Jump to content


WoT Mythbusters: premium account vs premium shells and consumables

Analysis Premium Mythbusters

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

fwhaatpiraat #1 Posted 08 June 2017 - 08:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 45624 battles
  • 532
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

Hi all,

 

Let's start with a little warning:

- Long story incoming. It would be kind to read everything, but TL;DR is available below;

- Numbers, stats and calculations incoming;

- More 'p2w' talk incoming;

- Shite English incomign;

- Controversial opinion incoming.

 

Introduction

Quite some people here say: "premium shells and premium consumables are available for credits, so they're no pay-to-win (p2w) game mechanics". Since I highly doubt that this is true I decided to take it to the test and find out. I will try to find out if one (me) could afford premium shells and premium consumables without paying for a premium account. I wouldn't be able to calculate all this without the WoT Replay Analyzer from Aim_Drol, thanks for providing this tool!

 

Description of analysis

To test if the 'myth' is really true I selected my most recent 1912 battles from the past months. Exactly 0 of those battles were played with a premium account. During 412 of those battles I left the battle before it ended. In those battles I usually died early and didn't do much good for the team. So basically I now have exactly 1500 (this actually is coincidental, but good for people with OCD) complete replay files from me playing without premium account:

 

 

Don't forget that the actual winrate of the entire set (1912 instead of 1500) is lower than mentioned here. Actual survival rate seems to be 37% (707 out of 1912 battles). But whatever, it's not that important, in the end this topic will be about credits. You just have an idea of the data set; it's above average performance wise I suppose. Also I'm trying to be conservative with premium shells and premium consumables. I never use any premium consumable on any of my tanks, besides Leopard 1 (big repair kit in addition to small repair kit) and SU-14-2 (food, because screw logic, premium HE shells saw use here as well btw, the impact of that on the credits will be talked about later on). Average tier was 8.12 during all 1912 battles, calculated by the program.

 

Results

So let's see how many credits I got from those 1500 battles (remember all numbers and statistics are based on 1500 battles):

So over 1500 (recorded) battles I lost almost 1 million credits. Actually I would have lost more since all consumables I used - all just regular med kits, repair kits and fire *things* (screw that word) - were bought in advance. If we assume I need one consumable per game, I would have lost another 3k * 1500 = 4.5 million credits. Or just 2.25 if I bought them on sale, which I usually do. The only consumable costs I made during the battles were from 103 (recorded out of 117 total) battles in SU-14-2:

(Let's keep all arty rage at other threads. But I agree it was total bs before this got nerfed)

As you can see exactly all consumable costs made during the 1500 battles were from this dirty arty piece.

 

'Analysis'

Now let's get to the 'myth' again. How much more credits would I have gotten if I had a premium account? Exactly 50% of the gross income I had over the 1500 battles: 50% of 41.039.070 (see 2nd pic) = 20.519.535. So instead of making a loss of a few million credits (±0.9m recorded + extra losses during non-recorded battles + costs for consumables (assuming 1.5k x 1500 = 2.25m), I would probably have made over 15 million profit, which would have been nice to be honest. This really shows that the initial 'myth': "premium shells and premium consumables are available for credits, so they're no pay-to-win (p2w) game mechanics" is false. Paying for a premium account would have given me on average just above 13.5k more credits to spend each game (50% of 27.359). That would have been enough to run food ( on discount ) all the time, use premium consumables and premium ammunition. In the dataset that I used, shooting an extra premium shell (of 4k credits) each game would have resulted in 6 million more credit loss. With a premium account it would have been perfectly fine (if no food has been used for example).

 

Conclusion

This research clearly shows how expensive it is to play the game. Not playing that many tier ten games (only 361), barely making use of premium consumables and trying to be conservative with the use of expensive premium ammo still resulted in a slight credits loss. The 50% bonus that a premium account gives, is in fact much bigger: in this analysis we could even see that it would be impossible to keep playing like this in the long run (running low on credits). Running a premium account during the same conditions would probably have given me the opportunity to build a fictional moon base in my WoT garage! Therefore, again: although premium shells, consumables and such are available for silver ingame, they are not available for everyone. To afford use of such mechanics it is highly recommended to run a premium account.

