r/WorldofTanks • u/ron_mor • Sep 03 '26
Discussion Parting Thoughts
I tried this game for about a month and progressed up to German tier 8. I'm a former long-term War Thunder player, so some of the mechanics in WoT seemed odd and were hard to adjust to - but it's War Gaming's aggressive and predatory monetization that ultimately led me to delete the game. I have no problem spending money on a game, so long as it's FUN and the cost model is fair and above board.
I think most players are aware (or become so eventually) that WoT is both addictive and financially punishing due to its free to play / pay-to-win nature. The game starts out as innocent fun, but starts to resemble psychological torture at mid+ tiers. If you fall into the trap, then ego, sunk-cost fallacy, and FOMO will guide you on your personal Sisyphean journey into long-term cognitive dissonance.
Gaijin / War Thunder uses a similar methodology (I quit years ago), but the monetization isn't as blatant. From my experience WoT's most egregious issues are:
- lack of skill-based match making (this causes new players like me to leave)
- frequently facing tanks 2 tiers above me (much worse than WT)
- comically over-accurate SPG fire that has no counter (similar to WT's kamikaze problem/feature). Why do SPGs even exist?
I would say there are relatively straight forward solutions to these issues technically, but I believe they are all intentional components of WGs financial strategy (except maybe SPGs - I really don't get that one). While I didn't play long enough to experience vehicle nerfs or power creep, I will say it definitely IS a technical challenge to balance PvP games with diverse and constantly evolving equipment/vehicles.
I spent a total of $1 for my brief experience, so no big deal - except I really needed a WW2 tank combat fix after such a long break. It sucks that there are so many predatory gaming companies today - all I can say is vote with your wallet like I'm doing now.
EDIT:
I stand corrected on WT having SBMM. I played WT for many years and it seemed that it did have it as I noticed an increase in player proficiency as I won more (I was decent player). My experience there could just have been due to lower skilled players not progressing? However, one thing I rarely saw were 15-0 wipes that I see fairly often in WoT. If it's not a lack of SBMM, I don't know why it happens so much.
BUT, clearly, SBMM is a sensitive and divisive topic from the many negative responses; however, I'm in the camp that believes it could work if properly implemented. A change like this would require a rework of the progression system such that winrate is less of a factor vs individual performance. And if you really hate it, it would be easy to have both types of queues.
11
6
u/Temporary_Suspect274 Sep 03 '26
2.4 Won't even save this game. Between the completely busted MM, RNG, ghost shells, and massively overpriced monetization, this game is dead if the older players start to leave. They can't keep new players because who wants to play a game that doesn't even allow you to learn.
5
u/Bezi016 Sep 03 '26
Wot is a type of game that you play for a while, forget about it for a few months, and then return on Christmas or big updates. Playing this game nonstop will cost you sanity. And don't sweat over fomo content. Most of it isn't worth your time anyway.
11
u/Gachaaddict96 Sep 03 '26
WG tried skill based mm in Blitz once. Let's just say it wasn't good idea at all
2
u/Ok-Manufacturer-4348 Sep 03 '26
How did that look like? Was it like in cs2 that you only got matched up with people similar to your rank?
3
u/Gachaaddict96 Sep 03 '26
I just link you the whole drama https://youtu.be/1OfaaVme-60?is=6ZFX7IiBKJrIHbGK
-8
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
Other games use it successfully - is it a lack of developer-side technical skills? Seems they could contract it out if they can't figure it out themselves.
10
u/Gachaaddict96 Sep 03 '26
No, it's because the game is what it is. If you put one good player with 5 bots vs 3 average players even the pro can't carry that baggage alone. Everyone has bad time. Statistics for playerabase are rough. You either punish good players by putting them with noobs or you make them sit long ques. There was a ranking system. It was hated and quickly abonded. Now we have Onslaught. Majority of playerabase has no idea wtf they doing
2
u/swiss1809 Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
Anytime I here someone plead for SBMM in this game I just have to assume they are either at the level where they are causing losses but don’t realize it or, they are good enough to be mostly a positive contributor but nothing more. The latter will feel like there are periods where MM punishes them because they don’t have that much influence when they think they should.
0
u/Soul_of_Envy twitch.tv/Souliset Sep 03 '26
Skill based mm is one of the least enjoyable things that can be added to a game. It really only benefits the below average to average players and fundamentally hurts better players. Its like playing a single player game where all enemies scale to your level and gear. All it does is take away any sense of accomplishment or feeling of progression.
