An Armoured Interview: World Of Tanks

By Phill Cameron on October 11th, 2010 at 2:50 pm.


Last week I had a look at World of Tanks, and it looked pretty good, in a TANKS TANKS TANKS kind of way. Naturally I wanted to know more about the minds behind the idea, and so I had a bit of a chat with Anton Sitnikov, the Lead Designer of World Of Tanks. Broaching such wildly varied questions as ‘Why tanks?’ and ‘Why these tanks?’, it’s an interview of highs and lows, the interview equivalent of swapping out your short and thick gun barrel with something altogether longer and thinner. There’s also some stuff about being Free 2 Play, because that’s an interesting topic right now.

RPS: Why tanks? Or, more specifically, why just tanks? What was the appeal of shoving thirty great big angry hunks of metal in the same theatre of battle to duke it out?

Sitnikov: We are infatuated with military vehicles and tanks especially. Moreover, with 12-year experience in developing wargames, we know how to make armored vehicles. A Tank is the powerful steel beast associated with the roar of engines, thick armor, deadly salvos, and the smell of solar oil. And we just love all that stuff.

The choice of the concept wasn’t random. World of Tanks has solely panzers due to the gameplay requirements. Now we can see that picking a tank to be the main “character” of the game wasn’t a mistake. Moreover, tank destroyers and SPGs contribute immensely to the diversity of World of Tanks’ gameplay.

We don’t disclaim the opportunity of introducing infantry into the game in the far future. Still, we understand that it will change the concept drastically. That’s why we first want to tune up and polish the current gameplay and then we’ll be thinking on how to implement infantry without any plausible drawbacks to the game’s concept and fun.


RPS: With the slightly absurd premise of having dozens of tanks, without any infantry, fighting, what made you decide to go for the realism route in terms of the tanks themselves and the way shells penetrate and damage them?

Sitnikov: We do understand that initially the role of a tank is supporting infantry and we do understand that some might think that the game would look incomplete without platoons of troopers on battlefields. But again, World of Tanks was designed purely for applying your tank-commander skills and cooperating within a team together with vehicles of different types and classes. What we were not trying to reach is yet another Battlefield or CoH.

The cooperation between infantry and armored vehicles was the main tactics during WWII, but World of Tanks features vehicles of much greater period of time that covers not only the WWII era but also earlier and later times. This is what we call the “golden age” in tank building history. The time period we picked fits perfectly our gameplay needs, while fighting vehicles of earlier or later periods would require absolutely different gameplay.

On the other hand, a boring tank simulator is not what we were planning to reach. We haven’t blindly transported real-life characteristics of panzers into the game. We were looking for the reasonable balance between realism and gameplay for each fighting vehicle and it looks like we’ve managed to find it.


RPS: At the moment you have just Russian and German tanks, with the American tree imminent. Why did you go for those two nations first?

Sitnikov: The answer is quite obvious: first massive-scale tank battles were fought between German and Soviet forces. These two tank building schools had the most advanced technologies at the time and they contributed more than others into the tank building history of the middle of the XX century.

Following the same logic, American panzers will come just after German and Soviet ones. US armored vehicles played a great role in the later WWII battles and some of them are extremely interesting from tank engineering standpoint.

RPS: Following from that, why even bother dividing the tanks by nation at all? Did you feel it important to instill some historical context into them, rather than just having them listed by type and name, even if it was only to place them under a national flag?

Sitnikov: First off, I would like to mention that we don’t divide tanks by nations in battles. We have the battles of machines, not battles of ideologies or nations.

Dividing tanks by nations is justified historically because despite the versatility of vehicles within each tank building nation they still have their unique peculiarities and features, starting with their looks and ending up with their behavior on battlefields.

Each panzer unlocks the unit of the next level according to the technologies that led to the appearance of more technologically advanced vehicle in real life, which is, again, justified historically. We find it rather reasonable and that’s why it’s presented in World of Tanks. The case when after driving and upgrading the King Tiger a player would unlock a Soviet tank is hideously wrong from both historical and gameplay standpoints.


