World of Tanks director under a barrage of questions. An honest talk about WOT 2.0: relations with the community and that pesky artillery

In September 2025, Wargaming introduced the biggest update in the history of World of Tanks – WoT 2.0. The huge amount of changes and new vehicles has brought back a ton of players who had crossed paths with WoT at some point during its 15-year run. I returned as well – and I must admit, I had a great time, even if some old (or new) solutions still irritated me.

While playing, various questions came to my mind that I wanted to ask the devs. Fifteen years of a multiplayer game's existence is an incredibly long time to develop genre-specific issues. So, I set up a candid interview with Wargaming—gave them a heads-up that I'd be asking some tough questions. Questions that might be hard to answer satisfactorily—if at all possible. However, I think that's necessary. Wargaming gladly agreed, and Artem Safronov (Product Director of World of Tanks) met with me to discuss balance and matchmaking issues and attempts to fix them, as well as the toxicity in the community of a long-lived game, premium ammunition, the gap between better-performing players and those who struggle, the consequences of gifting beginners tier X tanks, and also why they won't simply make World of Tanks with modern tanks. And, of course, about that damn artillery...

The Holy Grail—never satisfying balance

Maciej Pawlikowski: I guess managing the balance in World of Tanks was way easier for you 10 years ago, since there weren't as many vehicles and mechanics in the game back then. In 2025, we have, I don't know exactly how many – over 800 vehicles divided into 11 countries? Don't you feel like you've created a monster that's simply too difficult for you to control and for us, the players, to understand?

Artem Safronov: Well, that's a really good question that can be answered directly. Do we feel like we've created this monster? I would say no. I assume you play World of Tanks?

Yes.

So you probably know that you can't please everyone, right? You have your preferences, your meta, and you limit yourself to it. But when it comes to balance – you're right. This is a very complex issue, and you are right about the mechanics, because you may have noticed that over the last, let's say, 4 years, we have introduced some changes in this area. I would say that over the last few years, they [mechanics] have become much more complex than 5-10 years ago, but the good thing is that we have a very good balance team, where many people are working specifically on that, on the bugs or issues we had in the past. They are learning from that past. And they will definitely make mistakes, because each of us makes mistakes. They're learning from it, and if you look at the increasing complexity, you'll see that there haven't been any major balance issues in the last few years. We don't make this mistake that often.

But ultimately, it's very difficult to maintain balance. Let's take, for example, the recently released Tier XI. It's not just about the parameters, but also about the skills of the vehicles [each Tier XI tank has its own active skill], which should also be balanced.

We'll definitely do the same with the crew, so things will get a bit more complicated, but we've got tons of experience in this area and can handle it.

One of the problems I see is the topic that has been discussed since the inception of World of Tanks: matchmaking. Is it even possible to create a perfect matchmaking system that makes everyone happy, or is it more like a Holy Grail that we keep chasing but will never actually find?

I get it, perfect matchmaking and balance aren't really a thing in this world, but you're right – we should still aim for them. Take our version of WoT 2.0, for instance. We totally revamped the matchmaking system because players pointed out some things that needed tweaking and adding. We also wanted to address that. However, due to the complexity and some limitations, instead of investing a lot of time to make one small change, we created the matchmaking system from scratch.

I believe we have improved it. Right now, when playing, you can notice that it works much better than before. However, we still have a long way to go—or at least that's how we see it. We plan to introduce many improvements. It's a process that never ends.

Some say that maybe the way to fix the problem is to set up matchmaking based on players' skills.

Is it a good idea as an idea...? Perhaps so. But would that be a good change for the players? I highly doubt it. When you play 15 on 15, you have a full range of players. Players differ from each other a lot. Some prefer to play against very good players to learn from them and become better. Others play for fun, not worrying about anything. They just don't care about it at all. The diversity of preferences is huge. Everyone wants something different.