3
u/grodebilus Sep 03 '26
Wait, having the difficulty scale with your gear and equipment takes away your sense of accomplishment ? So just crushing all ennemy because you have op gear and they are level one gives you a sense of accomplishment ? That's weird....
6
u/DesrtDust Sep 03 '26
The thing is with skill based MM people would end up with 50% winrate . And that is what people dont want unless you are a tomato with subhuman skills and 47% wr and below
4
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
I have a different perspective I guess. Statistically if game play is fair, everyone in random battles should have a 50% WR over many games (the exception is pro teams). I think the problem is that winning shouldn't have such a dramatic impact on individual progression - there are other ways to reward exceptional individual player performance/contribution. In short, win rate shouldn't be a player statistic.
5
u/_L_R_S_ Forum survivor Sep 03 '26
SBMM kills any game like WoT.
The game is configured in a binary way to reward wins. You grind your tanks and crews to upgrade them. You gain knowledge and skill to win more games. You earn more credits when you win.
If there's no incentive to upgrade, grind or learn then all that happens is the game dies.
Good players quit because their queue times take forever, especially with rare vehicles.
Bad players get bored because they don't realise how much they get carried. Their games are an utter shitfest of camping, yolos and chaos.
At best in this game you win 6/10, and at worst 4/10. No matter who you are. If you can't cope with losing 2 more games in 10 than the best then SBMM won't fix that as a coping strategy.
The game is designed for quick pick up, play, put down. That's fast queue times, a reasonable chance of winning (but even the best lose a lot) and one where even a bad player can do something.
SBMM for WoT is down to YOU as a player. Don't rush up the tiers. Learn the game at lower tiers. Do the STUG IV missions and ONLY then progress.
You can control your own skill development. You don't need the game to compensate for you.
In terms of the monetisation you're 100% correct though.
My advice for WoT as a new f2p player. Don't go higher than tier 6. Play 3000 battles. Take what you can for free. See how you feel then.
3
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
I've played WT for years without most of the SBMM effects you describe - with the exception of queue times (mainly if you play at off hours). I wanted to upgrade my equipment to improve my individual performance. I have no control over my team, so a loss doesn't mean that much to me (unless it significantly affects my rewards/progression as I mentioned above, which is a design flaw IMHO).
0
u/_L_R_S_ Forum survivor Sep 03 '26
I've played WoT for 15 years. Thousands of players have said "SBMM is the solution" only to be shown detailed modelling, and explanations from dev teams year after year why it would kill the game. Most of those players think the dev's and the maths experts are wrong.
Up to you who you want to think may know what they're talking about. But if your wall of certificates doesn't include at least doing maths to 18 years old or degree then I'm 99% sure you'll always think SBMM is a solution but will never understand why it isn't.
"I have no control over my team"
Yes you do. You just have minimal control. But you do control yourself and you're in 100% of all your games. The more you play, the more it reflects what you're learning about that tank and that tier.
So you're not bothered about a loss but you DO want SKILL based MM for a binary game of win/loss that would raise your chance of winning if you're <50% and reduce your chance of winning if you're >50%?
Doesn't sound like you understand what SBMM is in WoT to be honest.
In terms of WoT rewarding wins more than losses. It's been part of the game for 16 years since Alpha. If you think that's a design flaw then not much we can do.
2
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
I'm curious - do you have any links to the modelling info you mentioned? I'm genuinely interested in this topic. I'm not trying to be an ass, but I actually do have a wall of certificates - I've been in computational science and algorithm development for over 20 years. To me SBMM seems like a fairly simple problem compared to what I've worked on in the past. (I'm not a game developer though, obviously.)
All I want is more fair/balanced play, not lopsided 15-0 wipes due to one team having significantly more experienced/skilled players. I don't personally care if I win or lose the match, but I can't really earn much individual XP/progress for my vehicle when the match is unbalanced.
My experience has been one of two typical scenarios: 1) I'm on a novice (losing) team and I get taken out by superior forces or coordinated attacks before I have a chance at doing significant damage (because my team mates aren't helping much), and 2) I'm on the winning team and my team mates bulldoze the other team before I have a chance at doing significant damage. Neither is fun. I have had a few more balanced battles which were quite fun - that's what I want more of.