RPS: Your method of utilising micro-transactions could be considered somewhat questionable due to withholding the ability to create teams and play with friends from those who don’t pay. Why was this considered a paying privilege? Has it been an issue of contention within the community?

Sitnikov: Let me clarify something: in order to create a squad and play with friends within one team, a player must have a premium account. Still, this player can invite any players to his squad notwithstanding whether they pay or not. Thus, within a squad of, say, 3 players there must be only one player who has actually invested money into the game. Thereby we encourage the cooperation between non-paying and paying users which in its turn decreases the chance of conflicts between these two types of players.

Of course, we had some people within the community who were not happy with this option but we didn’t face any serious problems with it. I believe it’s because we’re trying to be loyal and don’t force people to pay for the premium account in order to join squads.

RPS: While playing the game, it seems there’s some pretty clear opinions on which tanks are best, and which nationality it’s most worth following. Do you feel there is a need to balance the tanks, or do you prefer to stick to historical accuracy?

Sitnikov: We’re studying the players’ preferences very cautiously and statistics helps us reveal flaws and tweak some tanks if required. We don’t see any significant flaws in balance now, still we can’t say that the balancing is already perfect. We are accumulating and studying tons of statistics permanently and we don’t see any fatal drawbacks (however, I can already predict some complaints on artillery in the comments to this article :) ).

Everything depends on your playing style. To put it bluntly, German panzers are good at fighting at medium and long distances while the Soviets are more effective in tense close combats. Each nation and each type of a unit provides its unique gameplay.

Here is an interesting thing to think about. When we arranged the tourney among the Russian players, two teams staffed with the German vehicles made it to the finals. While the CBT tourney for the Western audience featured two teams with the Soviet panzers in the finals. It may sound funny, but while Russian players are complaining about overpowered German panzers, we keep hearing the same complaints from the western beta testers about Soviet machinery.

According to all these facts and our statistics we can state there’s no dominance of either of the nations. I believe that after implementing the team mode this kind of complaints will cease gradually.


RPS: As you come out of the beta phase, how do you see yourselves moving forward?

Sitnikov: We’ve got loads of work now and I’m afraid that times will become even tougher for us when the closed beta is over. Now we are totally into the American tanks line which is 99% complete. Our players will be able to give a try to the Team mode in the open beta, clan wars are on the way as well. Along with new maps, new panzers and nations such as France will come.

Historic events are coming soon and we are putting the very strong emphasis on this mode. Another important point we are thinking of implementing is the in-game secondary market where players can buy and sell different stuff including gold.

RPS: It seems like the most sensible route to take with Free 2 Play games is one of persistence, keeping the players playing, and paying. Beyond what is already in place, do you feel the need to push that aspect further, whether it be with providing context to the battles with territory control, or making the current level and tier system even more expansive?

Sitnikov: Our community can be divided into two primary audiences: hardcore players and more casual ones. Both these audiences will find lots of features that the game has to offer to keep them playing.

Hardcore players are longing for the social part and clan wars, which is natural. And we will give it to them with the upcoming Clan Wars with endless opportunities to show themselves during the fights for the global domination.

At the same time, more casual players don’t actually need it. These players prefer to have up to 10 battles after hard working day that helps them let off steam and simply have some fun. They will also not get bored with WoT as our tech trees will be expanded gradually with new vehicles and nations offering different playing styles.

There are some specific modes that we’ll be implementing just for pure fun like Football matches on tanks or Survival mode where you have to repel attacks of AI-controlled zombie tanks from all directions.


RPS: Do you feel that with a niche concept like World Of Tanks, it’s a benefit to be free to play and allow players to have a go with the game before committing themselves by spending? Do you think it’s a good route for niche games, and wargames in particularly, to head down?

Sitnikov: To be honest, I can’t call our game an absolutely niche project. Yes, initially it was planned to be targeted at tank enthusiasts and history buffs, but as the time goes we see that we have a very mixed and diverse community that keeps growing rapidly. As World of Tanks depicts a combination of multiple genres, apart from our initially targeted audience, we have players coming from shooters, strategies and RPGs. World of Tanks makes every player feel like a little boy (or girl) longing for commanding a tank and kicking some butt. This is why our community is that versatile.

