That’s one thing I’ve been saying. WoT and WTGF both use the same UI layout. It’s what people are used to who play this. So why change it? If you change it, you get people bitching about how hard it is to understand… Probably the same ones who bitch about it looking the same. (I’m guilty of half of this with the way research works in WTGF… Holy fuck just make a tree with buttons I can click).

I call it the “Runescape syndrome”… fanboys bitch about how the game is always the same, devs put new features in, fanboys bitch about how the new features ruin the experience.

And who cares how similar it is to WoT? I’ll give it a shot… It’s a chance to start over new. It’s a chance to make a tank game that’s noob friendly, that has a decent community, that addresses problems instead of saying “we’ll have a fix SOON(TM)”

Also the missile defense system on some tanks.

IMO, there are a few ways to balance it: It’s reduces tank armour somehow (Maybe if you mount a missile you can’t have ERA or something) or have it where it uses ammo slots. It defends you from a missile, it uses an AA ammo. And AA ammo counts against your total ammo load for the tank. That’s just off the top of my head.

I’ll say that I don’t think it’s going to be another WTGF. Why? a) WTGF is the same era, WWII. b) WTGF only attracts players who want an EVEN MORE rng-dependent game… Or “realistic” as Gaijin call it. c) WTGF’s intense focus on “realism” detracts from the overall gameplay. Not to mention, it’s still buggy, and has been in “beta” for over a year.

To me, from the gameplay, it looks like it’s reasonably balanced and more toward skill/luck than speed reactions. You’re absolutely correct in saying that if they were accurate to the capabilities of modern tanks, it wouldn’t be fun. They seem to have sacrificed some of the realism for more arcadey features. They aim for weak spots, there’s armour penetration values and such, there’s a few seconds between shots, etc. It’s also possible, and in fact even likely, that since the gameplay is pre-alpha (and looks that good), they haven’t fully implemented their version of RNG.

All that being said, I like the co-op PvE element, and the PvP seems to be reasonable enough… None of this “hide in a bush in the cap circle to win” shit… You have to actually destroy objectives, and the fact that they have primary/secondary objectives as well as the ability to destroy all enemy tanks means that it’s likely that fewer people will “go for cap” as an easy way to win. Sure, you can hit all the primaries and win. But then you don’t get xp for secondary or tank destruction.

Sorry for the wall of text.

I like what they’re doing. And it’s kind of funny… The people who are bitching about the similarities to WoT would probably be the same ones to be all “THE INTERFACE IS TOO CONFUSING I DON’T KNOW HOW TO NAVIGATE DIFFERENT INTERFACE” if they didn’t use something. Plus, WTGF uses a similar layout.

Honestly, I see this as another WT:GF type of game, it’s out there, it’s another tank game, but it’s not really a direct competitor. Especially if your interests are in WWII tank warfare, as opposed to modern tanks.

Personally, I don’t see modern warfare tank games as really being terribly fun, due to the sheer capabilities of armor and weaponry resulting in the highest tier probably be similar to CoD, in terms of survivability. It’d have to evolve a bit and provide methods that aren’t abuse-able, for limiting the damage you receive. Accuracy seems strong too, which to me, makes the games PVP too much “twitch” and not enough skill/luck, as skill/luck makes fights more fun, I find.

Also, just a note, you could make the prem 5$ for a year, but if the game-play is stagnant or just can’t keep you, then it’s not nearly as worthwhile, for spending your time. Quite a number players would want to dedicate a ton of time to a game. Take WoT, as an example, some people have spent a TON of time playing it, and simply abandoning it may be hard (or near impossible) for them to do, so they keep going as they feel their investment of time has to mean something, same would go for this. Balancing is key, and, as Gaijin has proven, not balancing is rather anti-fun for most people.

Which means that I need to keep my aiming point with a little bit longer distance from the target than before.

And since new players grinding higher tiers after 0.8.6 don’t feel healthy respect for arty, they do puff.

My best battles that I enjoyed most were without arty at all,and WoT wouldn’t lose much if arty would be removed.

>Sadly they are very rare these days….
You must be unimaginably unlucky then.

> Arty Induces camping, no arguments. It does.
That statement is deplorable. Trying to handwave it away argumentum ab auctoritate – WITHOUT EVEN TRYING TO DEBATE IT – is a threat to critical discourse.

Your apparent definition of a worthwhile argument seems whiny.

A single artillery piece has 15 targets to identify, aim at, and engage. You have 15 tanks. He needs 40 seconds to reload at high tiers.

Advance.

Do you know what’s a worse stranglehold on an advance? Waffentragger E-100. The 183. Any Autoloader. An E-100 or Shoe can hold an entire flank by itself. Your attacks are more likely to stall because you made contact with the enemy scout and TD combo than artillery caves your head in.

All of those are sitting ducks. All of them are lunch for an SPG.