_Caat_

Well, we will see. It seems to me that mods like that, legal or not, are just not avoidable with the game. Blocking this one will give some time, but the problem will be back with just another mode more separated from the client. Perhaps it would be better to add the lead indicator into the game and balance the game around it. The idea that the main skill in game is to know how to lead your shots is somewhat flawed anyway.

Well, the company can approach a game from two sides: 1. Try to get profit from the game asap 2. Try to profit from the game after a long time, thinking about recouping the costs of game creation at some point in the future (perhaps years after the game is out of beta test). The profits altogether are likely bigger. Of course option 1 is more attractive for the company, as it bears less risk. On the other hand, trying to profit from a game too early may alienate the players leading to decrease of players base and death of the game. However, if the game is not good enough, option 1 just let to recoup some of the costs, as the game may never gather enough followers to allow for reaping long term profits. Option 2 leads to more risk for the company. However, a game which is somewhat unfinished may retain more easily the players - with the improvements in the game new players will come and the players base will grow. That, in turn, leads to much larger profit potential than option 1. Currently, in WoWs it appears to me that the greed is winning. The WoT works because it can be played for free, is generally not really pay to win and offers enough depth to stay interesting. Also, WG has already long ago recouped the costs and can afford to be generous now, to keep the game going for as long as possible, to keep their profit up. Now, with WoWs we have a game with less depth than WoT. That has to be somehow compensated. Unfortunately, the WG somehow appears to have no idea how to increase the depth. One can increase the accuracy, but that is somewhat unforgiving for new players. Can it lead to some more depth? Hard to say, game will be different - but the players decision will weight more, which is generally fun. However, when individual decisions weight more, the wrong decisions weight more too and apparently WG is worried that the wrong decisions will discourage the majority of the players. Hence, less accuracy leading to blunting of the skill. The trouble with WoWs is that in WoT you can have number of play styles which will make the game fun for you. You can sit the whole game in the bush and kill a tank, you can play actively, you can do a lot of things. Choices are meaningful, making the game fun. In WoWs, number of choices you can make is very limited. With somewhat lacking cooperation, that does not suggest the game will be much fun. One idea which would lead to much more choice is to create AI controlled guns on the islands (allied / enemy) which will help the allied / enemy ships if in range - creating some more tactical options. These should be mixed of short range, offering some help (AA cover etc) and long range (how about having a gun which would shoot 1 shot every 30 sec possibly dealing 10000 damage, targeting the nearest BB within range), and one should be able to destroy them from the distance. In the domination map, the gun ownership may be equal to the ownership of the base (so who captures the base first, gets the guns, permanently). That would create some more tactical choices and options. Similarly, one may capture ports, in which ships would repair over time. In any case, the game needs tactical possibilities offering players tactical options and meaningful choices if it is to grow as WoT. Including such stuff would lead to a clear distinction from WoT where the game time would be shorter, but less game-long tactical choices would be available. As it is now, well, the game is not very likely to be very successful (hope I am wrong). As such, I am not too surprised that WG is seriously considering option 1 instead of option 2... _cat_