reply :-) Lots to think about.

Even though +Prems do correllate somehow with an additional chance of winnning(IMHO), I know that's not the same as saying they are the sole direct cause of the extra wins, far from it. There's so much noise in the signal in any particular match, there's no way it 100% determines who wins. Especially now, as loads of people are getting the battle path prems, useless players buying Strelas because they think it's an automatic "I win" button, and so on. And in 10v10 matches +1 Prem is more of the team than +1 in a 15v15.

Also in Glops, winning depends a lot on knowing what you are doing,  and when, and just having a massive damage output tank, (like the Strela) and relentlessly coming top of the scores because of damage, doesn't mean much, if no one bothers to cap after you've killed everyone, & you end up losing.

--------------------------------

1 hour ago, di_duncan said:

Can I get a reference for this claim? I seriously doubt premium vehicles have preferential matchmaking, especially considering how [relatively] small the current playerbase is

errrrrr  ... sorry nope, I looked and I can't find any reference to this except on the gamepedia WIKI(which doesn't really count), I really believe i remember this from somewhere, but if I remembered it incorrectly, or it was like this and they changed it, I can't say.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

-----------------------------

Anyway back on topic:
I definitely think some Prem tanks ARE OP at the moment (cattb, strela), and if they can be OP in the hands of a normal guy, they are doubly OP with those [A1arM] guys
... is the win caused by the CATTB? Is it Player skill? Is it platooning, is it voice-coms, is it being tier10 tanks in a t9 game. - I'd say All of the above multiplied together.
 

and I'm sure you know, but i noticed people from [совет]* are also ridiculously good, i just hope they end up on my side
*google translate says this is 'Soviet'.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Lenticulas (see edit history)

[TeyKey1 119]

1 hour ago, Lenticulas said:

errrrrr  ... sorry nope, I looked and I can't find any reference to this except on the gamepedia WIKI(which doesn't really count), I really believe i remember this from somewhere, but if I remembered it incorrectly, or it was like this and they changed it, I can't say.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Prem MM is not a thing anymore. I think the last vehicle which had it was the Obj 279. There might be some rare low tier prems which still have it but iirc it was removed completely because it disturbs MM.

3 hours ago, di_duncan said:

Unfortunately, encountering one of these tryhard/hardcore platoons usually forecasts a loss, regardless of personal effort/performance. That's not to say you should quit, go AFK, grief, etc. though... (𝑫𝒐𝒏'𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒂 𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒅) Fight on and hope for the best in the next battle.

This is something that annoys me greatly while playing GLOPS. Sure it is frustrating getting steamrolled but if you just leave right away you kinda jeopardize all the efforts of your team to turn around the game (Which definitely can happen).

In the end performance is usually all about the player playing the tank. It sure helps if it's strong or even OP, but generally a good player is able to perform well in all kinds of different tanks. The question if prems are generally P2W is way too hard to answer without having any objective data. There are lots of OP prem tanks but there are as well OP progression tanks in the game. Aswell the newer BP tanks always seem to be too strong on release, and only get adjusted after several months (if they even get adjusted at all). 

Edited June 30, 2020 by TeyKey1 (see edit history)

[Lenticulas 9]

2 hours ago, TeyKey1 said:

3 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

errrrrr  ... sorry nope, I looked and I can't find any reference to this except on the gamepedia WIKI(which doesn't really count), I really believe i remember this from somewhere, but if I remembered it incorrectly, or it was like this and they changed it, I can't say.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Prem MM is not a thing anymore. I think the last vehicle which had it was the Obj 279. There might be some rare low tier prems which still have it but iirc it was removed completely because it disturbs MM.

Thanks TK, Not on the wiki any more, because i just deleted it-. :-)

Edited June 30, 2020 by Lenticulas (see edit history)

[di_duncan 24]

8 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

and I'm sure you know, but i noticed people from [совет]* are also ridiculously good, i just hope they end up on my side

I've personally found COBET to be less coordinated and potentially less skilled than A1arM and NASTY players. I usually don't find them platooned and/or seal clubbing in OP vehicles, as counter-intuitive as it sounds. Overall, COBET hasn't been too bad in my experience with and against them. However, I know for a fact that Falcrum is an exceptional player. Opponents should be weary of him regardless if he is platooned or not.

A battalion which isn't quite as common (at least at top tiers, where I usually play) but either extremely annoying or often useless (depending on which team you are on) is TAGAN. These mind numbing platoons usually queue with three SPHINXs and YOLO rush immediately. While certainly skilled, they will often have average damage numbers, but will likely make up the majority of their team's assisting damage. 

Sometimes their spotting is useful to snipers on their team, but their vision is often counterproductive, as the rest of their team usually ignores the objective only to stops in their tracks to attempt to do some initial damage. 

Their playstyle is arguably worse for opponents, as they are forced onto their toes to actively spot, target and [hopefully] eliminate these awful speedy croissants before they drive deep into enemy lines spotting everything and forcing the vanguard to turn their weapons around.

They are perhaps the purest manifestation of a chaotic neutral force in GlOps.

Edited June 30, 2020 by di_duncan
Rewording (see edit history)

[Lenticulas 9]

37 minutes ago, di_duncan said:

They are perhaps the purest manifestation of a chaotic neutral force in GlOps.

nice to see someone who knows what CN is.

This afternoon i keep getting frigging Alarm platoons on the opposite side.

It makes playing: Pointless. No fun. A shitty gaming experience. If i see them again, I'm just quitting the match. I refuse to enable what is effectively seal-clubbing by being a part of it.

AW should fix this shit, before people find other games to play.

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Lenticulas (see edit history)

[di_duncan 24]

1 hour ago, Lenticulas said:

This afternoon i keep getting frigging Alarm platoons on the opposite side.