 

 

Note: I'm not saying a premium account is p2w; it is actually nice that paying for a premium account in fact has no direct influence on in game performace. But saying that it only is pay-to-progress is bs.

 

TL;DR

- "Premium shells and premium consumables are available for credits, so they're no pay-to-win (p2w) game mechanics" is a plain lie. To afford this stuff one definitely needs a premium account. The phrase seems to fall under the same categorie as "Arty is fair and balanced", "Learn to dodge arta" and "Maus is not OP" ,to me. 

- An above average player that tries to play economically (relatively, still some premium stuff has been used) can not or just barely make a profit in the long run.

- Even though a premium account only gives 50% credits boost, the net effect is much larger.

 

Thx for reading and happy tanking :)

 


Edited by fwhaatpiraat, 08 June 2017 - 08:50 PM.


_b_ #2 Posted 08 June 2017 - 08:59 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 54991 battles
  • 3,956
  • Member since:
    04-06-2011

...pay 2 save time is what I'd call it ...

 

 



Isharial #3 Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:08 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19531 battles
  • 2,275
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

you don't need it though

ok if you want to load full gold every battle

then your going to have to have a dedicated tank solely for credit making, like a T5

it might take a lot of battles for just a couple in other tanks, but its doable, and easily done should you wish


 

though the practice of running full gold.. its not really necessary, even at higher tiers if you aim well (there are some questionable tanks, but you don't need a full gold loadout incase you encounter them...)


 

this is also a different game compared to others

were I WG, I would have implemented a level system, no F2P player past T4, therefore making other things easier to balance such as gold rounds

however, as the game is completely F2P, you can access every mode and buy every tech tree tank without it, you can essentially play your entire wot career and well over 100k battles without having paid a penny

im sure many can understand that WG will need the money for the players that do play like that from somewhere...


 

not saying its the best system around, but it could be a hell of a lot worse for F2P players.. don't look a gift horse in the mouth


 

AliceUnchained #4 Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:28 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 38126 battles
  • 8,797
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

It's nice to see someone actually taking the time to approach this in a more objective and scientific way. I am curious however to know which tanks you've been playing, and just how much premium rounds you fired in all those games: The average costs of rounds in your games amounts to ~1.365 credits per round. Looking at the Tier VIII vehicles I have in garage, plenty have standard rounds at below 400 and even 300 credits (some even below 200 credits). Premium rounds are at 4.400 . 4.800 credits. We're looking at an average of at least 3 premium rounds per game here, or you've been playing those 1.000+ credits per round tanks exclusively. For the credit conscious player those obviously would not be a wise choice. Imagine what would have happened if your average ammo expenditure was 3.000 - 4.000 - 5.000 credits per game? You could even fire 2 premium round on average and still make a profit. But you've given us no information on the tanks played, and ammunition used (premium specifically). But as can be seen, ammunition costs are the biggest expenditure. And there's a big difference between paying 200 - 300 - 400 credits a round and 1.000 - 1.200. Obviously those more expensive rounds have higher damage and thus higher credit return but per point damage they're still more expensive (compare just over 200 credits on 90 mm guns at 240 average vs 1.000+ for 390 average).

 

I appreciate the effort, as it certainly does provide a better picture on the advantage of premium account and certainly does strongly suggest that Tier VIII and up is not sustainable for most players with premium account. But you've left out a few crucial details here. Furthermore, while you've made a start on showing the impact of premium account on credit income you have not in any way tied this to the win. Pay2Win means you have to have a connection between the Pay and the Win. Thus the myth most definitely cannot be considered busted just yet.

 

Edit: Just to emphasize once more that repair and ammunition costs at higher Tiers have a much bigger impact. Basically all you've shown is that firing several rounds of premium every game and/or playing high Tiers with high ammunition cost (per round) is not sustainable for most players without premium account. 


Edited by AliceUnchained, 08 June 2017 - 09:31 PM.


Homer_J #5 Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

All this experiment shows is you didn't put in enough effort playing mid tiers to make your credits back.

Quote

Average tier was 8.12 

 

All you "busted" was yourself for being lazy.