Imagine, then, that we will introduce it [skill-based matchmaking] tomorrow. For players who are pretty skilled, the game is going to get insanely tough. For players who aren't as skilled, things would be totally different. You would often see them rushing through the middle on Malinovka [one of the old WoT maps – characterized by large open spaces, through which new players rush without yet understanding that it usually ends badly].

This is not a situation [introduction of matchmaking] where everyone wins. It's more of a situation where everyone loses. For us, it's a superficial idea. We prefer to focus on fine-tuning the balance and improving even small details to prevent extreme situations, such as quick losses [Artem is referring here to situations where a 15x15 match is decided too quickly, for example, due to mistakes made by a team or issues with matchmaking itself]. We can see some perspective here, and we're already noticing some results. So, we'll keep working on this instead of coming up with something completely new.

Don't you think it's impossible to make good matchmaking if you don't first deal with stuff like premium ammo for gold? Don't you think that premium ammunition, or more broadly, the entire ammunition system, should be thoroughly overhauled?

That's a very good question. Right now, we're really focused on this because matchmaking is super important to us. And ammunition or, for instance, equipment, although these are side issues, also have an impact on it. So we're brainstorming ways to fix it, but we haven't come up with a solution we are happy with yet. This is a very complex matter that we are still considering.

Arty, kill yourself

Alright, let's talk about my favorite vehicle... artillery.

OK, I'm hanging up. [laughter]

Artillery has been the most hated type of vehicle in the game since day one. Fans say it's too powerful. I disagree with that. Artillery was indeed powerful... about 10 years ago. The reload time was short, and the damage dealt was huge. Today, it looks completely different. However, the mere existence of artillery, according to some, is proof that you don't want to listen to your fans. For instance, people want to limit the stun effect after a shell explosion. My question is: how do you see the role of artillery these days, and what should be done about this tricky piece of equipment? Are you planning more radical changes?

I agree that the problem with artillery was that it could destroy enemies with just one shot. Currently, its role is purely strategical - it forces the enemy to change position. Without it, there could be a meta where everyone would remain stationary.

We've got a few ideas on how to change up artillery in the future, but it's more about highlighting its role as a support vehicle. It should provide support, not annoy. Although, if you think about it, every class is somewhat annoying. However, the main problem with artillery is that you can’t "hit back" because it’s positioned far away. That's what makes it even more annoying. I wouldn't say artillery is going to change drastically in the future, but there will be some tweaks, mostly towards making it more of a support vehicle. You can expect that, although I don't think it will happen in the near future. A bit later.

A difficult-to-please community

Every time I browse Reddit, it feels like no matter what you guys at Wargaming do, it can be taken the wrong way. I understand that this is somewhat the norm for companies and projects that have been around for a long time, but still, even if you give someone a gift, someone else might ask, "Why so little?" Or the other way around, "Why so much?" How do you deal with your large, demanding, and unforgiving community? I bet it's not always a walk in the park for you, after all, you're not invincible, and you can't just yell out: "You didn't even scratch us!"

Well, Reddit is just a different world. But when we talk about the community as a whole, it might surprise some people to know that we truly respect and love our audience. And these aren't just words; it's a principle we uphold. It's really tough to show and reflect that because, like you said, there will always be some players who aren't happy. However, I believe the most important thing is to show respect to our players – and that's what we do.

Whenever we do something, we try to guess if people will like it or not, but in the end, it all boils down to something pretty simple. There are some things we know won't be popular and might get a bad rap, but they're crucial for the long-term success of the game. We have to do it, though it's good that it doesn't happen often. The rest is more a matter of expectations, right? Since everyone has different expectations, sometimes you just can't meet them all and have to face the real players.

But it's all a long, long road. So we try to keep our promises. It's a dance. In the end, respect is what really matters. I think even if players sometimes give us a hard time, they still really love and respect the game.

Is a 15th-anniversary gift for beginners over the top?

The community is pointing out some serious issues, like what happens when new players are given access to Tiers X and XI as a gift. This means that a beginner player ends up in the endgame, where they face off against veterans. Do you think it was a good idea? Because a newbie jumping straight into the top tiers can really mess up the fun for those who already know how to play.

