What Wargaming Has Done Right, and What They Can Do To Improve

 

I know what you're thinking, those of you who know what the word contrarian means. Why would I bother to write about what Wargaming has done right? If we look at the definition of contrarian, we find it means this:

con·trar·i·an

noun \kən-ˈtrer-ē-ən, kän-\

: a person who takes an opposite or different position or attitude from other people

While I know I have mentioned some things they've done right, and some of their successes previously, I will try to explain here why their success is very much a good thing, and how it can possibly further the positive development of World of Tanks. You see, although I'm a contrarian to a great extent, I still want to see this game succeed. At the very least, I'd like to see the game spur other developers to succeed with their idea on this unique genre of player versus player armored vehicle combat. So far, sadly, only Gaijin (developers of War Thunder) has stepped up to the plate. As I've mentioned before in a previous article, this is quite surprising to me, and tells me that major game developers are stuck in the mud for the most part. This means that they simply want to continuously rehash the same old sequels, prequels, etc, until you have Call of Duty 15 (do we really need that?). This leaves game development largely up to indie developers, kickstarter heroes (Uber Entertainment with Planetary Annilhation), and lesser-known but very successful developers like Wargaming. I fully believe that these types of developers and publishers are the future of gaming. Of course, the only time that major game producers will take notice and stop producing garbage is when people simply stop paying them (Capcom). 

What Wargaming Has Done Right

There's a lot of evidence showing what Wargaming has done right as far as their development of World of Tanks is concerned. In my first article, I gave quite a few examples of this. Make no mistake, this company has gone from 3rd rate nobody to raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in only a few years. They've managed to create something quite unique indeed in World of Tanks, and millions of gamers have taken notice. This game truly is the very first online player versus player armored vehicle game that has been done so well that while not everyone pays for it, those that do in some cases have spent hundreds or thousands on the game. For those that don't, they've spent a lot of time grinding, in some cases, years to get a few tier ten tanks. Wargaming has created a game that draws people in and either forces them to spend money, forces them to grind for long periods of time, or forces them to quit (or all of the above). This has proven to be a very successful business model, as Wargaming has shown time and time again:

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/17/wargaming-buying-a-new-building-on-cyprus/

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/28/wargaming-to-restore-dornier-bomber-for-300k-eur/

(source: http://ftr.wot-news.com/)

(source: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/17/wargaming-buying-a-new-building-on-cyprus/)

So, not only have they bought up multiple gaming studios, and a bank, but also a new gigantic futuristic-looking building, and are in the process of a restoring an old bomber. These purchases may seem perhaps a bit much, but if you know anything about business tactics, then they make sense. 

The T69, a feared 7/42 opponent

Gameplay

It's really the gameplay of World of Tanks that gets people hooked. The learning curve is punishing, there are many players who will make you pay for your mistakes, and some of the grinds are very tough indeed. Despite all this, the game manages to be very, very fun, if you stick with it. If you can manage to find tanks you enjoy, and become very good, or at least adequate in them, you will find the game to be much more engaging and less bland than many games. Every battle is different, every battle is a chance for you to be a hero, or get utterly destroyed in a smoking wreck. There's the thrill of the fight (que Eye of the Tiger), and the danger that you can die at any time and thus have no further affect on the battle. There's the thrill of hitting a crazy shot at a crazy angle, the thrill of one-shotting big tanks, the thrill of ramming the enemy at high speed and then shooting them to death. Once you learn some of the game mechanics, the game can work for you in many cases, and become quite the experience. It's really the gameplay, and the ability to move up the tiers and unlock new tanks, that keep people motivated to play the game. Wargaming has done an outstanding job on this, and thus people empty their paychecks into the game. 

either lots of time or lots of money

Progression

I mentioned previously about moving up the tiers. This is really the end-game of World of Tanks, and goes hand and hand with the end-game battle scenarios of Clan Wars, Team Battles/E-sports, and Tournaments. It's quite exciting to unlock that next tank, buy it, upgrade it, and play it. In some ways it's almost like trying a new car, Wargaming has made sure that this is something to be eagerly anticipated. When I was still in a clan, almost everyone would tell people when they got a new tank, and people would congratulate them, and it was a fun experience. Getting a new tier ten tank is especially nice, since even with gold/free experience, it is usually quite the grind. This is of course not mentioning the people who literally use their hundreds of thousands of free experience, and tons of gold, to get a tier ten in seconds (very expensive unless the gold comes from tournaments/clan wars, etc). 