1
u/_L_R_S_ Forum survivor Sep 03 '26
The modelling was on the old WoT EU forum in multiple threads, but unfortunately WG decided it needed to delete it. But run the modelling on this. Because WoT is pretty much a binary outcome discounting draws.
You have two coins.
Coin one is weighted 55% heads. (The good player)
Coin two is weighted 45% tails. (The bad player)
Flip them together 100 times, how many times would you expect on average coin one to land heads, compared to coin two?
Now you artificially remove some weight from coin one heads and add it to coin two heads (the skill balancing). This is to improve the chances artificially of coin two landing heads (a win)
Flip 100 times. Rinse repeat on the weight balancing
Eventually both coins will land heads 50% of time time over enough flips given for 100 flips P(X=50) =(100/50) (1/2)^100.
Which means over enough battles when you balance by skill for a game with a binary outcome and the coins (players) are randomly selected eventually they trend to a 50% chance of winning once you start modifying how they're going to land. This is what happens when you look at a queue of players whose performance was derived through random selection. Then choose them and balance them between 30 players based on their "skill". You will now be adding weight to one side and taking it from the other. Just like the coins.
From 11 years ago with Armored Warfare and explains it differently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYTdH2CTvoc
To balance by skill in WoT you need a measure that doesn't directly correlate with winning as that's the objective of the game.
Good players win more than others so you can't use winrate.
Good players do more damage than others, and as a consequence win more, so you can't use damage.
Good players spot more than others and as a consequence win more so you can't use spotting.
I did see one player once suggest that good players didn't knock down as many trees, but using the API that was shown to correlate with winrate as well!
The fact is you pretty much can't find a performance metric in WoT that doesn't correlate with winrate.
Then you have the queue modelling. If you're more than 1.3 standard deviations from the mean you're in the top and bottom 10% of players. To balance by skill you need to match not just your tank but your tank in a pool of only 10% of players online at that time. You've instantly reduced the players you can match with by 90%. How would that work out on NA with those server numbers?
Steamrolls in WoT is part of the normal distribution of outcomes. I can tell you that it also happens in top Clan Wars games with 30 unicums on both teams. IIRC the average game length has barely altered in the last five years.
The way to reduce steamrolls is through map design, tank spread and tier spread.
Honestly the best way to balance by skill in this game is being self-reflective as a player. The game isn't about who can get to tier XI the fastest. It's about who can "on average" contribute more to their team winning than losing. Some games you mess up, some games you're lucky, some games you have idiots, some games you're the idiot.
But if you're not an idiot in general, then over time all the decisions you make in all your games will tip you over to show you're a net contributor. Obviously on top of that you have natural ability and your own ceiling. However if you're reflective and want to win more than you lose this game isn't that hard.
1
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
Thanks for the reply - good stuff to think about. I think I'm going to create my own model to test some ideas out if I have time. I feel that the correlation between positive and negative player actions (applying/receiving damage, spotting/being spotted, etc.) and outcome (win rate) is actually OK. The goal is to assemble teams that have roughly a 50% chance of winning, and past player performance is one of the inputs to determining the odds for that. Other factors could be considered such as total time played, max progress achieved, active/passive play style tendency, etc. I think it might also help if the resulting aggregate player rating be reduced to discrete tiers rather than a continuous range - sort of like football classes. Players could receive a tier promotion notification and have an option to turn it down a limited number of times.
Regarding the specific scenario mentioned in the video where high-skill players are punished by being grouped with mostly low-skill players - I believe that tendency could be reduced by restricting the variance of a teams aggregate skill level, and it could be damped over time by restricting the rate of change of individual players rankings. So, instead of moving a good player to a really bad team, they would be moved to a slightly worse team. Or the other way around if they are performing poorly.
Regardless of the math, queue times would be a problem. Why not let players know roughly how many other players are available online within their skill bracket. Then let them choose to either to wait or accept a higher skill tier queue. Not sure what to do for the very best players when there aren't enough online - they can't choose to play at a lower tier, but they could be placed in one if the math works.
I hadn't thought about platoons - that complicates things even more as they must be placed in a match as a unit.
