Jump to content


That other tank game is so boring


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

NatteFrost #21 Posted 17 May 2014 - 11:52 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 8131 battles
  • 2,225
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostCepheid1, on 17 May 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

You cant deny WT grafix and its dynamic damage model. Sideskirts falling of after being hit, gun sounds, atmosphere and the overall far far better grafix which runs much smooter on slow computers. 

Compared with WT WOT GFX is plain crap!!! And I wont argue there with any of you. When I start WOT I see a game from the late 90s.

 

The gameplay is a different story if course. WT is much less arcade and more unforgiving. More of a simulator. Some players will like it, some will hate it.

I for one will give WT GF a chance and try it when it comes out. One thing WOT lacks is a nice GFX and more realism.

 

the bigger the gap between the games the better.

wot should allways be arcade and wt should allways be sim.



Hullo_Kitty__ #22 Posted 17 May 2014 - 11:57 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 16211 battles
  • 962
  • Member since:
    06-15-2013
If WT was better than WoT and a good alternative, WG would have sued them into the ground before they got anywhere with the game. The fact that they are still there basicly already proves that it's no danger to WoT and will probably even earn them new players by attracting them to the genre and then losing them to WoT.

TankkiPoju #23 Posted 17 May 2014 - 12:10 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21997 battles
  • 6,791
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostSiggimaster, on 17 May 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

If WT was better than WoT and a good alternative, WG would have sued them into the ground before they got anywhere with the game.

 

Sue them based on what? WG doesn't hold a copyright for WW2 era tank designs.

 



andfro #24 Posted 17 May 2014 - 12:11 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21060 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    06-06-2013

View PostCepheid1, on 17 May 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

You cant deny WT grafix and its dynamic damage model. Sideskirts falling of after being hit, gun sounds, atmosphere and the overall far far better grafix which runs much smooter on slow computers. 

Compared with WT WOT GFX is plain crap!!! And I wont argue there with any of you. When I start WOT I see a game from the late 90s.

 

The gameplay is a different story if course. WT is much less arcade and more unforgiving. More of a simulator. Some players will like it, some will hate it.

I for one will give WT GF a chance and try it when it comes out. One thing WOT lacks is a nice GFX and more realism.

 

Late 90's you say? I havnt seen more than a video or 2 from warthunder and the graphics are clearly better, but you really ought to turn up your settings in WoT some from the lowest possible, or if your computer cant handle it, then get a new one.



chaplainDMK #25 Posted 17 May 2014 - 12:20 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5038 battles
  • 397
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

View PostTankkiPoju, on 17 May 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

 

Sue them based on what? WG doesn't hold a copyright for WW2 era tank designs.

 

 

This, the only similarity between both games is that you unlock mid 20th century tanks and shoot each other with them. 



chaplainDMK #26 Posted 17 May 2014 - 12:22 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5038 battles
  • 397
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

View Postandfro, on 17 May 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

 

Late 90's you say? I havnt seen more than a video or 2 from warthunder and the graphics are clearly better, but you really ought to turn up your settings in WoT some from the lowest possible, or if your computer cant handle it, then get a new one.

 

Lol WT looks a load better and runs a load better. I play WoT at low/medium with 30ish FPS and plenty of slowdown. I played WT at medium/high at 45ish FPS with very little slowdown. And maxed out WoT vs maxed out WT is very little contest, even the new HD models in WoT don't look as good as the models in WT. 



tajj7 #27 Posted 17 May 2014 - 12:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 26818 battles
  • 14,474
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

 

 

View PostJohnDask, on 17 May 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

I've never been a fanboy of WG. I've complained multiple times about the lack of a ladder system (skill based MM), the goldsink tanks (a-20, amx40, Chi-Ri), the unnecessary gold ammo spam, the unbalanced tanks (T18, SU-85B, KV-1s, Hellcat, T-54, WT E-100, e.t.c.) and above all the very bad PR skills of the WG employees.

 

So I decided to ditch this game and try that other tank MMO that was released in open beta. I tried really hard to like it, but could not.

- The maps were too big to get into action fast, I had to drive 3 minutes to get into position and then get one-hit by a happy camper

- I shot PzII 3 times at his side armor with a 45mm gun and he didn't die. He shot a clip at my front armor (t-26) and my ammo rack exploded

- I had to spend minutes per match repairing the damage on my tank.

- I was playing yesterday for 2 hours and didn't even manage to unlock all the modules of my (tier 1?) tank or research the next tank

- The tanks drive like boats, drifting constantly at every turn (Is that even realistic or buggy?)

 

I was shocked by the slow-paced gameplay, it was like watching flies f*ck (i.e. boring)

 

My conclusion is that I will keep playing WoT, as it is a fast-paced arcade game with not so much realism. I didn't like this "deep" realism at all (this is my personal taste, sorry). I won't buy any gold for now in WoT of course, but I am willing to buy again of the WG community decides to grow some PR skills and start treating the players like humans and stop giving out crap specials (as if clickers need more specials to continue "pushing the boutton"!). Or if they decide to create a ladder system, so that 50K battles players in platoons don't casually farm 1K battles players.