What Wargaming Can Do To Improve

While there are many good aspects of World of Tanks, there is definite room for improvement as well. One of the primary concerns about the game is the matchmaker, which for the most part has been bad for years. This could be part of how Wargaming gets people to pay, as mentioned in previous articles. In beta, you had horrible battles like this:

tier 1 vs tier 9 (IS-4 was once tier 9)

Instead, now you have horrible battles like this:

have fun with that

Obviously, they have improved the matchmaker to an extent. Improving upon something that is as bad as the beta matchmaker though, is still not really that great. I believe they should implement a one tier spread at this point, which would cause battles to be much closer, and the top tanks then do not have the massive advantage that they still currently have. Everyone wants closer battles right? Who wants 0-15 or 15-0? It was mentioned before that we didn't have the server population to sustain a one tier spread, people would have to wait forever, etc. I believe now the server population is high enough that this method could work. As shown on wot-news:

NA Server

Total Players:                                  5,240,056

Active players in the last week:      1,187,643

In June of 2011, shortly after World of Tanks launched, there were 177,827 registered that month. Compare that to June of 2013 which is 776,593, which is the largest spike of registered users ever for the NA server (source: http://wot-news.com/stat/server/us/norm/en). Thus you can see that the population of the NA server has significantly increased, and indeed my experience can attest to this as well. I remember when the game first came out, you had around 10-15k at most, online at one time, and now you have 25-40k on average.

Aside from the matchmaker, there's the RNG of 25%, which I feel is far too high, and should be lowered to 10-15% at least. RNG simply makes bad players make big plays, and downplays the effective skill of good players by a roll of the dice. It can be one of the worst aspects of the game, as some games you simply won't be able to salvage a win. 

There's also the camouflage and spotting mechanics, which simply favor high view range, high camo tanks, such as high tier TDs. It also makes light tanks, even high tier lights, that much less effective, as many of the higher tier TDs, heavies and mediums will see them before they can do anything. 

Finally, you have powercreep, which Wargaming insists upon ramping up, almost on a monthly basis. This is something that definitely makes them a lot of money, and while I have no problem with them making money, I do have a problem with obsoleting current or past tanks with newer better ones. It's been proven that over time, powercreep does kill games, and this one will be no different, if they continue. 

All of this being said, I believe World of Tanks has been a truly fantastic game. Unique in design, concept, and implementation, the downside to it is the fact that Wargaming is simply content to be ignorant of many player concerns. Perhaps War Thunder ground forces will change this, or perhaps not, either way, I think we can already tell Wargaming is a bit nervous about them. This is evidenced by their future implementation of enhanced HD graphics, more modules being added (extra armor, etc), and other features to come. All of this is to directly compete with Gaijin, the makers of War Thunder ground forces. It will be an interesting battle between the two developers, but the only winner can be us, the players. 

  

The Leopard 1 mounts a fantastic gun on a very mobile chassis 

 

Why Speed is Armor, and Firepower is King

 Who Needs Real Armor?

 

For quite some time now, many people have known that if you depend on armor, or drive a tank that does, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. The game has more or less been creeping towards this direction, and it clearly favors certain tanks. This isn't to say you can't do well in a heavily armored tank, or that things like armor angling, proper use of hull-down tactics, are useless, but they aren't what they used to be. The game has become much faster, and much more dependent on having either very high burst damage (autoloaders), or very high alpha. DPM, or damage per minute, can be useful, but is largely overshadowed by the previously mentioned attributes. 

This phenomenon goes hand in hand with the ongoing powercreep in the game, as well as the innovation of gold ammo for credits. I personally believe that gold ammo should not exist in this game, as it greatly unbalances certain tanks, while merely making others adequate at best. Examples of this would be the T69, without gold, it's definitely harder to play. Wargaming knows that they have to powercreep this game to keep it going, to keep people spending the insane amounts of money that many have spent. The reason I know this occurs is because I've spoken to many people who have admitted this, and if you read the forums enough, you'll see it there too. At any rate, the fact that Wargaming doesn't seem to care about retaining many of their veteran players, and instead mostly pander to new players, gives me the idea that they are indeed getting many, many new players. This isn't necessarily a bad thing mind you, but it doesn't make the veteran players feel very confident spending money on future Wargaming endeavors. 