Now back to F2P model. Making a PvP game is a very risky endeavor these times. Free2Play is the right choice when you can’t predict how many people will actually play your game. When counting on subscription you can’t be sure that you’ll accumulate a really big community that will be interested in playing with each other, while F2P is a very flexible model that helps you work effectively with both huge and small communities.

Talking about World of Tanks, we think that we could reach that happy medium between F2P and Pay-to-Play. The premium account, the main source of revenue for the project, represents a kind of a voluntary subscription. However, let me remind you that premium accounts don’t give any advantages in battles, it only helps you advance a bit faster giving 50% boost to credits and experience you gain after each battle. As a result, it’s only your skills that make you a great player, not your wallet. And we think it’s fair.

Talking about other niche projects and wargames… Well, every game is unique and even using Free-2-Play model can mean dozens and hundreds of methods of how actually make money from your project. But we do really think that it’s the fairest paying model on the market so far as it gives the opportunity to try the game out before starting paying.

RPS: Why do you think there’s been a sudden swell of free to play games coming out? Is it just the availability of broadband, or is it more a general attitude towards more esoteric games in the PC gaming sphere?

Sitnikov: Free2Play has already showed great results in Asia and Russia, and now we can see that highly acknowledged Western online projects picked Free2Play as their primary paying model. We think that’s a great tendency as Free2Play is no longer associated with cheap and low-quality games. Free2Play gives developers and publishers flexibility and helps them be more competitive on the fierce and oversaturated market of online games.

We see rapid growth of niche PC games and we like this tendency. A big number of more esoteric games automatically provides bigger choice for a player who can pick exactly the game they really like. While Free2Play give players the chance to try the game and play it for a long time without spending a penny and doesn’t force them to pay for the features they dislike. In our opinion, Free2Play is a fair and flexible model that turned out to be very efficient.

RPS: Thanks for your time.

, , .

60 Comments »

  1. CogDissident says:

    So, at what point does the fact that you can pay for super-overpowered-money-shop-only-ammo that is nearly 50% better than any other ammo you can get in the game factor in?

    I hate games where you can pay for more power than non-paying gamers. I mean, sure, make it easier to get items for people who give you money, but outright giving them more power is a crappy thing to do.

    • Tacroy says:

      I dunno – I’ve bought the premium ammo before, but it’s just not economical. It isn’t that much better than normal ammo, and it’s incredibly expensive.

    • Torgen says:

      Anyone that actually pays for the prem ammo is an idiot who doesn’t trust their own skills. After months and months and months in the beta, I’ve seen ONE person who bought prem ammo more than once, and the vast majority have never bought any at all. You may as well just flush the “gold” down the toilet.

    • mrmud says:

      It not being “worth it” is not a legitimate answer. If that was the case then the option shouldnt even be there.
      The fact is that whats “worth it” probably varies greatly from person to person and that someone with oodles of money should have ready access to ammo with 50% better penetration values is downright insulting.

    • Torgen says:

      Do you even play the game? Or are you just bitching because that’s all you do?

    • mrmud says:

      I play.
      I have a Tiger and a Stug III and I love the game.
      And yes, obviously you can still play the game just fine without the premium ammo (i havent touched it). But that doesnt make it ok to sell it.

    • Nick says:

      Its not worth it for real money, simple as that. If anything it should be changed to premium only and be given a significant credit price per shell compared to the other ammo (such as twice the most expensive ammo type or more), then it might actually be used. As it is, I can’t see anyone actually ever spending money on it. Same with the consumables… real money for a 1 shot crappy item? That generally has no actual worthwhile effect? Are they serious?

    • DarkFenix says:

      The fact is that premium ammo doesn’t give any significant advantage anyway. It doesn’t do any more damage than regular ammo, it just has extra penetration. So you can actually inflict damage to a tank higher tier than you, but this doesn’t change the fact that your gun won’t do very much damage to them.

