Jump to content


wt gf open beta and the impact of it on wot


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
110 replies to this topic

Lord_Demon #41 Posted 16 May 2014 - 06:35 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 32892 battles
  • 3,643
  • Member since:
    06-01-2011

I played few games yesterday, and I got got the feeling that the quality of players online at the time was much higher then normal. (no XVM, just general guess).

 

I wonder if all the really bad players went over to try the WT for a while. :trollface:



Carantanien #42 Posted 16 May 2014 - 06:35 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16942 battles
  • 1,520
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

i hope all the whiners go to WT :)



cpt_gandy #43 Posted 16 May 2014 - 06:45 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2298 battles
  • 705
  • Member since:
    01-25-2012

View PostCarantanien, on 16 May 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

i hope all the whiners go to WT :)

 

I have seen a lot of rage on the CBT and game play that is truly bad, worse than what you would ever see in wot.



mystikro #44 Posted 16 May 2014 - 06:56 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33829 battles
  • 971
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011

View PostBugPowderDust, on 16 May 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

The Good
  • Looks really, really good. Plumes of dust kicking up behind the tanks as they roll across dusty plains. Sun streaming through tree tops. Looking forward to rain and snow

 

You forgot to say you can put everything on high-veryhigh-movie quality and still get 30FPS. Try that on WOT and you get 15FPS if you're lucky, stressing of your video card in the garage or a CTD. Gaijin video optimisation strong vs Wargaming optimisation "stronk".

 

Gameplay wise, it's difficult. I don't really understand much of the game, but I didn't understand WOT either when I picked it up 3 years ago. I'll put as much time and effort as I did in WOT and see what's what. I'll play for a while, see what's what, what the learning curve is, and at the end, I'll be able to tell which one is better.

 

Do they have a proper wiki explaining the mechanics and such?


Edited by mystikro, 16 May 2014 - 07:01 AM.


Nishizumi77 #45 Posted 16 May 2014 - 07:23 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 31509 battles
  • 341
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    07-02-2010

View PostBugPowderDust, on 16 May 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:

 

  • The minimap...too small and unreadable, hard to see where the enemy tanks have been spotted. If you can make it bigger, I haven't seen how.

You can increase the size of the minimap.

 

Options, Interface, Tactical Map Scale


Edited by Nishizumi77, 16 May 2014 - 07:25 AM.


BauermitGewehr #46 Posted 16 May 2014 - 07:25 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7167 battles
  • 844
  • Member since:
    02-25-2013

It's clearly a very different game, but it keeps you playing and it's fun.

View Postmystikro, on 16 May 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

 

Do they have a proper wiki explaining the mechanics and such?

 

The tanks part seems rather empty at this point, but considering how WG treats their wiki, it's almost comparable. For now, it's up to external sources or yourself to figure it out, but as so many are new there, it's not a problem, I'm in a top5 spot mostly and I'm not doing that much, I think. Zis-30 just does the trick for me.


Edited by BauermitGewehr, 16 May 2014 - 07:27 AM.


Flyntlock #47 Posted 16 May 2014 - 07:31 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 24992 battles
  • 851
  • Member since:
    07-30-2010
Tried to sign in and download it last night....servers must have been very busy as i kept timing out...will try again tonight.

BugPowderDust #48 Posted 16 May 2014 - 07:33 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 19289 battles
  • 840
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostNishizumi77, on 16 May 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

You can increase the size of the minimap.

 

Options, Interface, Tactical Map Scale

Excellent, many thanks :)



Frostilicus #49 Posted 16 May 2014 - 07:38 AM

    Colonel

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 23677 battles
  • 3,579
  • [-ZNO-] -ZNO-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

@ Bug - Agree about the minimap, even sized larger it's still not good

Steering? Just powerslide your way around a corner :smile:

 

There's enough difference between the games to make them both have a spot on my computer



MatchyHK #50 Posted 16 May 2014 - 07:53 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16896 battles
  • 339
  • Member since:
    10-28-2013

WT GF tanks handlings are weird, drifting along, seriously they make the tank feel more like racing cars (Tokyo Drift ftw :trollface:) and I really hope they will tone down the drifting a lot, but not as sturdy as WoT.  I really appreciate their effort in making the game realistic (to a certain extent) and the awesome graphics (those graphics are really nice) but after I played a few rounds, I feel a bit boring.