You might be asking, why would Wargaming essentially make armor mostly useless, in an armored vehicle combat game? The answer is simple: being historically accurate does not really contribute to powercreep, and the current model Wargaming has obviously makes very good money, for now. This isn't to say War Thunder ground forces or some other more historically accurate game cannot be successful, but coming out with crazy new prototype tanks is something people seem to pay money for.

the legendary Bat

Speed Is Armor

What exactly does this mean? Simply put, the more you stay mobile, out of the line of sight or fire of the enemy, the better chance you have of survival, and possible success. If you don't need to rely on people bouncing rounds off of your tank, you will survive more, guaranteed. Given the massive proliferation of gold ammo in the game which is painfully obvious if you try to drive anything that depends on armor, it's no surprise that faster tanks have largely taken over. What I mean by fast is anything that has relatively good acceleration, ground passability, track traverse that isn't anemic, and a top speed over 40 km/h. Tanks such as the Maus, T95, JP E-100, T110E3 are examples of tanks that heavily depend on armor, and are quite slow as well. It's precisely tanks like these that are mostly being power crept out of usability. Having played the T110E3 on the test server, I can say it is actually quite good in some cases, but you won't change a game in it the way you can in a Bat Chat, T-62A, or Leopard 1. 

Given that it's quite hard to survive in higher tier battles, the use of hard cover that cannot be shot down is really the best way to make sure your tank can stay alive, and fighting. Most good players have known for awhile that while driving heavily armored tanks can be fun, depending on armor is really not a good idea. Take the French tanks for example, every tier 10 is used in Clan Wars to some extent, and in the case of the Bat Chat 25t, it is a Clan Wars staple. This is after all the nerfs to the Bat, which was originally a tier 9 medium with a 6 shot autoloader. 

Bat Chat 25t nerfs:

accuracy went from .31 to .36
increased aim time
increased reload time for the drum as well as in between shots in the clip
reduced hit points
reduced gun depression
reduced view range
increased ground resistance 
reduced track traverse

Despite all these nerfs, this tank is still one of the best in the game when used properly, and is one of the primary Clan Wars tanks. This has more to do with it's tremendous top speed and acceleration combined with very good firepower. With the 105mm gun, it has 5 shots for 390 average damage, allowing for 1,950 potential burst damage in a relatively short amount of time (27 rpm inside the clip).

the less legendary AMX 50B

Other examples of tanks that mostly rely on speed are of course the AMX 50B, which, while not being as useful as the T57 Heavy (more powercreep), when its speed (65 km/h) is used effectively, it can turn the tide of many tough battles. This tank is also used in Clan Wars from time to time, despite the nerfs it received (all French tanks except the Foch 155 have been nerfed considerably). There's also the Leopard 1, another tank used in Clan Wars in a somewhat similar role to the Bat, as a scout, 2nd-3rd line damage dealer, and possibly close-support if necessary. Although somewhat new, this tank has proven it's ability to be a fast, excellent sniper, and useful scout.  

STB-1, obsoleting mediums in a match near you

The upcoming patch will include Japanese tanks, and the tier 10 medium is the STB-1. This tank will combine aspects of the Leopard 1 (good mobility, same gun), T-62A (relatively good turret, low profile, very high DPM), M48/M60/FV4202 (excellent gun depression/elevation). Despite not having the greatest accuracy and somewhat increased aim-time, this tank, for all intents and purposes, will obsolete every tier 10 medium currently in the game, other than maybe the Bat Chat. It's also another perfect example of a tank that mostly lacks armor, but makes up for it with solid speed/agility, and very good firepower, although in this case, DPM still isn't as good as high burst damage or alpha in my opinion. 

Firepower Is King

Firepower has been getting more and more ridiculous in this game in almost every patch Wargaming releases. One of the first very big indications of this was when the French tanks were released. This took the playerbase by storm, since it was the first time autoloaders were introduced, and many people had no idea how to deal with it. The better players quickly mastered the AMX 13 75, 13 90, Lorraine40t, and Bat Chat 25t, causing much chaos on the forums, and in-game. This was because all these tanks were actually pretty overpowered when they first came out (big surprise), and when properly used, could easily turn defeat into victory. The effective burst damage provided by autoloaders effectively negates these tanks inherent lack of armor, and when combined with their speed, it makes for a deadly combination. 