 

 

You can dislike the game that's fine, but at least don't make stuff up and you clearly didn't give the game a fair go at all.

 

It also seems to me that you did badly at it and then blamed the game.

 

You clearly do not understand the game because some of what you have written is completely wrong .

 

For example "I had to spend minutes per match repairing my tank" is a flat out lie and incorrect, the game will auto-repair your vehicles, you clearly didn't have that setting on. 

 

"tanks drive like boats"  Not sure what boats you have driven but the tanks drive like tanks, I can see with the go kart handling of world of tanks though you might have got confused though.

 

"The maps were too big to get into the action fast" - Some of the maps are tiny, some of the bigger maps go for realism, 3 minutes though, really?, I mean are you one of those guys that suicide scouts in this game because if you get bored after 3 minutes then you have the attention span of a small child. 

 

"I was playing yesterday for 2 hours and didn't even manage to unlock all the modules of my (tier 1?) tank or research the next tank" You must have done very badly, I unlocked two whole tanks from 2 realistic battle games, you can unlock 3 or 4 modules from one decent game. You literally must have just rushed in and died in a minute to do that little amount of upgrades/ 

 

"I shot PzII 3 times at his side armor with a 45mm gun and he didn't die. He shot a clip at my front armor (t-26) and my ammo rack exploded" One instance doesn't really show very little but there are to be fair a few issues with the damage models and damage caused but then the game is in beta, it's a work in progress, you can easily get ammo racked in World of Tanks though and if you know where to aim in Warthunder you can cause damage. It;s about knowing the pen values, weak spots, ranges etc. 

 

Like I said you are entitled to your opinion but you clearly went into the game not knowing what you were doing, died quickly in a few games and decided the game was crap. That's entirely you, not the game. 

 

 

 

I would recommend that people give the game a go themselves and ignore the op's comments and not write it off in 2 minutes, it might not be your sort of game, it's going for a more realistic and historical feel to it, it's more strategic and I'd say it's on a bigger scale than World of Tanks.

 

However I personally think World of Tanks at lower tiers is pretty rubbish and the initial impression of the game is not great when you don;t know what you are doing, same applies to Warthunder. 


Edited by tajj7, 17 May 2014 - 12:26 PM.


LUNSSI #28 Posted 17 May 2014 - 12:31 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14740 battles
  • 2,370
  • Member since:
    06-13-2013

View PostSiimcy_, on 17 May 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

 

 

So you think IRL you could drift going down a slope without detracking? Stop being so silly, it's realistic.

 

troll or attic creature?



BBQigniter #29 Posted 17 May 2014 - 12:39 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 12504 battles
  • 136
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Posttajj7, on 17 May 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

 

 

You can dislike the game that's fine, but at least don't make stuff up and you clearly didn't give the game a fair go at all.

 

[...]

 

words of gold - superb post.



unfluffydave #30 Posted 17 May 2014 - 12:53 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2224 battles
  • 272
  • Member since:
    01-18-2014

The game is aimed at a different playstyle than the usual in WoT. If a player zips around like an ADHD rattlesnake on crack like they do in this game then their tank is simply going to die. WT have gone for a more realistic approach. In WW2 tank battles the tanks that were stationary in ambush positions (or "camping" for you CODites out there) always had the advantage and a penetrating shot nearly always destroyed a target.

 

WT and WoT are apples and oranges, both fruit but some people prefer one over the other and that is not going to change no matter how many fanboi threads pop up on each games forum.



wims80 #31 Posted 17 May 2014 - 12:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10801 battles
  • 4,611
  • Member since:
    07-18-2012

View Posttajj7, on 17 May 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

...

"tanks drive like boats"  Not sure what boats you have driven but the tanks drive like tanks, I can see with the go kart handling of world of tanks though you might have got confused though.

...

Tanks do drive like boats in real life, however, they do not drive like the tanks in War Thunder at all ...



LetsRockAndRoll #32 Posted 17 May 2014 - 01:40 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28636 battles
  • 1,559
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

The only similarities between WoT and WTGF is that they both involve tanks and they are both designed to make money.

The market is quite big enough for both games to thrive and I'm sure they will do so.

 



Wartoy #33 Posted 17 May 2014 - 01:54 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 12057 battles
  • 297
  • Member since:
    12-31-2010
WT is gonna kill WoT the same way as ALL the other MMO's that were supposed to kill WoW :sceptic:

Edited by Wartoy, 17 May 2014 - 01:56 PM.


Selous #34 Posted 17 May 2014 - 02:02 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 30220 battles
  • 677
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

Today's WoT experience so far 10 losses  3 wins , a consistently bad rng ( so many misses , so many bounces , so many 0 damage hits ) , a fun factor slightly lower then picking up dog doo without gloves .

