Jump to content


That other tank game is so boring


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

Zedrick #41 Posted 17 May 2014 - 05:40 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15277 battles
  • 357
  • Member since:
    11-03-2012

I've played it on and off for a while (in closed beta), and just don't get it. The graphics are nice and it runs smoothly, but apart from that... Camping seems to be the best way to win. I don't see the point of the minimap at all, spotted tanks doesn't show so one might aswell play simulator battles. Almost every game ends up with a bunch of tanks in the same place, killing the respawned enemies. It's possible that I somehow missed something that would make things totally different, but I see the same thing when people like Jingles play it. 

 

Will try it a bit more (since I spent money on closed beta access and premium tanks), but... nah. For now it mostly serves as a motivational stick for wargaming.



LetsRockAndRoll #42 Posted 17 May 2014 - 06:07 PM

    Lieutenant

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

View PostZedrick, on 17 May 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

I've played it on and off for a while (in closed beta), and just don't get it. The graphics are nice and it runs smoothly, but apart from that... Camping seems to be the best way to win. I don't see the point of the minimap at all, spotted tanks doesn't show so one might aswell play simulator battles. Almost every game ends up with a bunch of tanks in the same place, killing the respawned enemies. It's possible that I somehow missed something that would make things totally different, but I see the same thing when people like Jingles play it. 

 

Will try it a bit more (since I spent money on closed beta access and premium tanks), but... nah. For now it mostly serves as a motivational stick for wargaming.

 

This ^^

Get yourself a T50, rush to the enemy spawn, find a nice spot and kill them as they appear, It just makes the whole thing a joke.

 

 



ARM505 #43 Posted 17 May 2014 - 06:30 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 3119 battles
  • 78
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

Wow. What absolute chaos. Just tried it, and sheesh, it's really pretty campy, no ability to carry (not that I'm a legend there, but it seems like the mechanics of the game just totally preclude it) and my team as a rule seemed unable to cap and hold (only won two of all the games I played). If you have a fail team you're totally poked. It's definitely more realistic, but seems to lack the almost chess like moves and counter moves that WOT can (occasionally) have. The UI is abysmal, some options setting make no sense (for example, if you leave the controls on the 'realistic' tab, then your tank will drive around using gearshifting and throttle as opposed to plain old wasd, regardless of whether you're in an arcade battle or not), almost everything is pay to advance fast, premium accounts bring a MUCH greater increase than standard it seems, including crew. I absolutely love realism, but not in the 'tank quake' type battles that are what make WT and WOT (Steel Beasts Pro PE serves me for best for absolute realism) For example, to get the tank to really turn well, you first have to accelerate a bit so that it's in a higher gear (realistic based on what I know of WW2 tank transmissions) - but it makes it feel like you're driving a brick. And once you get a bit of speed on, it turns into Tokyo Drift (which will no doubt be patched down a bit at some stage).

 

I mostly got killed by camping arty/flak type guns, and Stugs, whose armour I couldn't penetrate usefully from the front (no problems, just frustrating). I managed six kills one game, still lost since nobody was able to advance onto the caps - which once capped, get camped horribly IMHO.

 

I was looking for something a little less grindy and with a more open and flowing feeling than WOT. WT was not it for me, definitely not with random no comms teams. It just seemed like random chaos with an apparent bias to camping, but of course I was a clueless noob. Maybe I'll try it again some time, but it didn't set my hair on fire at all, and I'm absolutely not a WOT fanboy at all.


Edited by ARM505, 17 May 2014 - 06:31 PM.


TankkiPoju #44 Posted 17 May 2014 - 06:31 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21991 battles
  • 6,781
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

Yeah also tried it... My Pz Ic flipped over when I drive over a bump, which was kind of whacked. Overall, the physics were just crazy slippery.

 

I totally agree about camping. Most tanks didn't seem to want to move after they got into comfortable positions. And the minimap was useless. Overall, it was a bit disappointing... but hey it's beta. I did like the fact tanks don't have hit point and damage models seem more realistic.

 



RafvonThorn #45 Posted 17 May 2014 - 06:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 25813 battles
  • 603
  • [_ACE] _ACE
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

Well, im playing WTGF, cause its so much more relaxing than WoT. There is simply no tomatoes troubles! Map are so open, that it doesnt matter if your teams top heavies go to the wrong spot. In arcade battles you have an acces to lots of tanks, so dying is not as frustrating. Exp and earnings are based only on Your own performance, not the team as a whole.

 

Most negative opinions about WT is from people, that try to play it same way they play WoT.

 



Darth_Woras #46 Posted 17 May 2014 - 06:58 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 62 battles
  • 2,878
  • [HOI] HOI
  • Member since:
    04-04-2013
Worst thing is unresponsive controls, gear system (facepalm), tank swinging and flailing and sliding, too hard to aim, bad UI, stupid camera views.

Alteisen #47 Posted 17 May 2014 - 08:02 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16739 battles
  • 1,292
  • Member since:
    10-04-2010

I like this. It reminds me of some older WW2 tank game before WOT came out.