You know, it's a difficult question for us because our main intention with this giveaway was to celebrate the release of version 2.0 together. There was a good intention. But the players are right, I mean, come on, newbies on Tier X... But I can tell you that [new] players, who received these tiers, don't necessarily play at the X level. Everyone's got their own tastes, and some have really gotten into learning how to play.

This caused some discord; nevertheless, we celebrated the 15th anniversary, and in our data, we don't see big differences. Last December, during the holidays, we were giving out Tiers IX. This also had some consequences, but it lasted only a few days, and the situation returned to normal. The same applies to this massive giveaway for the 15th anniversary. It's wonderful that there is a belief that it might ruin something. In reality, this situation only happens for a few days. Later, players quickly realize that they should first practice their skills at lower tiers before moving on to higher levels.

How to help tomatoes? WoT will get map guides

Beginner players in World of Tanks are mockingly called "tomatoes" and "monkeys." I'm curious if you're thinking about ways to help new players get the hang of the game. I thought of something like this—though it's rather a silly idea, so take it with a grain of salt—if, for example, you're playing a super-heavy tank on Tier X and you're sitting in a bush in your own base, a pop-up appears on the screen: "Hey, what you're doing isn't a good tactic!" or something along those lines.

Actually, it's not a bad idea. I think, first and foremost, WoT is not a simple game. You gotta keep that deep strategic thinking in mind. Over the last 3 years, we've put in a lot of time and effort to get players ready for the start of this journey. We've made a lot of changes, and we're currently satisfied with them.

But when it comes to navigation in the later stages of the game, we obviously miss some things. You can expect certain changes in the coming year, not necessarily like the ones you described, but still very helpful. I can reveal to you a few exclusive pieces of information. I will use myself as an example. I mainly play medium tanks. Some time ago, I decided to try out the FV, specifically the old FV [referring to the FV215b (183), a powerful tier X tank destroyer – ed. note], not FV4005. And great, I can deal 2,000 damage just like that. But when the match is loading, I think to myself, "Oh, sorry, where am I supposed to go? To the nearest bush? Is it a good choice?" I have no idea.

At the moment, there are clearer rules for operating a tank, which differ for each type. We are therefore considering creating some sort of map aid, guide, or assistance next year. Players would then receive hints, suggested positions, and areas for different classes of tanks displayed on the mini-map. We believe that it would be incredibly helpful for everyone. Including those who already know what to do. In one of my first battles in World of Tanks, many years ago, I tried to ram an enemy tank while playing artillery... [Artem spreads his hands helplessly – ed. note]. Simply because I had no idea how to play. I think that ultimately this kind of help will be useful for players.

Yes, I agree. When I returned to the game before patch 2.0, I had a hard time finding my way because the old maps had changed and we've also got many new ones. I had no idea where to go, and I couldn't always rely on my teammates because they, for example, thought it was a good idea to rush through the middle of the map on the enemy base and die quickly.

The "economic" gap between pros and noobs

What caught my attention is the growing gap between new players or those who don't dedicate much time to the game, and the more pro players. The first group is hated, while the second is an elite convinced of their greatness. Newcomers have nothing and are unable to acquire the best tank equipment, while the better players have everything – not only the best tanks but also the best equipment for them and plenty of consumables that improve their performance in the game. Is it even possible to solve this problem, or can this gap be reduced in any way?

This difference in World of Tanks is not as big as it might seem. Some time ago, I watched the streamer Dakillzor... Give me the best equipment in the world, give me everything you can imagine, and I still won't be able to match him. Because the way he reads the game – how he plays it – is on a completely different level.

First and foremost, throughout all the years of WoT's existence, skill has always been the most important aspect of the game. And of course, if you play enough, if you care about how you play, and you want to improve, there will be a difference between you and other players. To answer your question: I don't think this gap can be completely eliminated. But there are solutions that can reduce this difference – and that's exactly what we're doing. For example, in patch 2.0, we added the "armor flashlight" [referring to a new mechanic - if we are relatively close to the enemy and not moving, the crosshair "illuminates" the enemy tank, allowing us to see the areas where it's best to take a shot - ed. note]. For most players, it's a useful option. We are trying to balance out and reduce this difference, but is it possible to eliminate it completely? I don't it is possible.