 

Surely I will continue playing WoT, but defo will drop by playing a few rounds in WT GF for some change of pace.



T0byJug #51 Posted 16 May 2014 - 07:54 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 19492 battles
  • 1,700
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013

View PostPichu_Trainer, on 16 May 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

The impact on me? Another game to play while I wait for Star Citizen

You have a really long wait for that! i here Star Citizen has been delayed to  late 2015! elite dangerous is what u want to look at!

Thats  a 2 year delay from the kick starter project


Edited by T0byJug, 16 May 2014 - 07:58 AM.


arnorwarrior #52 Posted 16 May 2014 - 08:01 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 15841 battles
  • 2,066
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010

Not really interested in spending 3 minutes to reach my opponent, followed by 3 minutes of camping behind either side of a wall (as both tanks will one-shot each other), only to be destroyed by an airplane against which you cant fight back.

 

So I guess WoT it is.



BauermitGewehr #53 Posted 16 May 2014 - 08:11 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7167 battles
  • 844
  • Member since:
    02-25-2013

View Postarnorwarrior, on 16 May 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

Not really interested in spending 3 minutes to reach my opponent, followed by 3 minutes of camping behind either side of a wall (as both tanks will one-shot each other), only to be destroyed by an airplane against which you cant fight back.

 

So I guess WoT it is.

Now that's just plain wrong.



HonzaM #54 Posted 16 May 2014 - 08:14 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41660 battles
  • 827
  • [BIA] BIA
  • Member since:
    05-25-2011
Different play style. WOT is more tactical while WT is more action like Battlefield.

Motorthor #55 Posted 16 May 2014 - 08:18 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 9138 battles
  • 12
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View Postarnorwarrior, on 16 May 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

Not really interested in spending 3 minutes to reach my opponent, followed by 3 minutes of camping behind either side of a wall (as both tanks will one-shot each other), only to be destroyed by an airplane against which you cant fight back.

 

So I guess WoT it is.

 

More like 15 - 30 seconds. It's quite fast paced actually. At least arcade that is (haven't tried the realistic mode yet). And one-shots happen if you expose your weak parts. With good armor angled right you can bounce a lot of shots. And airplanes and tanks are not combined yet. So no death from above.

 

But one of the things WOT does better is UI and crew skills.



_KurtKnispel #56 Posted 16 May 2014 - 08:25 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19169 battles
  • 350
  • Member since:
    04-07-2013

I will play both  but I must say I like GF.

 

I run WoT on high/med = 30-60 fps

I run GF on on Max settings = avarage fps 147...... 



Shade1982 #57 Posted 16 May 2014 - 08:27 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20582 battles
  • 906
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

Oh look, another WT/WoT thread...

 

Like I said before, I really doubt the effect will be that big. Personally, I think WT is extremely overhyped. People seem to focus on how good WT supposedly is, that they forget WT easily has as many downsides as WoT has... And people *are* capable of playing more than one game you know...

 

At best, it creates a bit of competition between the games. At worst, we might lose a few players, but that's it...



VeryRisky #58 Posted 16 May 2014 - 08:27 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 18537 battles
  • 8,888
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012
I won't look at it as I have limited time and don't want another similar game to this one.   However from previous gaming experience I would take gameplay over realism every time. 

BugPowderDust #59 Posted 16 May 2014 - 08:31 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 19289 battles
  • 840
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostVeryRisky, on 16 May 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

I won't look at it as I have limited time and don't want another similar game to this one.   However from previous gaming experience I would take gameplay over realism every time. 

That's an interesting point. WTGF certainly takes more patience, and sometimes I just want a quick game. However, the visuals are pretty stunning and I think it helps what is a more slower paced game.

 

i played a simulation (read, hardest level) battle on Kursk (I think), and seeing all these tanks sweeping across cornfields with AI planes flying over, dust rising and tracer fire- that was epic, ...something WoT just doesn't do, as the maps are too small, and mistakes are punished very quickly.



Grand_Moff_Tano #60 Posted 16 May 2014 - 10:40 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1776 battles
  • 10,854
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostT0byJug, on 16 May 2014 - 07:54 AM, said:

You have a really long wait for that! i here Star Citizen has been delayed to  late 2015! elite dangerous is what u want to look at!

Thats  a 2 year delay from the kick starter project

Think I'll wait for Star Citizen so I can use my Connie :P






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users