It makes playing: Pointless. No fun. A shitty gaming experience.

1 hour ago, Lenticulas said:

AW should fix this shit, before people find other games to play.

While I certainly agree that roflstomp platoons are not fun to play against, it's an inevitable part of the game. AW has it, so does WoT and WT. Nothing can or should be done to reduce platoon sizes, but we can hope for better overall vehicle and gameplay balance (0.33?).

However, I have found that playing solo usually greatly reduces your chances of facing 3 man platoons. If worst comes to worst though, it might be better to play another tier/mode altogether.

1 hour ago, Lenticulas said:

If i see them again, I'm just quitting the match. I refuse to enable what is effectively seal-clubbing by being a part of it.

Don't do this. It's toxic and unproductive. At least finish the game, and log off for the day.

As @TeyKey1 has mentioned, while the chance of a comeback may be slim, there is still certainly a possibility. Some of my most exhilarating games have come from such comebacks against what seemed like impossibly long odds. It would be extremely frustrating if other players were to abandon you, so don't abandon others.

[Lenticulas 9]

2 hours ago, di_duncan said:

However, I have found that playing solo usually greatly reduces your chances of facing 3 man platoons

on my own, i have 3-man platoons vs. me, EVERY FUCKING TIME

Loss

next LOSS

AND I AM SICK SICK SICK OF IT, 9 in a row now

next LOSS

now 10 losses in a row* - I'm definitely not best player in the world, but I know when i'm being fucked in the arse.

And it's ALL via the MM being unable to adequately balance matches, within some reasonable expectation of fairness.
I will not participate in that .. "rigging". And if the people fucking-over the rest of us, via voice-commed platoons don't like it .. well sorry, i have no sympathy for that kind of exploiter-scum.

*the odds of which are, by the way 1: 1024, and also ironically, Premium Tank advantage to all the winning teams, to be somewhat on-topic

 

maybe other people have some sort of 'magic account' that the matchmaker likes. I don't.

 

[with apologies for drunkenly ranting at you and the world in general]

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Lenticulas
a couple more and i'm rage uninstalling (see edit history)

[di_duncan 24]

While I am sympathetic to your situation, sometimes shit happens. There are days where I cannot seem to lose, despite performing below my usual expectations/potential. However, there are just as many instances where I also find myself in a prolonged losing streak, even though I've been playing out of my mind during most of my matches. 

You can't expect to blame the matchmaker, the platoons, or even yourself sometimes. There are usually a plethora of different aspects to a game which can both positively and/or negatively affect the final outcome.

Even your post-battle screens are indicative of a wide range of varied contextual, circumstantial and even personal/individual factors:

6 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

next LOSS

• Flavio, ivand, and a player from A1arM in a platoon
  • This should be a significant advantage, yet it was still a loss 
• Despite the two platoons on the opposing team, their team composition is objectively weaker
  • Seven tier 10s and three tier 9s vs. Six tier 10s, three tier 9s, and one tier 8
• Inconsistent performances within the two enemy platoons
  • May imply better overall teamwork/cohesion
• All of your tier 10s performed better than your tier 9s
  • Quite uncommon, ranking and statistics suggests tier 9s were less efficient skill-/ability-wise
• Considerably more damage done by your team
  • Unfortunately, your opponents were dominant in capping
    • Especially the XM1A3, which may indicate the inability/reluctance of your team to reset cap(s)
• All of the enemy premiums near the bottom of the scoreboard
  • Indicative of how premiums ≠ performance

Ultimately, an unfortunate loss. Despite your team having a clear advantage with regards to composition, skill ceiling, and even damage, even Flavio and his "seal-clubbing" platoon could not rescue the game. Reminds me of a game I played recently...

20 hours ago, di_duncan said:

 

7 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

And it's ALL via the MM being unable to adequately balance matches, within some reasonable expectation of fairness.

7 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

maybe other people have some sort of 'magic account' that the matchmaker likes. I don't.

7 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

I will not participate in that .. "rigging". And if the people fucking-over the rest of us, via voice-commed platoons don't like it .. well sorry, i have no sympathy for that kind of exploiter-scum.

With regards to your grievances surrounding the matchmaker, I believe you hold the assumption that MM will create teams based not only on an even vehicular playing field, but also achieving a parity of skill. Regrettably, this is not the case. 

SBMM was attempted quite some time ago, and it was almost universally lambasted. While an SBMM system functions well in an ELO/rating system environment (such as Counter Strike), when a game is team- and objective-based 15 vs. 15 and only classifies skill based on winrates, such a matchmaker would inevitably result in horribly lopsided games (even the most skilled player can only do so much). 

While it certainly still has its flaws, I find the current matchmaker to be decent enough. Just look at your aforementioned game (with Flavio and co.); without consideration for any factors of skill, your team was granted an additional tier 10 in an attempt to compensate for the additional platoon on the other team. Without the benefit of hindsight, I would say such a compromise is acceptable. 

Platoons themselves are not exploits, nor should they be considered rigging. While playing against skilled platoons is often certainly a challenge, I would not advise anyone queuing in GlOps (or any PvP mode for that matter) expecting/anticipating victory. Sometimes it's better to play the game for your enjoyment, even if it hampers your grind, lowers your winrate, or hampers your BP progress (...etc.). 

7 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

*the odds of which are, by the way 1: 1024

Almost no game will be 50/50 statistically, so to use ratios and expect a 50% winrate is inaccurate at best, fallacious at worst.

7 hours ago, Lenticulas said:

[with apologies for drunkenly ranting at you and the world in general]

No apology necessary/expected ;)

Having these forums is perfect for discussions, no matter the topic, attitude, agreeance, etc.