When talking about firepower, one must mention the E-100, and when you mention the E-100, you need to look at all of them. When the original E-100 was introduced, it was yet another step up the powercreep ladder, as it combined high alpha damage, better speed than the Maus, and quite substantial armor. There's also the JP E-100, the first tank to break the 1,000 average damage per shot barrier. Finally, the WT E-100, the tank that has a 6 round Jagdtiger autoloading gun, with 3,360 potential average damage per clip. All of these tanks have contributed to the firepower powerceep, although the JP E-100 isn't considered all that great by most people.

Tanks that either have autoloaders, or high alpha damage, that is, high average damage per shot, are generally considered to have the best firepower. This is because these tanks allow you to do a lot of damage in a shorter period, without risking your hit points. Tanks that rely on DPM, unless the DPM is significant (T-62A, STB-1) are generally harder to be successful with because you have to remain out of cover longer.  

It's safe to say that if you're driving a tank that has either high speed/maneuverability, or high firepower, you stand a much better chance of getting your team a victory. This is of course provided you are able to take advantage of the strengths of these tanks. Wargaming has been pushing the firepower envelope quite often, and it's safe to say they won't stop anytime soon. I can't understand where this will eventually take the game, will we have hover tanks that fire lasers and can permanently cloak? Where does it end?




  

shells will do damage to tanks through objects in 8.10

 

Destructible Objects and How They Fit Into Wargaming's Model

Working As Intended

 

Having previously written about Wargaming's design for this game, World of Tanks, I'd like to expand on that a bit. It's quite well known that many of the mechanics and features in the game are both not suitable for e-sports, and indeed quite frustrating beyond that. They know that if they develop a fun enough game, and then add certain elements into it that are different and potentially aggravating, that many people will still play and possibly pay anyway. If you've played less than 5-10k battles, and you haven't experienced a huge level of frustration, then you are likely in this category. 

Patch 8.10

In the upcoming patch, 8.10, they plan to introduce a new game mechanic where AP and APCR shells will be able to fly through destructible objects and potentially do damage to a tank on the other side. Previously, any shell that hits even the smallest fence, car, wall, or anything else, would simply be eaten by that object and would never do damage to the enemy. Keep in mind that AP and APCR are the vast majority of shells fired in this game, other than a relatively small number of tanks that fire a lot of HE or HEAT shells. As the round travels through the object, the greater the distance, and the more objects it hits, the greater the loss of penetration there will be. This does not mean you can shoot a tank through 10 houses in a row, but you will be able to do damage much more effectively, even if the enemy has cover. Wargaming thinks that although it is realistic for a 120mm subcaliber (APCR) round to penetrate through many 'softer' objects in a row, it would change the game too significantly. In the future, it is also planned for shells to travel through buildings as well, further making cover that much more useless.

This mechanic is yet another of Wargaming's attempts to create an environment where tanks can be much more easily damaged and destroyed. Powercreep is the primary vehicle for this of course, but supposedly small things like adding destructibility to 'soft' cover and buildings end up being much more important once you experience it. Gold rounds for credits was another tactic, as this provided almost everyone with the ability to shoot gold ammo, in any given match. This negates armor even moreso, as if the already increasingly ridiculous high tier high penetration gun powercreep wasn't enough. 

this won't work anymore

Who Needs Tactics?

Trying to use that little wall to hull down? Well now they can just shoot through the wall and negate your clever use of cover. Previously they would've had to waste a round on the wall, letting your know that someone is shooting at you, if you didn't already know, giving you time to move away or fire back. This further discourages smart tactical decisions and makes it so you either have to keep moving all the time no matter what, or simply hide behind hard cover a lot more. Tanks that rely on armor have been going out of style for awhile, but this only makes it worse. The current meta for this game involves either having excellent mobility, or excellent firepower, or both. There's a big reason why not many play the Maus anymore.

the sad Maus

Given that the majority of objects in the game are soft cover, meaning cover that is actually destructible by firing at it, this is going to change the game quite a bit. A previously non-damaging shot will now damage in many cases, which in my view is another buff to TDs. Now they can sit back as they always do, fire through objects, and remain hidden, meanwhile doing damage where once they would've alerted the enemy who then would've likely moved away if he's not a potato. Now, don't get me wrong, of course that's how you're supposed to play a TD, as an ambush vehicle. I just believe that the way they currently work, especially for high tiers, is somewhat broken. I've covered this in detail in my previous article, "World of TDs". 