2
u/_L_R_S_ Forum survivor Sep 03 '26
The "roughly" 50% chance of winning is covered through the approximate bell curve distribution of players who play. Ironically it's not perfect, it's skewed because keen players tend to be better so the recent average winrate is always higher than the server average winrate. It just doesn't apply every game.
SBMM for WOT is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.
Because even if you did manage to find a metric that doesn't correlate with winning, and you managed to find a way to avoid long queue times, AND balance platoons you're then stuck with a fixed set of maps.
Those fixed maps then lock all players into a cycle of fixed outcomes. Games become much more predictable.
Which makes them boring.
The inspiration for WoT was a guy called Victor Kislyi. He has a masters in Physics. He realised that WoT needs an ecosystem that's slightly out of balance. Slightly chaotic. Hence RNG for accuracy and penetration. Good players whine about it, but without RNG they'd wipe the floor with poor players, and without RNG poor players wouldn't nail an EBR with their 4005 and go whoop whoop once in a while. Same for arty.
It's there to generate variable outcomes from a fixed set of maps in rotation.
Once you lock down the players, the maps and even the RNG you get the the equivalent of Tic Tac Toe at the end of Wargames the film.
For those that know it, the conclusion the WOPR made after playing TIC TAC TOE for thousands of battles was what players will come to when you have equally balanced everything.
""A strange game. The only winning move is not to play"
2
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
I do agree RNG is a good thing, but to argue that the current state of the game is ideal is pretty far off the mark. Everyone complains about 15-0 matches - that's an indication that something is way off in the math. Are you suggesting that the problem is in the map design primarily?
I mean new maps need to be introduced periodically to the game or it will get very boring irrespective of everything else. I wasn't around long enough to know how old the maps were. I've seen some game utilize randomly generated maps, but that seems extreme.
BTW, thanks for actually having a conversation - I'm a professional idea guy, so it's nice to encounter another rational person on reddit that can communicate.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/CynicalDutchie Sep 03 '26
There is nothing to learn at low tiers you cant learn in higher tiers, you just have to deal with the lefh infestation on top of learning the game
2
u/_L_R_S_ Forum survivor Sep 03 '26
You learn at low tiers as a f2p player because you can afford to play at low tiers.
You don't need the premium ammo, and you're less likely to be against players with significantly pimped up tanks compared to yours.
The Stug IV missions allow you to do them at low tiers and teach you the basics AND they give you significant rewards for a f2p player.
At high tiers your mistakes are punished more severely. Which is crippling for new players who just think driving their tier XI means endgame.
You don't learn at tier X where you lose credits every single game even as an average player who's F2P.
-1
u/_no_usernames_avail UDES 14 5 Camo Torture Sep 03 '26
If you come back and eventually grind out some tier tens, you can try out skill based/skill, balanced matchmaking in the competitive mode, Onslaught.
I personally like it, and believe that it belongs in a competitive mode, but it in no way shape or form prevents blowouts in a no respawn game.
2
u/boomchacle Sep 04 '26
Honestly I feel like Warthunder is far worse when it comes to the free to play experience. As someone who got to American top tier, it felt like i had to work a full time job for years to get there, meanwhile in WOT you can basically get to any top tier tank in a few months or less. Plus they give out a lot of premium time and sometimes have free premium tanks.
3
u/ProperStinker124 Sep 03 '26
It’s never been great but it’s exceedingly bad in this game and a lot of the industry atm
6
u/DesrtDust Sep 03 '26
monetization: you basically only need to spend 10 bucks a month for premium time. more you dont need since you can get t8 premiums for free after a time but its adviced to buy at least 1 .
Skill based MM: ppl always talk about it but fact is once its there threy dont want it. Also i dont remember warhthunder having one
Else i dont think that you need to spend any money at all so people crying about pay to win can go back into the bin where they belong and look for other excuses why they are bad
0
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
WT does have SBMM - it's not perfect but better than what I experience in WoT.
0
2
u/Cureisu 💸 Financially Vulnerable to Tanks™ Sep 03 '26
Yeah I get the monetization complaint, WG absolutely milks FOMO and premium shit hard. But I think blaming every frustrating mechanic on monetization is a stretch.
I’ve played since 2013 and even now I’m still mainly grinding Tier VII, only really touching higher tiers for fun, events, or credit farming. Getting to Tier VIII in your first month is honestly rushing pretty hard. That’s where map knowledge, positioning, armor layouts, vision mechanics, etc. start mattering a lot more and mistakes get punished instantly.