I understand, but I'll use an example from my experience. In one of the recent timed events, the one related to Wolfenstein, we had a battle pass. To unlock it efficiently, we not only had to play. We had to do well or spend a lot more time with the game. As a result, only those who play well or those who have plenty of time will get the new tank and a ton of additional equipment as a reward, because this event had a strict time limit. So those who already have everything get everything. Honestly, I don't see a path for myself here, a chance to participate in this event. Because I'm a tomato. Because I have a job. Because I don't have time. And I'm not a whale.

You have a very valid point, and we intend to address this in the future. Are you participating in our Halloween event?

Yes.

So – as you might have noticed – we have different difficulty levels there. It will be rather difficult to create a similar system for all our events, but we are considering this idea because it is really very promising.

When we organize events like the one with Wolfenstein and similar ones, we strive to make them accessible to a wide group of players. However, we understand that those who play more have it easier. As I've said: there is no single perfect solution or type of event that would be good enough for everyone. For example, imagine what would happen if we made the event you're talking about simple. Then players who dedicate more time to the game would say, "Guys, thanks for that one evening. It was really fun."

In the future, we plan various activities that will impact game time, skills, and so on. So if you participate in them, you'll clearly see that if you dedicate enough time, you'll get this or that. But if you prefer a time limit, you'll get this and that. Therefore, everyone will get something, but it will depend on the time they are willing to dedicate to the game.

Why change the hangar and interface if they worked?

A game that has been on the market for 15 years obviously has a huge community. We've mentioned before that any change can cause fan outrage. For example, changing the hangar, interface, or scoreboard. An outraged fan would ask: why change something that worked? Why change the hangar, interface, or scoreboard?

We thought about that while developing version 2.0. Many systems that we have implemented over the years are still easy to understand, but some elements of the user interface, including the hangar, were already quite outdated from our perspective. We were wondering what we could do about it.

We set ourselves the goal of maintaining simplicity for players while creating a modern look and making [the interface – ed. note] more useful. It wasn't just about the appearance, but also about, e.g. new features or greater responsiveness.

However, considering the scale and size of it all, we obviously made a few mistakes along the way. Regarding the release [of version 2.0. – ed. note], there is a psychological effect related to when you see something change that you have known for a long time. No one likes changes – whether they are bad or good.

After releasing version 2.0. and getting the first opinions and the whole discussion related to the user interface, we've learned that it's bad, and got asked why we did it. However, after a few weeks, a drastic change occurred. Players got used to it and began to discover the significant advantages of these improvements. So if we ultimately know that something will be beneficial for the players, we are ready to face the consequences.

Okay, if you allow me, I will share my opinion, and it will be an unpopular one, as Reddit would probably disagree with me. When I returned to WoT after a long, multi-year absence, before the 2.0 update, I had a huge problem understanding the interface and the hangar because of the amount of information displayed on the screen. The screen and the interface were too overwhelming for me. So, I think the changes you made after the 2.0 update were necessary, especially for someone like me, a player trying to return to a game that has changed over the years.

So, we agree.

How I met your mother? Toxicity in World of Tanks

Toxicity! Let's talk about toxicity in the community. Is Wargaming aware of the problem, and what actions are being taken to counteract it? Why am I still reading messages in the game chat in 2025 where someone insults another's country, race, or mother?

Regarding toxicity, I believe there are different levels or aspects of it. The first is when players are toxic because it relates to the game, their expectations, or our decisions. However, at the core, it shows that they care deeply about the game, they love it, but, for example, they are a bit irritated. We are fully aware of this and believe it's not necessarily a bad thing. It is simply a fact.