This new game mechanic will only make that worse, particularly for guns with high alpha. An Object 268 or T110E4 would've had to either shoot the turret (not always the best idea) or waste a round on the soft cover protecting an enemy's hull, but now, they will do damage with the first shot, and likely have a good chance of destroying the tank completely.

the happy T110E4

Map Design

I've talked about how Wargaming designs their maps before, but there maybe some aspects of it that go unnoticed. Of course everyone knows that the majority of the maps are simply too small, particularly for fifteen versus fifteen tanks in the higher tiers. For how large and powerful the vehicles get at this level, some of the maps are like a bunch of acrobats performing in a large closet, amazing but ridiculous. Although I understand this game is not supposed to be a simulation, bigger maps would make for a more interesting experience. This is because you would have more possibilities for flanking, tactics, and you know, things other than going down one of the three lanes and slugging it out face to face.

One aspect of the maps that people may not realize is that they have many bumps, ridges, hills, and terrain similar to this. This essentially makes sniping harder, and rewards in-your-face brawling. This is another thing that makes the game more arcadey, and less about shot placement and skillful accuracy. It also reduces the survivability and usefulness of sniper tanks, such as many of the German and British vehicles. 

The small size of the maps is another feature they use to keep the battles shorter, more arcade-like, and to keep people dying faster. Having rounds able to pass through objects and still do damage will make the maps even smaller, and negate much of the cover that currently exists on said maps. The smaller maps and shorter battles cater more towards the ADHD generation, and less towards people who want actual tactics, actual teamwork, and a much more fulfilling armored warfare gameplay experience. I'm not asking for a simulation, just less arcade.

I have no problem with arcade games, but in my opinion, if you're going to make a (mostly) World War II tank game, it should really be more realistic. Save the arcade games for things like racing games, FPSs, etc.

GG, was close

Wargaming Wants Your Tank Dead 

If you constantly survive every battle, do well, and have a very pleasant experience with the game, are you going to be frustrated or angry? Of course not. What Wargaming doesn't see or simply chooses not to implement is that if players had the previously described experience, they may spend money on the game because they're not being frustrated into doing so. Instead, they've opted for the method of aggravation and constant struggle against the odds. Perhaps they believe that using negative methods to achieve success works better than the opposite? This isn't to say I don't enjoy a challenge or never want one, but the never-ending uphill battle that public battles have become simply isn't really enjoyable. Adding destructible cover will only make it worse for those who previously used it as a tactic.    

 

 

 Wargaming's Design

A Closer Look at How World of Tanks Was Intentionally Created

 

 To those who haven't been with the game for too long, this piece is here to enlighten you about how Wargaming operates as a company. Generally when people suggest the game being rigged, or that the matchmaker is out to get them, or anything like that, they quickly get shot down by the giant army of Wargaming fanboys. This isn't to say that those claims are true per se, but there's a significant lack of reason amongst many of the diehard World of Tanks players. There are certain topics that, when brought up on the forums or elsewhere, they bring in all the trolls and the original poster is basically laughed away from the game. It's these topics which I will now discuss in detail.

The Early Days

 Back in closed beta and the days of the game's release (2010-2011), it was particularly obvious that World of Tanks was a very fun, creative, and new take on a player versus player game. There simply wasn't anything like it, and this drew many big-time gamers in. It was also very obvious that, if you were to get drawn into the game and start spending money, you could spend a great deal indeed. The very clever thing that Wargaming did in beta was giving everyone free gold, every single day. This allowed everyone a chance to see how gold works, how it helps you by speeding up the process of 'grinding' your tanks. That is, working your way through to get the next tier tank, you grind both credits and experience. So, having been used to using gold all the time, many players, myself included, spent quite a bit of money when the game was finally released. Gold definitely makes the grind a lot easier, without it, and without premium, you're looking at a ton of time invested to get anything top tier. 