    • phawkins1988 says:

      As others have said, nobody uses premium ammo or premium consumables. If suspect they’re mainly for clan matches.

      WoT is a great game. Most fun I’ve had online in ages.

    • gor says:

      well Torgen, Premium ammo is good. In t9, t10 battles it really makes difference, cause symmetrical fights (ona tank facing another and shooting) may often be decided by who will bounce.

      On championships all teams used golden ammo and everyone was pleasantly surprised how effective it can be.

      I always have 2 golden shells with me in case someone annoys me and I don want to give him a chance, I don’t use them much.
      But I wouldnt pay real money for them (hey, it’s beta, I have 5000 gold still to spent)

      Whats really good about premium items: THEY ARE EXPENSIVE. And taht’s a good news, cause number of people using gold ammo will be low.

  2. F*ck'up says:

    It says in the interview: “However, let me remind you that premium accounts don’t give any advantages in battles, it only helps you advance a bit faster giving 50% boost to credits and experience you gain after each battle”.
    So where the fuck are you talking about?!
    I haven’t playing this myself, but if you’re right it would completely suck.

    • Bob Bobson says:

      There are various things you can get via micro-transactions, at least in the beta. One of them is “premium time” which helps you progress through the tank levels more quickly. But it’s not the only one. Another is premium ammo, another is premium tanks, others are visual options, faster crew upgrades etc.

      And wasting cash on premium ammo is just admitting you aren’t much good at the game, as it isn’t much better. Hell, I freely admit I’m not much good at the game and I still don’t use it but I’m not worried that others can. It’s influence is smaller than the influences of either luck or skill.

    • blargy says:

      When you have tanks that are class 8 and above, you need premium account to get enough money from battles to repair and re-arm your tank.
      My ISU-152 (top russian TD) costs about 5k-15k for repairs after each battle, and 1k a round, so my ammo costs are anywhere between 5-15k. If I win a battle with premium I get about 30k-40k, which covers my repairs and refills my ammo. If I didn’t have premium, I would only be getting 15k-20k and would easily start running out of money. And this is just when I win, when I lose even with premium I make very little money or experience.
      To have a large tank, you must have premium, or be farming in a low tier tank to get the money to keep that high tier tank.

    • Torgen says:

      blargy: That’s why I spent a million credits on the shell rammer and gun-laying drive for my T34, and have kept it while I work toward the T-44. Also, it’s nice to have a nice mid-tier “pew pew pew” ride to play with. That 57mm gun is great. You have to switch to manual aim and HE and aim for the tracks on the monster tanks, though.

    • Nick says:

      The only thing worth spending money on if things stay as they are is premium account time. Everything else is utter rubbish. The premium tanks don’t even have guns capable of putting up a fight in their own tier, let alone armour, speed or health. Every single thing about them is worthless aside from the fact they make more credits in a battle. But thats not much good when you had a rubbish time in the battle because your tank is a joke.

  3. mlaskus says:

    I really like the game, but the matchmaking can be really horrible. It is extremely frustrating when you play a tank destroyer or an SPG and you can hurt only about 3 maybe 4 people on the other team. It is OK when you are in a light tank, but only if there are some SPGs you can spot for.

    • Torgen says:

      Yeah, sometimes the matchmaking screws up and tosses you into a game way over your head, but it’s getting better.

      Actually, I think the best “cure” for that is having more people, so the matchmaking software doesn’t have to reach into more tiers to build a game. If there’s enough people that there’s always 30 folks in two adjacent tiers waiting for a match, the game doesn’t need to use 3 or 4 or 5 tiers to fill a game.

    • mlaskus says:

      I wouldn’t mind waiting a minute or two for a game if it meant that I wouldn’t have to play in such ridiculous circumstances. Playing a match like this wastes more of my time.

    • Torgen says:

      I wonder if the recent “dump everyone back the the lobby” bug is caused by the matchmaking software trying to sort players, and maybe putting people in more than one match?