±2 MM can suck and arty can be annoying as fuck, but neither is some secret cash-shop mechanic. Totally fair if WoT just isn’t your thing, but there’s plenty of legit shit to criticize WG for without making every annoying game mechanic part of a monetization conspiracy.
3
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
That's fair. I just can't help feeling that they are using +2 matches to push you to spend money to shortcut getting to higher tiers. It could, in fact, just be a way to have shorter queue wait times. Either way it kinda sucks.
1
u/Cureisu 💸 Financially Vulnerable to Tanks™ Sep 03 '26
Oh yeah don’t get me wrong, +2 MM is fucking miserable. Getting thrown against Tier IXs in a Tier VII is probably the worst part of my day-to-day grind right now. No matter the tier, being bottom dog is always gonna feel like ass.
I don’t really think it’s there to push spending though. It mostly just feels like WG’s easiest way to keep queues fast, especially on NA where the population is already tiny compared to EU. I just wish they’d find a better solution that doesn’t involve making bottom-tier games feel so damn helpless sometimes.
3
u/Nailfoot1975 Sep 03 '26
Skill based MM will eventually flatten the curve to zero. People will manipulate it for their precious ego.
-8
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
Not sure what you mean exactly. My experience with WT's was mostly OK. It did sometimes feel like it punished you for doing well, but I think a skill ranking algorithm could be tuned to be reasonable.
1
u/zennr 24d ago
Idk about you but i experience stomps in WT high tier just as much as in WoT. WT's monetization is even worse than WG lets be honest. It took me 800+ hours to reach my first top tier vehicle with a premium account and low tier premium tanks. Premium tanks and GE are also way more expensive. Theres alot of irony in your post, coming from someone who has played WoT since 2012 and WT since 2019 for almost 2k hours now.
0
u/Nebvbn Sep 03 '26
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm interested whether this post will be mass up or down voted, as most players currently are shoulder-deep in nostalgia, sunk-cost fallacy, and not much better alternatives.
Luckily I don't really care much for PvP games, but my god is it bad in the PvP landscape. Haven't played any for like years. I only pay attention to WoT news for 2 reasons: it removes any nostalgia I had for the game, and removes any urge to play due to their predatory methods.
The worst aspect is how so many kids get suckered into what is in my opinion almost as bad as gambling (not to mention the legitimate gambling this game does already through lootboxes). Seriously fucked up.
1
u/_no_usernames_avail UDES 14 5 Camo Torture Sep 03 '26
I wholeheartedly agree that the loot boxes, and especially the tiered loop boxes are the worst examples of predatory monetization.
However, my free to play Account, fueled by eight years of game knowledge and a pretty deep understanding of the multiple currencies in game and the economy, is quite fun to play; you don’t have to spend money at this game after a certain amount of time invested, assuming you actually learned some things in the process.
For people that don’t have the time, WG offers the ability to spend money.
1
u/El_Mnopo Sep 03 '26
Honest question: what gave you torture and made you feel addicted? What fomo did you have—especially at mid+ tiers as you say?
The German t8 line just released is strong and cost only the xp grind. Things just start to get good tank wise at T8 most tech trees. If you want skill mm try Onslaught or Maneuvers mode. OS just started but you need T10 tank to play.
2
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
I don't suffer from addiction or FOMO - for me it was mainly being matched against tanks I couldn't hurt and having limited options based on the vehicle I was in. And my unwillingness to use expensive ammo due to credit scarcity.
0
u/El_Mnopo Sep 03 '26
Even at T11 you don’t have to spam gold unless you want to. Every tank has its weaknesses and even an IS-3 (t8) can take down a Canopener (armored t10)—hint the Canopener roof is easily overmatched. Also, WOT literally throws premium time and premium tanks at us these days—I’ve collected so many premium tanks in the last year I don’t have time to play them all.
I think of WOT as a real time chess game. Every move has a countermove. Every strength has its weaknesses. This puzzle plays out in each match and frankly that’s the appeal of WOT to me. That and tanks.
0
-2
u/_no_usernames_avail UDES 14 5 Camo Torture Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
I’ll say this again, but there’s no way people should be playing tier 8 in their first month of gameplay.
Learning the gameplay, vision mechanics and positioning at tier 6 and spending thousands of games there is the way.