There's also the implementation of the matchmaker, which was decidedly different back then. Instead of the 'easy' two-tier spread that currently exists in the game, you had a 4-6+ tier spread. This means that sometimes a tier 5 KV would come into contact with tier 10 IS-7s, Mause, and other tanks that the tier 5 simply can't do anything to. This made for quite the frustrating experience, and then people want to get to the top that much faster. But, as anyone who's played this game long enough knows, Wargaming needs players to be frustrated. This means they will spend money to avoid future frustration, and this occurs in the game on a grand scale.

pop

 Frustration Mechanics

At first, when you're new to the game, the various mechanics of the game that cause frustration are not evident. This is because you're not familiar with the game, you have no expectations of it or yourself, and you're just playing for fun. It's during this stage that you usually make a lot of mistakes, even if you're not aware of them, and better players punish you for that (sadly, some people never make it out of this stage, after thousands of battles). Once you have a few hundred or thousand games under your belt, certain aspects of the game mechanics become quite frustrating. It's these aspects of the game that Wargaming has intentionally put into the game to drive people to spend money to either avoid them, or give themselves an advantage against others. The better you get at the game, the more you notice that certain things simply don't feel right. Some examples of this would be a high penetration gun bouncing repeatedly on the weak spots of a much less powerful tank, or the matchmaker stacking one team with all the tank destroyers or artillery.

If you play the game long enough, you'll understand that these mechanics significantly worsen the gameplay experience. There are, of course, things you can do to lessen the impact they have on you, such as running 100% crews, or using gold to simply free experience past certain tanks that are known to be troublesome. Honestly though, the gameplay model of making your customers more frustrated so they want to pay you more money is pretty backwards. Aren't you supposed to reward your customers for spending money on your game? The rewards (tier 10s) in most cases simply aren't worth the time you would need to invest, unless you spend money to get there faster.

So if you will, let me describe a few of these game mechanics:

GG

The Matchmaker

As I mentioned earlier, the matchmaker in the old days was far worse than it is today. So much so that, I believe it was one of the primary reasons people stopped playing in beta or when the game first released. It's simply not fun to fight tanks that you will never pen, from any angle, and you're basically just experience pinatas for the higher tier vehicles. Essentially if you're looking at tier 4-7 tanks facing tier 9-10, most of them don't have much of a chance there. If you're a faster tank or a scout, you at least had a few things you could do to help, mainly, scouting of course, or taking out artillery. The matchmaker never did (and still doesn't) balance each team with correct number of tank types, or take into account player skill. Both of those are things people have asked Wargaming for repeatedly, and it's quite obvious they will never come through. Not having balanced tank types or tiers on each team can greatly contribute to lopsided matches that many find aggravating in today's game. If one team gets more tier 10 tank destroyers, or more tier 10 tanks period, unless the other team has the skill to make up for this, they will likely lose. The matchmaker is, and has historically been, pretty much the number one complaint of the playerbase. This is evidenced by the 5-10+ threads on the forums complaining about it, every day. Also if you look at General Chat when in-game, and the chat before and during battles, you will notice it there as well. Many threads about the matchmaker are locked or deleted on the forums, of course this is not the only type of thread which is treated as such.

I believe it would be very easy for them to implement a 1-tier spread, meaning the highest tanks a tier 3 would see is tier 4, and so on. This would make the game a lot better in many ways. The excuse for having such a high matchmaking spread in the past was that the player population was not high enough. Well, they really don't have that excuse anymore. 


RNG

If you read my previous article on the random number generator, you would have a much better understanding of it, and how it can greatly affect the outcome of battles. Having +/- 25% RNG in a game that should reward skill more than it does, and is trying to be a competitive e-sports platform, is counterintuitive in my opinion. However, it fits perfectly with Wargaming's plan. As I explained in my past article, it essentially makes it so bad players can have artificially good games, and good players can have artificially bad games. It governs penetration, accuracy, and damage, three very important aspects of this game. While I don't think they should completely eliminate RNG from the game, I'd bet it would be a lot less frustrating if you had +/-10-15% or so. 

Using a 75mm at tier 9 is fun, yes?