      Also, if you are playing arty, that artificially raises your level, and “platooning” with others also will raise your level as far as matchmaking.

    • mlaskus says:

      That is pretty terrible, leveling my Russian arty was a total pain in the ass. I had to play against people I couldn’t hurt almost exclusively. I bought an SU-8 a few days ago and playing as an SPG suddenly became fun, but that’s because I can now hurt (almost?) anybody so I don’t care who am I playing against.

    • solipsistnation says:

      They posted the spread of how different types and tiers of vehicles are matched– TDs in particular, from about tier 4 upward (Hezter, meh.) get matched against anything up to Tier 10 opponents.

      The effect here is that after tier 2 and 3 driving TDs, suddenly you’re useless. Even with the 105mm derpgun, the Hezter is so fragile that if a Panzer IV farts nearby it explodes. And since they have longer range, they can see you from a million miles away. And if the enemy scouts get nearby, Hetzers are sitting ducks for artillery. So, yeah.

      I do agree that SPGs are game-changingly powerful, but their limits (range, needing scouts, being made of tissue paper and balsa wood) balance that out pretty well.

    • Torgen says:

      Oh, wouldn’t happen to have a link to that post, would you?

    • Torgen says:

      Excellent, thanks!

    • Serenegoose says:

      Yeah, as someone who plays as a Tank Destroyer primarily, I feel really hard done by by artillery because I do not have the mobility to both fight and evade artillery. Bluntly, unless I kill the enemy tank in one shot, I’m stuffed, as any act of evasion will ruin my aim and make it impossible for me to kill the tank – and if I don’t evade, artillery kills me in one hit because I get matched against such high tier opponents. I don’t hate artillery or begrudge them their kills – I think that Tank Destroyers need rebalanced, however. I just don’t know how.

      And I loved my hetzer – more armour than the Stug on the front, and a great gun (admittedly, I put it on my stug too) it’s just a little too slow and sluggish to be effective. I think I’ll remember facing off against 3 PZIIIs in an urban map because artillery couldn’t hurt me and they couldn’t flank to get at my weaker armour. I lost in the end, but it felt epic. :D

    • Nick says:

      No one has the mobility to fight and evade artillery, which is one of the main problems with artillery, the fact only about two or three tanks are actually able to manuever in a way that makes them hard to hit by tanks AND artillery. The tactics to make yourslf a hard target for arty when moving (and thats assuming you wren’t tracked by the first shot when you weren’t aware you were being targeted) are totally different than those for avoiding being hit by a tank or TD unless you are in a very fast vehicle capable of making sharp turns without much speed loss. Basically you get to hide behind a building till its dead or you are.

  4. mlaskus says:

    SPGs are powerful, but game changing? I’m not sure.
    For an SPG to be useful your team has to be competent, and not rush off and get themselves killed without giving you time to make use of your enormous gun. Also, if the other team is good, they won’t give you much occasions to shoot at them or get a proper aim.
    Ofcourse if your team is full of dolts who got themselves killed, they are going to blame the arty…

    • mlaskus says:

      Ah, reply fail, entirely my fault, not a technical glitch.

    • pagad says:

      ^ This. It’s frustrating to be one-shotted or heavily damaged early in the game, and I do think higher-end SPGs are a mite too powerful, but they don’t break the game.

    • Bob Bobson says:

      Game changing? Yes.

      Game breaking? No.

      I think WoT would be a lot duller without the impact arty has on squad tactics.

    • Nick says:

      So the mere presence of ONE vehicle should be able to change the course of an entire battle? And thats not bad for the game?

    • mlaskus says:

      That is simply not true. Artillery is almost useless without a good team. Sometimes I will blow of tracks of half of the enemy team, sometimes I will massacre their own artillery, but most of the time I will get killed in the first 2 minutes by a scout no one bothered to stop, or I won’t have any targets to shoot at because people just rush and die without providing me with any good info.
      Artillery is good for the game, it means a lot if a team works together, it means next to nothing if people just drive around shooting each other and dieing pointlessly.