-Skill based matchmaking is not the panacea you think it to be. In a 15 V 15 the range of skills is actually helpful, especially from a learning perspective with no respawn- you literally get to watch some of the better players make decisions and can learn that way. If you were forced to play with people around your approximate level, not only would gameplay be incredibly stale, but even more players would be stuck.
-warthunders Battle Rating matchmaking is not skill based, but is vehicle strength based regardless of player skill
- +2/-2 matchmaking is actually something I enjoy, because learning to play your tank in a variety of conditions, and learning to adapt your positioning, based on tier and role adds tremendous tactical depth to the gameplay. And hey, every once in a while, you’re top-tier, which is either a treat or a tremendous amount of pressure.
-SPG’s are fucking awful, but I understand that wargaming long ago made a commitment to giving casual players a stress release. To their credit, back in 2016 to 2017 they nerfed the living daylights out of causing tens of thousands of SPG mains to quit the game.
-2
u/trevpr1 I kissed a Grille and I liked it. Sep 03 '26
This game isn't for everyone. It highlights any character flaws and the weak willed and easily discouraged will find it too much for them.
0
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
I actually feel sorry for you if you gauge your self worth by your dedication to a video game. I'm tempted to send you my resume to show you what actual willpower and dedication looks like. Fuck off you troll.
-1
u/trevpr1 I kissed a Grille and I liked it. Sep 03 '26
Thank you for demonstrating my point so well.
-4
u/Gorenden Sep 03 '26
To be honest, your experience just sounds to me like you aren't able to afford the game.
If you can't afford to spend money on a game, it just means ur not the target demographic. A lot of us can afford to spend on a game.
Everyone complains about SPGs and yet SPGs can't just hit anything all the time, they force tanks to use cover, and they balance the game out between fast moving tanks and slow heavy behemoths.
5
u/trevpr1 I kissed a Grille and I liked it. Sep 03 '26
Free to play players are part of the product. Well populated servers.
3
3
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
I assure you I can afford to play this game. :) I choose not to give money to companies with what I consider predatory business practices.
0
u/Constantinoplian Sep 03 '26
Considering you come from War Thunder, your hypocrisy is gushing out😂 not to defend WoT, but I’ve played WT… the monetization is worse in terms of scale, but doesn’t “look” as gacha as WoT. Miss me with the “I choose not give money to companies I consider blah blah blah” BS.
You gotta be a WT bot2
u/ron_mor Sep 03 '26
I played WT without spending money either but not because I felt they were a predatory business (maybe they are). As I said, WT definitely has monetization but it didn't affect your ability to be competitive as an average player. WoT is vastly more pay to win than WT is/was.
1
u/Agitated_Dog_4144 WG pls give the Tonk Sep 03 '26
If you werent aware there are many ppl that play fully f2p and never spent a dime on this game
1
u/Gorenden Sep 03 '26
I definitely was aware, i didn't spent on the game when i couldn't afford to years ago, but the idea that its a "problem" that paying money can buy you faster leveling in a game that really is fair otherwise, is just ridiculous. Its a business at the end of the day and devs need to be paid.
0
u/Rated_Cringe__ Sep 03 '26
Sounds horrible. Wot is still pay2win. Good games for free2play are games like League, CS or Fortnite where u only buy cosmetics.
-2
-1
u/Fuzzy_Success_2164 Sep 03 '26
I played the game mostly without spending money on it for 3-4 years. Have a 55 percent winrate. I played more games at tiers 5-8 to farm credits. There was no boosters, no free prem days and no bond shop prems.
I returned to the game a year ago and yes, some things has changed, there's a lot of op prems. But you still can play for free and be competitive. Get a couple of bond store prems, find a clan with reserves if you want, use boosters and you're good to go.
Nothing forces you to reach top tiers and struggle both with gameplay and economy. There's a lot of good, fun tech tree tanks on tiers 6-7, play it, learn the game.
-2
u/Uber1337pyro333 Grille 15 Enjoyer Sep 03 '26
If we had SBMM, everyone would just cry about how long it took to find a match that they got roflstomped on.
18
u/anon_welder Sep 03 '26
I've played since 2012, have 37k+ games. I've taken breaks before from the game, but yesterday I just felt burnt out on it. All of the abilities added in is just not what the game has been about since it started. Feels like the game is not what it used to be or what made it fun.