Edited by Homer_J, 08 June 2017 - 09:39 PM.


__Zippy__ #6 Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:41 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 33229 battles
  • 2,203
  • Member since:
    09-04-2011

OP very good use of your spare time.

 

one question from me, does it make you feel good? 



gpalsson #7 Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:55 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 22134 battles
  • 8,117
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 08 June 2017 - 08:38 PM, said:

All this experiment shows is you didn't put in enough effort playing mid tiers to make your credits back.

Quote

Average tier was 8.12 

 

All you "busted" was yourself for being lazy.

 

Actually, he took the time to make a good writeup. You didn't.

You disagree with his conclusion? Ok fine.

 

But you are the one who seem lazy in the way you give criticism, and you did it in a unnecessarily hostile way.

I have never seen any posts from you as long as OPs with actual data.

All I see from you are whiteknighting WG oneliners.

The irony.


Edited by gpalsson, 08 June 2017 - 10:00 PM.


ammarmar #8 Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:56 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 32397 battles
  • 2,867
  • Member since:
    01-29-2011

Why do the work yourself, WG did it for you - recently they've admitted that spamming old ammo will give you, on average, 15% more damage. F2P my a$$.

 

Currently they are testing the solution for this in WoT: Blitz. Basically, they've nerfed damage of most premium shells by 15% to counter its advantage. And lowered its price by 20-40%. And they've buffed penetration of regular shells on the tanks that used far more premium ammo than other.



fwhaatpiraat #9 Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:18 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 45624 battles
  • 532
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View PostAliceUnchained, on 08 June 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

It's nice to see someone actually taking the time to approach this in a more objective and scientific way. I am curious however to know which tanks you've been playing, and just how much premium rounds you fired in all those games: The average costs of rounds in your games amounts to ~1.365 credits per round. Looking at the Tier VIII vehicles I have in garage, plenty have standard rounds at below 400 and even 300 credits (some even below 200 credits). Premium rounds are at 4.400 . 4.800 credits. We're looking at an average of at least 3 premium rounds per game here, or you've been playing those 1.000+ credits per round tanks exclusively. For the credit conscious player those obviously would not be a wise choice. Imagine what would have happened if your average ammo expenditure was 3.000 - 4.000 - 5.000 credits per game? You could even fire 2 premium round on average and still make a profit. But you've given us no information on the tanks played, and ammunition used (premium specifically). But as can be seen, ammunition costs are the biggest expenditure. And there's a big difference between paying 200 - 300 - 400 credits a round and 1.000 - 1.200. Obviously those more expensive rounds have higher damage and thus higher credit return but per point damage they're still more expensive (compare just over 200 credits on 90 mm guns at 240 average vs 1.000+ for 390 average).

 

I appreciate the effort, as it certainly does provide a better picture on the advantage of premium account and certainly does strongly suggest that Tier VIII and up is not sustainable for most players with premium account. But you've left out a few crucial details here. Furthermore, while you've made a start on showing the impact of premium account on credit income you have not in any way tied this to the win. Pay2Win means you have to have a connection between the Pay and the Win. Thus the myth most definitely cannot be considered busted just yet.

 

Thx for your response. Indeed I omitted quite some data. For me it's quite a complex matter, with a lot of parameters. And I tried to not make it too complex and lengthy. Anyway , here is the list of tanks played. Keep in mind, average tier doesn't say that much. Playing a tier ten game and a tier 2 game will result in an average tier of 6, just like playing two games at tier 6 does. However, in the first scenario (tier 10 and 2) the amount of available damage will be higher (lets say 2k avg hp per tank at tier x and 200(?) at tier 2, resulting in 1100 hp per (avg tier 6) game vs maybe 800(avg hp of tier 6?). The costs of shells and repairing is higher as well at higher tiers. Anyway, I guess you get the point, it's complex.

 

 

inb4 shitstorm "omg goldnoob"; Yes i actually tried to get the third mark of excellence on tanks like IS4, Leopard 1, type 62 and Arl V39. The SU-14-2 got played with food and premium HE because fcuk logic. Again, all the (red) numbers for credit income would be much greener with a premium account, nearly all numbers would be green I suppose.