Stock Tanks, Painful Grinds, and Expensive Modules

Anyone who's played a stock Panther 2 or M3 Lee will most likely tell you that it wasn't tremendously fun, and indeed many can attest to this. While I will say that almost every tank in this game is bad when in stock configuration (that is, no upgrades or modules unlocked), some seem like they're designed to be skipped or fully upgraded right away using gold. You could easily make a case for the lower tier 2-5 French tanks, as they are almost universally considered terrible tanks. You can also look at tanks like the T25/2, T28, Leopard Prototype, and Churchill Gun Carrier as more possible examples. The fact is, there are a good number of tanks that are not tier 10 which are simply not fun to play, or downright frustrating. There's also the extreme cost of modules for each tank, the various guns, radios, turrets, tracks, and engines. By the standards of many other games where there is a money, or experience grind, World of Tanks truly has a brutal grind. The average player, not using gold and converting free experience and skipping tanks, would have to play for thousands of matches just to unlock a tier 10, and then there's the problem of buying it. Many of the modules for the higher tiers cost a great deal of experience as well, and some of them you need to go through to unlock the next tank, or to simply make the current tank playable. 

  
Tank Tiers and Balance

I believe that Wargaming has designed certain tiers to be better and more balanced than others, and certain types of tanks for each country. For example, tiers 1-3 are fairly balanced, and tier 4 is mostly pretty weak. Tier 5 is good for making credits, and has a lot of solid tanks, while tier 6 is very similar, and I believe somewhat designed around tier 6 company battles. Tier 7 is again good for making money, but not nearly as powerful as their tier 8 counterparts. It's when you get to tier 8 that you understand that they definitely have an agenda to get this game going in e-sports. Tier 8 is one of the best tiers by far, as balance goes, and there are many very solid tanks at this level. To me, this is no accident, as the 7/42 e-sport format specifically uses all tier 8 tanks, with two additional tier 1 tanks. It's also no accident that tier 9 is one of the worst tiers to play in the game. This is because you almost universally see tier 10s, and many of the tanks themselves at this tier are very difficult to play. There's a big gap between most tier 9s and 10s. If you look at tanks like the VK 4502 auf B, Leopard Prototype, Lorraine 40t, T95, Tortoise, or M103 you will find that while they can perform well in some hands, in most they will not. This is in contrast to tier 10s, which in some cases are almost idiot-proof (i.e., tier 10 TDs).

The Patent

Beyond these elements of the game that are intentionally designed to create frustration and make people pay up, there is hard evidence of Wargaming's design for their matchmaker. In one of their recent patents they used in court in a lawsuit involving a Chinese company who tried to create a World of Tanks clone. 

http://www.google.com/patents/US8425330?dq=8,425,330&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OIaMUeWBAuLIigK32ICYDw&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA

An excerpt from the patent:

As the player's win/loss ratio decreases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the lower end of the allowable range, whereas as the player's win/loss ration increases, the player becomes more likely to be placed in battles having battle levels at the upper end of the allowable range. Thus, when a player has been repeatedly put into too many difficult battles, the balancing is done in favor of easier battle sessions, thereby encouraging the player by providing an easier game environment. Similarly, when the player has been repeatedly put into too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of harder battle sessions, thereby keeping the player challenged instead of letting the player become bored with easy games.

As you can clearly see, the more good games you have, the better your chances of having a bad game in the next match will be, and vice versa. This explains why bad players will often be on the top of the matchmaking list, which as everyone knows, means you will have a much easier time affecting the given battle. This also means that players who have one or a few good games, are likely to be put closer to the bottom of the team list. This is yet another mechanic in the game other than RNG that punishes initiative, and rewards bad play. Some may say that WG may or may not actually have this system implemented in their game, but if you've played this game long enough, you'll know they have.  
   

Conclusion

As a decent player who tries to win every game no matter what, I definitely have a problem with the way this game is set up. The game mechanics once suited playing artillery, and now it's tank destroyers. The way spotting and camouflage works, both of these are much easier to play and require generally less skill than the other tank types. Both of these classes require virtually no initiative or skilled aggression on the player's part. There's also the fact that bad play is often rewarded, and bots/afkers are hardly ever punished or banned (despite loads of evidence to support their banning). It's no secret Wargaming wants to keep the 30-49% win rate players playing and paying as long as possible, because this is the majority of their playerbase. I suppose it's very smart of them to have designed this game the way they did, since it makes a ridiculous amount of money. That being said, I think they will be surprised what happens when War Thunder ground forces goes into open beta.