    • Premium User Badge

      JB says:

      “That is simply not true. Artillery is almost useless without a good team. ” etc etc

      I’m with mlaskus on this one. Enemy scouts can easily get through and ream the arty if the team aren’t working as a team. And if the team IS working as a team, then the arty is a very effective force multiplier.

    • DarkFenix says:

      I just spent half my day doing very well in artillery in spite of frequently moronic teams. I was only in a Wespe but had up to tier 7′s spending half the round hiding behind a building. You don’t need your team to form a cohesive defence around you; just position yourself in an unorthodox position relatively close to them. Counting on friendlies to defend you seldom works, just make them defend you by default.

      The fact remains artillery can strike like the finger of God, accurately and regularly. Even light tanks aren’t very difficult to hit, don’t get me started on how badly TD’s suffer at SPGs’ hands.

    • solipsistnation says:

      Yeah, absolutely. I’ve been playing as Arty a lot, and I guarantee you that the disadvantages balance out the finger-of-god damage. Both support for and defense against artillery absolutely requires teamwork– even the high-end artys are totally susceptible to even low-end tank guns. My SU-5 got blown up by a Luchs, of all things, and I one-shotted a Grille with my Hetzer. In both cases the artillery wasn’t being supported by their teams. If my team had left even one or two medium vehicles at the back-end to guard my SPG (and the other one who got nailed right after me), or if the enemy team had enough of a rear-guard to keep a _HETZER_, of all things, from creeping slowly through their lines, things would have been very different.

      Yes, SPGs absolutely change the game from what it would be without them, but it’s for the better– it changes the game from just a straight-up deathmatch into a more cerebral tactical contest. Just a deathmatch wouldn’t be very interesting for very long. But tactics and organized teamwork? I tell you, I can’t WAIT for clans and the ability to pick your teams. I guarantee you we’ll see some really amazing organized battles.

    • gor says:

      arty is changing game for good, but WAY TOO MUCH.

      also arty is designed as a way to deal with heavy tanks, but it hurts medium tanks the most.

      You can hide behind the building and fight in heavy tank, and still be effective, you cannot hide behind a building and fight in medium tank and not be easily outgunned by heavy.
      Meds need open space, flat terrain and speed to fight, otherwise they lose half their power.

      Su5 and Grille are not high-end arty, they are starter arty. Yeah, I know, they are 3rd arty from 4 or 5 arty tiers, but still, they are not considered a real threat by T9 T10 heavies.
      And you can get them for laughable amount of free exp.

    • gor says:

      there are 4 problems with spgs:

      1. they are more effective then their tier shows, so they are often wrongly balanced and you earn too much playing them
      2. because of point 1, arty is often played by people who suck at arty and use it only as a money gainer (me included). If such a guy will be opposed by good arty player, he will die soon and whole battle with t-9 and t-10 will be practically decided by 3 vs 3 duel betwen tier 5-6 vehicles.
      3. it requires cooperation wich often fails on random teams and is beyond of your control, making the result of battle random from anyone except spg point of view. Moreover, there are 2 tactics useful against artillery: assault and flushing them out or hiding behind obstacle.
      Former requires cooperation of almost entire team and there are always some people who prefer to stay behind. After few tries everybody else knows, that he won’t get enough help going for an arty so offensive option is useless and games turn to camp fest.
      Which especially hurts my medium tanks :D

      What I would be really happy to see, would be increasing arty tier, greater splash but lower accuracy and longer firing time,

      That way arty could be great at barrage fire/stopping enemy but wouldnt be able to 1 shoot enemy mediums.

  5. datazbytes says:

    The problem with SPG’s is that they are rarely evenly matched up and one team ends up with 2 peashooters and other team has one orbital ion cannon.
    Another problem with SPG’s is when its 8 of them in a single game. Ruins fun completely.

  6. westyfield says:

    “AI-controlled zombie tanks”

    Zombie tanks.

    ZOMBIE TANKS.