 

sounds like it might be worth trying the opposition.


Edited by Selous, 17 May 2014 - 02:08 PM.


unfluffydave #35 Posted 17 May 2014 - 02:23 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2224 battles
  • 272
  • Member since:
    01-18-2014

View PostSelous, on 17 May 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

Today's WoT experience so far 10 losses  3 wins , a consistently bad rng ( so many misses , so many bounces , so many 0 damage hits ) , a fun factor slightly lower then picking up dog doo without gloves .

 

sounds like it might be worth trying the opposition.

 

Try playing Warthunder (planes) at a weekend, nothing changes. I try and stay away from both games at weekends.



Cepheid1 #36 Posted 17 May 2014 - 03:59 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21354 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011

View Postandfro, on 17 May 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

 

Late 90's you say? I havnt seen more than a video or 2 from warthunder and the graphics are clearly better, but you really ought to turn up your settings in WoT some from the lowest possible, or if your computer cant handle it, then get a new one.

 

 

I play skyrim on high settings. Somehow wot runs on Medium settings (with fps drops) AND looks 10.000 times worse than skyrim.

 

lets face it, wot GFX is terrible...



Killz0n3_PL_68582 #37 Posted 17 May 2014 - 04:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21858 battles
  • 572
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    02-11-2011
Its just open beta, give it some time. These 2 games are so different, that naturally this easy game mode is feeling good. WT sure has better graphics and has great potentional to be really good. But as i said, its just open beta...

UNARMOURED #38 Posted 17 May 2014 - 04:36 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36185 battles
  • 1,642
  • Member since:
    11-20-2012
I too have tried the open beta and I have no idea whether it is any good due to terrible fps. I have a cacky laptop and get between 30-50 fps with all settings on low on WoT. On the other game I get <15 and the game looks awful. Just unplayable, so I'll never know.

IH8MEDS #39 Posted 17 May 2014 - 05:04 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

I was thinking about creating a topic myself on some small comparisons between WT:GF and WoT, I'm glad this already exists.

 

Here are my thoughts so far, after playing a few matches:

 

- just as I thought WT: GF made me appreciate WoT a bit more. Why, you ask?

Because as I watched QB's, Jingles & PHJs videos on War Thunder, I realized one thing - WoT is much more tactial.

Yes, the HP pool has nothing to do with reality and is downright arcade-ish, BUT... it leaves a LOT of room for TACTIC. Yes, yes, tactic! You KNOW that you need to hit that tank 3 more times, then another 1 more time then... etc. You can accurately calculate how fast they will reload, so you can time your shots. You KNOW that certain tanks will most likely will be on a certain part of the map at a certain time.

 

Playing WT:GF gave me the feel that it's very... erratic. Of course, I only played the first 2 tanks, which are reserve tanks, so we need to compare that to the crazy gameplay that newbs (not noobs) play at Tier 1 & 2. But still, I have the overall feeling that WoT, believe it or not, forces you to think and plan more.

In WT you either kill or get killed by one-shots, or you get slowly crippled as you're taking critical hits. Of course, this is much closer to reality, so it's not by far a bad point. But it also furthers the "erratic" feel.

 

- graphically speaking, WT wins hands down. It looks much better and it is much more optimized. No contest here, but we already knew that.

However, I for one am having issues discerning sometimes from where the hell am I being shot at. Not only are the enemy tanks on the HUD (and yes, I know that Simulator Battles don't even have that) relatively poorly visible, but trying to make some sense out of the WT mini-map is a nightmare. In WoT, at least half of the time I'm keeping my eyes on the mini-map, allowing me to have an RTS-game approach & planning.

 

- in contrary to the first point, WT:GF has a game type that I really feel that should be copied and implemented by WG: the Domination type of game type.

IMO it actually forces people to move and try to achieve actual map domination. Yes, of course there is lots of camping in WT, but from my experience there are no actual sniper positions (or they are very exposed anyhow)

WoT on the other hand has those kind of strategic positions (although choke points are a plague on most WoT maps) that is made for specific type of tanks, making the game much more structured than the battles in WT.

Still, I feel that careful use of cover in WoT maps, coupled with dynamic conquering of map sectors (as seen in WT) would be a HUGE benefit to WoT. The only problem is that there is no respawn in WoT, but I don't think that it would be such a major downside for this type of game.

 

 



skurke #40 Posted 17 May 2014 - 05:18 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4786 battles
  • 369
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013
I don't think it brings anything to hate on WT:GF. I've checked a bunch into that game and it just doesn't appeal to me. I think people underestimate all the great things about WoT besides all the issues. The matches are usually intense and interesting and the different ways you can engage enemies is loads of fun. People act like arcade simplification = a worse game with less skill mattering but I think that's very far from the truth. You don't see people play simulators in esports. But I'll just end it with that I'm sure WT:GF will offer a variety of gameplay especially with simulator mode that can be fun for some who want a more realistic experience over straight out intense tactical arcade action.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users