 

Annoying bits:

  • T-50.  Future Russia sent plans via a time machine to Soviet Russia in how to build an UFO with force fields and sabot shells.
  • Love driving over trees? Kiss good bye to your suspension, engine and tracks! (not really a complaint)

Otherwise ok but WOT is superior at the moment due to more end game content.



bean57 #48 Posted 17 May 2014 - 08:58 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18721 battles
  • 2,951
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012
Haven't tried it yet but I hate it just from watching YouTube.  Just joking - I will give it a go of course but as others have said one thing that is obvious is that WoT and WT:GF are two totally different games.  There just is no comparison between them.  They can coexist - neither one is any danger to the other

SqueezeThoseGlutes #49 Posted 17 May 2014 - 09:07 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6080 battles
  • 180
  • [UBAD] UBAD
  • Member since:
    04-11-2014
repairing the tank has to be the most annoying thing ever in "that other tank game" and it is something I would never get used to , i'm sure

mystikro #50 Posted 17 May 2014 - 09:09 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32014 battles
  • 967
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011
I don't know about you, but I have been playing "the other tank game" all day today and I'm having a lot of fun. You're doing it wrong. It's a different game, requires patience to learn.

N0ctis_ #51 Posted 17 May 2014 - 11:09 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30932 battles
  • 697
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    06-11-2013

View Postmystikro, on 17 May 2014 - 10:09 PM, said:

I don't know about you, but I have been playing "the other tank game" all day today and I'm having a lot of fun. You're doing it wrong. It's a different game, requires patience to learn.

+1

 



IH8MEDS #52 Posted 18 May 2014 - 03:27 AM

    Major

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

View PostIH8MEDS, on 17 May 2014 - 06:04 PM, said:

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.

 

 

 

Reposting this, just if someone is interested in a honest-to-god comparison, based on the first impressions on "the other tank game"



Belnick666 #53 Posted 18 May 2014 - 04:01 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11609 battles
  • 1,105
  • [-SWE-] -SWE-
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011
in WT all tanks are like t-50-2 was when you get the speed up :P

did not like, basic weakspots does not seem to be there either

shrapnel_bait #54 Posted 18 May 2014 - 04:21 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2790 battles
  • 680
  • Member since:
    01-12-2014
I have played the game in both closed and open beta versions, with regards to how quick you can grind well that was in closed beta, in the open beta you require almost six or seven times as much research points to grind the next tank up. I don't actually enjoy WT in arcade mode but I find simulated battle mode to be excellent, still got some bugs to iron out but like all new things that will take time. As has been said before about WoT and WTGF, these are two different games and appeal to two different play styles and, to be honest, I don't see them clashing with each other.

TankkiPoju #55 Posted 18 May 2014 - 08:00 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21991 battles
  • 6,781
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostBelnick666, on 18 May 2014 - 05:01 AM, said:

did not like, basic weakspots does not seem to be there either

 

Didn't you play the tutorial? The tanks have weak spots and also the crew damage is modelled, meaning you can aim at the gunner location etc.



mystikro #56 Posted 18 May 2014 - 11:24 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32014 battles
  • 967
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011

View Postshrapnel_bait, on 18 May 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

I have played the game in both closed and open beta versions, with regards to how quick you can grind well that was in closed beta, in the open beta you require almost six or seven times as much research points to grind the next tank up. I don't actually enjoy WT in arcade mode but I find simulated battle mode to be excellent, still got some bugs to iron out but like all new things that will take time. As has been said before about WoT and WTGF, these are two different games and appeal to two different play styles and, to be honest, I don't see them clashing with each other.

Simulator mode is kinda the real deal. No target markers, no player names, no 3rd person view. I don't know how genuine tank battles are, but I imagine this would be similar, but not for the inexperienced (I still suck at it after 12 hours of play).


Edited by mystikro, 18 May 2014 - 11:25 AM.


Finguz #57 Posted 18 May 2014 - 11:40 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8925 battles
  • 782
  • Member since:
    05-03-2012

View PostLetsRockAndRoll, on 17 May 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

 

This ^^

Get yourself a T50, rush to the enemy spawn, find a nice spot and kill them as they appear, It just makes the whole thing a joke.

 

 

 

 

Judging an open beta 48 hours after release is a joke.

 

I remember WOT 48 hours after release.....



BravelyRanAway #58 Posted 18 May 2014 - 12:20 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 23229 battles
  • 10,530
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

There are some players who have been playing WTGF CB for a quite while so their view would be a bit more informed than mine or anyone elses who have only had a few hours play in the last 48hrs.

 

I can't see how anyone can jump into such a new game and expect to perform like they do in WoT and because they get mauled give a negative view so soon. Besides, working out how the tanks and upgrades work there is also the little(big) matter of learning the maps and how to use the terrain.

 

My first few games were simply trying to work out where I was being shot from.......seeing the enemy is difficult(lol....thought TD's in WoT were bad) but its something to get used to, afterall the guys in CB adapted.

I really like WoT...it's familiar and the gameplay is great, so I won't be dropping it like so many others are saying.

 

The WG haters will go to WTGF, the Gaijin haters will come here and those that just like good games ......will play both.



Hammerzeit #59 Posted 18 May 2014 - 01:16 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33333 battles
  • 823
  • [ATRAP] ATRAP
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

Block Quote

 

Judging an open beta 48 hours after release is a joke.

 

I remember WOT 48 hours after release.....

 

48 hrs and their tank tutorial is already light years ahead of WGs "go yolo that afk tig2" .

andfro #60 Posted 18 May 2014 - 01:27 PM

    Sergeant

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

View PostchaplainDMK, on 17 May 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

 

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. 

 

I dont doubt you! However. you shouldent complain about poor graphics if you are playing on "low" setting and barely get 30 fps. It's the same thing as someone who still uses a an old 28.8k dial-up modem, and complains about lag in mmo's.

 

View PostCepheid1, on 17 May 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

 

 

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...

 

I play both on max settings without any problems. If your gaming rigg cant handle ultra setting, then you cant really complain about bad graphics either.

 

Then again, I agree with you both somewhat. WoT dosent even have multi core support and could get way better optimized and polished.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users