  7. Iglocska says:

    SPGs are fine (apart from the issue mentioned above with it being matched incorrectly). I find that I have an easier time with my IS than my SU-8 most of the time, simply because you depend so much on your scouts.

    For the matchmaking part, I think the main issue is that the tier of the high end arties does not reflect their power or the effort it takes to get them. Either we need more intermediate steps inbetween say an SU-5 and an SU-8, or at least change the tier levels.

    As for the premium stuff beyond the 50% XP/income: The premium tanks are absolute rubbish and the ammo is only really useful when fighting tanks of a much higher tier, whilst their penetration is better the damage stays the same – hence it’s not game-changing unless you’re hunting stuff that you shouldn’t be. Leave the high tier tanks in a fight to the similar tier teammates and don’t try to hunt that IS-7 down with your A-20.

  8. tigershuffle says:

    getting the enemy scouts early is pretty essential……….otherwise you are open to arty all the time.

    nothing worse than a Leopard run rings round everyone round your base and you have 3 arty raining death from above

    ;) ……..rollon the full British tanks :D………not fussed about the US tbh

    • tigershuffle says:

      what i would like is more practical enhancements for the crew than some of the unfeasible things such as the Panthers turret and gun on a pziv (yes i do currently have it)

      make some changes to concealment and tactics that benefit and actually have to be deployed a bit like the timer for repairs. ie stop for 30 seconds and your concealment level increases if you have the camo nets and crew skills

      visible crews ie increased view range for been unbuttoned but increase your chance of crew deaths / injury

  9. Torqual says:

    This game is fun for a day or two. But when you have been killed on all maps by SPGs and the grind kicks in to get the next tier tank, the game starts to get boring really fast. There is only one game mode, capture the base and/or kill all enemies.

    The term free 2 play is a joke. Without premium double xp and credits you will grind forever to make any progress. With money you can get very good premium ammo with max penetration and damage on them. Free 2 play ppl would use anti armor or high explosive ammo. The premium ammo has both benefits in one ammo type. Premium tanks are lower in repair costs and so you get your next tank easier then in Free 2 play tanks. Premium user have doubled xp and credit earnings for their battles. So to play beyond tier 2 you have to buy a premium account time or you will have to grind forever. In high tier levels you have to play with a premium account or you will not earn enough money to keep your heavy tank or high tier tank running.

    Wot is not a tank simulation. The maps are too small to have a real tank battle feeling. Tanks are only shooting at point black range at each other.

    Fast tanks are teleporting over the map at long distances, so the long range shooting is nearly pointless. You can only score kills on stupid tank drivers, who like to play sitting ducks.

    SPGs are rather annoying. Most games there are 4+ spgs, prohibiting any movement on the map. All tanks are hiding behind mountains or houses to not get killed by those super accurate artillery.

    There are -10 maps. There is one gamemode. There is no pvecontent.

    There is no realistic damage modell. It takes up to 10 hits to kill a tank of your own level. For smaller tier levels its not possible to kill a heavy tank. This is realistic but no fun.

    The battle balance is no good. You fight all the time in battle with much higher tier levels then your own, making it impossible for you to make a change.

    For a tank enthusiast the game is just not realistic enough and for a arcade player there is no content at all. There are much better free to play games.

    I would not recomned anyone to play this World of Tanks (better name would be World of Self Propelled Guns SPGs).

    Just my 2 cents.

  10. JagedDoom says:

    Sorry i just wanted to enter the “Captcha” =\

  11. Thorgald says:

    “(however, I can already predict some complaints on artillery in the comments to this article)”

    No you DON’T SAY?!? Having SPG’s with near 100% accuracy is such a bad move, both gameplay wise AND from a historical standpoint it baffles me to see that they even released them into the game at its current state.

    I mean, artillery didnt become somewhat accurate until 10 – 15 years ago!

    Artillery were an anti infantry tool, not a tank destroyer, they kinda had, well, tank destroyers for that!

  12. Fumarole says:

    A Tank is the powerful steel beast associated with the roar of engines, thick armor, deadly salvos, and the smell of solar oil.