 

The program didn't let me sort on battles played unfortunately. But I calculated manually (random battles and skirmishes (e.g. cromwell b) are considered as the same btw) :

Tier 10: 385

Tier 9: 374

Tier 8: 686

Tier 7: 206

Tier 6: 264

Other: a few.

Edited by fwhaatpiraat, 08 June 2017 - 10:43 PM.


AliceUnchained #10 Posted 08 June 2017 - 11:01 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 38126 battles
  • 8,797
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postfwhaatpiraat, on 08 June 2017 - 10:18 PM, said:

Thx for your response. Indeed I omitted quite some data. For me it's quite a complex matter, with a lot of parameters. And I tried to not make it too complex and lengthy. Anyway , here is the list of tanks played. Keep in mind, average tier doesn't say that much. Playing a tier ten game and a tier 2 game will result in an average tier of 6, just like playing two games at tier 6 does. However, in the first scenario (tier 10 and 2) the amount of available damage will be higher (lets say 2k avg hp per tank at tier x and 200(?) at tier 2, resulting in 1100 hp per (avg tier 6) game vs maybe 800(avg hp of tier 6?). The costs of shells and repairing is higher as well at higher tiers. Anyway, I guess you get the point, it's complex.

 

inb4 shitstorm "omg goldnoob"; Yes i actually tried to get the third mark of excellence on tanks like IS4, Leopard 1, type 62 and Arl V39. The SU-14-2 got played with food and premium HE becaus fcuk logic. Again, all the (red) numbers for credit incoming would be much greener with a premium account, nearly all numbers would be green I suppose.

 

The program didn't let me sort on battles played unfortunately. But I calculated manually (random battles and skirmishes (e.g. cromwell b) are considered as the same btw) :

Tier 10: 385

Tier 9: 374

Tier 8: 686

Tier 7: 206

Tier 6: 264

Other: a few.

 

Well keeping things simple is a good thing, as needless complexity will only lead to errors most likely. However, standard ammunition costs and premium ammo usage are important here. After all the whole point of this endeavor was to ascertain whether or not non-paying players can afford premium rounds. As far as average Tier goes, it's really not that complex though. 

 

But what's more important here, crucial even, is that you don't draw the wrong conclusions. Which in my opinion you did. Looking at this, all you can conclude is that consistently playing high Tiers, while firing several rounds of premium on average, is not sustainable without premium account. That's hardly a surprise though. You can also put it slightly differently, and come to the conclusion that even at an average Tier of 8.12, firing several premium rounds per game almost is sustainable without premium account. It's doubtful of course most players will be able to average over 2K damage however. You can also come to the conclusion that with just a few rounds of premium fired per game, 65% win rate can be achieved already. Personally I think you've done the exact opposite of busting the myth. But we'd have to take a closer look at several factors before we can draw any real conclusions.


Edited by AliceUnchained, 08 June 2017 - 11:02 PM.


Homer_J #11 Posted 08 June 2017 - 11:44 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postgpalsson, on 08 June 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

 

Actually, he took the time to make a good writeup. You didn't.

 

 

I didn't realise it was an essay question, I always preferred multiple choice.

 

Fact: Average tier above 8.

 

Fact: The game is designed not to be profitable at high tiers without premium.

 

There never was a myth to bust.



WindSplitter1 #12 Posted 09 June 2017 - 12:28 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 15517 battles
  • 2,260
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View Postgpalsson, on 08 June 2017 - 08:55 PM, said:

 

Actually, he took the time to make a good writeup. You didn't.

You disagree with his conclusion? Ok fine.

 

But you are the one who seem lazy in the way you give criticism, and you did it in a unnecessarily hostile way.

I have never seen any posts from you as long as OPs with actual data.

All I see from you are whiteknighting WG oneliners.

The irony.

 

This.

niksa83 #13 Posted 09 June 2017 - 03:43 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30321 battles
  • 643
  • [-WZ-] -WZ-
  • Member since:
    04-06-2013

View Post_b_, on 08 June 2017 - 10:59 PM, said:

...pay 2 save time is what I'd call it ...