However, there is another level of toxicity. A toxicity that arises from toxicity itself. I think that even if you have all the game engine and artificial intelligence tools at your disposal, you will still find a way to "express yourself" through various things. We have tools that we constantly use to moderate and block players. Some time ago, we disabled chat between opposing teams to limit that aspect as well. So, we have taken the necessary steps to reduce all of this toxicity. But when you consider the European melting pot, the diversity of languages, all these things, there is simply no chance of completely eliminating this phenomenon. Yes, we are still making efforts to limit it even further, but – again – I don't think it's possible to completely eradicate it.

And since you mentioned AI – do you see a place for AI implementation in World of Tanks?

Oh, I think so. I believe the main use of artificial intelligence that can be seen is our PvE events, like the one for Halloween. Our team has immense experience and skills in this area, and the guys do an amazing job preparing various events. If you play against our PvE units in the Halloween event on the "nightmare" level, you might notice that it is extremely challenging. This is the area we focus on when it comes to AI.

What conclusions were drawn after Steel Hunters?

Well, I think I can talk about many things here. I can only present my own opinion, as I am responsible for World of Tanks, and when it comes to Steel Hunters, well... Game development is not as simple as it might seem. There are many issues to consider. You can do many things well enough, but there isn't always a market for them. The reasons vary, but if you've played Steel Hunters, I think you'll agree that the team responsible for this production did a really good job. It looks nice, it's plays great, but of course, there are things that didn't go according to plan, and we need to look at it objectively.

Will Wargaming make a WoT with modern tanks?

Every World of Tanks fan has asked themselves this question: why? Why don't you just create WoT with modern tanks and on modern battlefields? Honestly, I'm not sure how one could counter modern drones, modern combat systems, and similar things, but I'll still repeat the question.

Yes, I think we agree with the players because when we take, for example, today, October 30th, and consider what should be in the game in 5–10 years, the most reasonable answer is modern vehicles, right? It's a very obvious choice. We are thinking about it, but... We should find a very comprehensive, intelligent way to combine it all because the last thing we would want is to create a separate game. We would like everything to be integrated smoothly, but of course, this is very difficult to achieve because the modern era is completely different. Modern tanks are completely different.

I want to also ask you about World of Tanks: Heat. Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to this game and want to play it because I like tanks, and this title looks great. But I've been working in this industry for some time, and I'm always amazed at how developers try to jump on the hype train started by games like Overwatch or Fortnite. I'm talking about the hero shooter aspect of the game. Don't you think your fans expect a more realistic approach? Since they have some sense of realism and can appreciate it. Heat lacks realism - it has colors and heroes.

I think it's more of a philosophical issue. When you play World of Tanks, you perceive it as a tactical, strategic shooter, a slow-paced game.

But when you start to wonder what could be done on the modern battlefield, you arrive exactly at what these guys are doing [i.e. producers of Heat – ed. note]. I think there are very different perspectives and preferences. Have you played the new Battlefield?

Yes.

I'm already too old for this game because so many crazy things are happening in it! I have no idea what's happening on the screen. And yet, look how many people like it! I think this is the answer to all questions: if we believe something is not for us, then it probably isn't. Nevertheless, it may be important for someone else.

Yes, these are very different games. But again – I know the team behind this project very well and I believe they are doing a very good job.

In summary, what should we expect in the future regarding both WoT and Wargaming?

When it comes to World of Tanks, I am convinced that we have a bright future ahead of us because the path we are currently on and have set out in version 2.0 will truly allow us to elevate the level of the game. We want to improve the gameplay, so we plan to introduce new mechanics. We want to focus on the map, so matchmaking and balance will be the center of attention.

We will be focusing on this for years, and I believe it is extremely important because this is exactly why players love this game. The team working on it did a great job with WoT 2.0, tier XI tanks, new mechanics – and I am absolutely convinced that they will come up with many, many more mechanics, solutions, and ultimately significantly enhance the gameplay. Considering all this, I have no doubt that a very bright future lies ahead for Wargaming thanks to all these talents and all our games. Absolutely.