    The smell of solar oil?

    http://www.cnd.com/Products/Product.aspx/1124

  13. FRIENDLYUNIT says:

    I for one welcome our new Zombie Tank overlords.

  14. Dumbass says:

    Torqual your forgetting this is a beta version of the game so more the half of the content is still missing.

    • Torqual says:

      Yes, you are right, its beta. But you are also wrong. The game is close to release and there is not much time to fix some major issues. The biggest issue is the teleporting thing of long distance targets. To fix this they would have to alter the entire network code or huch bits of it. It destroys all the tank busting feeling for me. I don’t think its possible to fix this before any given release date. But i settled with it. I deinstalled the client and try to forget about this opportunity to have a interesting tank multiplayer game. Its a shame.

      Have a nice day

    • Fredrik Wester, CEO of Paradox says:

      Well, next patch is exactly going to solve the teleport issue. Not that I mind WoT, go Europa Universalis!

    • gor says:

      release is for february

      at least wargaming guys said so in warsaw

      delay is officialy due to greater then expected popularity in russia

  15. suvicze says:

    Well i must agree with that opinion on SPG… these machines was developt to provide support for infantry… destroying defense lines of enemy -> so it was hitting objects which dont move.. and here..
    arty is able to hit tanks like leopard/T44 etc which move around 50km/h…
    Then i dont agree that russion tanks are better in closer combat…medium like T43/44 maybe but heavies not.
    I have IS-3 now and if i wanna defeat tanks like KT I must take most of its HP from long range.. because it has more HP than me.. better armor and atleast faster gun…
    I can be satisfied if I kill tiger in close combat with is-3 and have more than 20-30% hp, because it has same hp as higher tier tank and atleast same armor and faster gun with almost same dmg and penetration…
    And finally F2P is funny.. as lot of ppl said if you wanna using your tanks around tier 7 and higher you need premium or you dont have enough money to repair and resupply the tank.. even with premium you dont have enough money if you dont play good game..
    From this point of view i should recommend to make it this way..
    ppl withnout premium will gain same money and xp as now with premium and premium players will have atleast 100% more…
    Because with that system in final release normal players will grind years to have tanks like tiger/IS jagdpanther and will not be able to play with them becase of high costs…

    • phawkins1988 says:

      Russian guns are typically less accurate and the tanks are typically more maneuvreable (at least on the heavy line). That’s why they’re better close up.

    • gor says:

      nope, you just have to ride something smaller from time to time.

      Game would be extremely boring with IS7 and Maus only :D

  16. Blaxy says:

    Game is pretty good. I haven’t seen any major setbacks here like in some other games.
    Most people that play tanks are annoyed by artilery ( most of them haven’t tried playing with artilery tough) and say it will need fixing etc. I play both with Russians and with Germans and from what i can say is that Russian tanks are slightly better, but that is my personal view, someone else might think its other way around. To be honest there are some days when i think the opposite :).
    Finally someone made a good tank game :)

  17. Cirno says:

    “Of course, we had some people within the community who were not happy with this option but we didn’t face any serious problems with it. I believe it’s because we’re trying to be loyal and don’t force people to pay for the premium account in order to join squads.”

    Oh no, they do force to pay. I enjoyed CBT with my friends, but when the game went live (in russia) and became pay-to-have-a-friend, it became super boring. Lots of people opposed their “innovative” idea, but the main discussion topic was cleaned up several times and then moved to trash. Anyone who tried to create new such topics was considered a troll and punished by banhammer. Happy times.

    I hope wargaming will die and get raped by Slaneesh and Co, after getting raped by a few chapters of space marines and sum orkz. Another perfect example (another ru game was allods) how a promising game can turn into a pile of goat crap.

  18. Megadeth89 says:

    This game is arcadey crap, why not simulation, why? Ah well, will wait for Red Orchestra 2.

  19. gor says:

    hey, I lost 300 HP’s from 1 shot from Hetzer riding my IS-7.
    Then my shot bounced off him.
    Then I killed him but the result was I was on reload when enemy IS-7 come to me ;D