 

 

 

Ding ding ding, and whe have a winner!

Infine #14 Posted 09 June 2017 - 05:56 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18265 battles
  • 576
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

Excluding almost a quarter of battles due to "left early" reasons is a big mistake. If you aren't spamming gold, at tier 8+ repair costs are what gets you. In the "left early" battles you obviously dieded (so full repair costs) and didn't make enough stuff to cover the costs, so those battles should be the biggest credit sink.

 

And they happen. Dying early is part of the game. Well, idunno about unicorns, but I assume all normal players do die early now and then. Someone has to die first after all. And second.

 

So without those battles it's a statistic of some imaginary player who does not make mistakes and never finds himself in front of the enemy lemming train running at full steam when just arriving to his position at the start of the game.



Hedgehog1963 #15 Posted 09 June 2017 - 06:06 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50889 battles
  • 7,356
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

The tl;dr was too long

 

 

Seriously, what a waste of effort.



fwhaatpiraat #16 Posted 09 June 2017 - 06:24 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 45624 battles
  • 532
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View PostInfine, on 09 June 2017 - 05:56 AM, said:

Excluding almost a quarter of battles due to "left early" reasons is a big mistake. If you aren't spamming gold, at tier 8+ repair costs are what gets you. In the "left early" battles you obviously dieded (so full repair costs) and didn't make enough stuff to cover the costs, so those battles should be the biggest credit sink.

 

And they happen. Dying early is part of the game. Well, idunno about unicorns, but I assume all normal players do die early now and then. Someone has to die first after all. And second.

 

So without those battles it's a statistic of some imaginary player who does not make mistakes and never finds himself in front of the enemy lemming train running at full steam when just arriving to his position at the start of the game.

 

It is not my choice to omit the data of the 'left early' battles, the Wot Replay Analyzer just doesn't show any data of those.

But you're totally right, those battles probably weren't profitable without a premium account. Making it even more neccessary to have a premium account running.

 

 

 



MrClark56 #17 Posted 09 June 2017 - 06:43 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 5880 battles
  • 2,342
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-17-2013

OP, aliceunchained is right.. don't focus on the mythbuster thing.. try to draw better conclusions from your research.. which is IMO extensive for 1500 battles.. there is definitely more conclusions to gather from that so dig some more and edit that conclusion... we might have a sticker then..

 

good work, expand on conclusion and you get a distinction from me. for what it is worth.



Totieso #18 Posted 09 June 2017 - 07:19 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35357 battles
  • 1,878
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

I have to make 170k credits to play tier X Advances if we lose all of the 5 battles. If we win all the battles then i only need 30k. That's with a tier 8 credits' bonus of 40%.

 

To make 170k i have to go to 17 tier 5-7 randoms, and that takes 1.7 hours. It could be less if i would only play my Pilot, but that is booooring

 

1.7 hours of randoms to be spent in 1h of Advances. And then they ask me why i don't like/play tier X

 



anonym_kL7qtn3e52MB #19 Posted 09 June 2017 - 07:23 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 6,815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2018
Look at all the excuse bots...   :(

gpalsson #20 Posted 09 June 2017 - 08:59 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 22134 battles
  • 8,117
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 08 June 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

 

I didn't realise it was an essay question, I always preferred multiple choice.

 

Fact: Average tier above 8.

 

Fact: The game is designed not to be profitable at high tiers without premium.

 

There never was a myth to bust.

Next time just gather all the decency you can muster and write something along the lines of what alice or mrclark said, then you are fine.

Your conclusion i actually agree with, but you present it in a hostile and lazy way which is completely unnecessary considering OP did much better than almost everyone else in the department of effort and data, where as your post is effortless and without data.

What you present is an opinion (that I happen to agree with) but you have no other data to back it up than "above tier 8" which is why your post come out as extremely hypocritical when calling someone lazy with such low own effort.

It's not about writing an essay it's about common decency, something you seem to be lacking somewhat in your reply.


Edited by gpalsson, 09 June 2017 - 10:55 AM.






Also tagged with Analysis, Premium, Mythbusters

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users