Jump to content


Your thoughts about Armored Warfare

aw

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

Palora #101 Posted 01 September 2014 - 12:21 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 26047 battles
  • 470
  • Member since:
    03-17-2010

From the few minutes that I saw it looks like a WOT clone, but all it has to do is be less retarded then WOT, an easy task,and it might be a better game.

 

WG has been screwing up for years now, shitting on their game and the community constantly, the only thing Obsidian needs to do to win is to not fail, apparently not an easy task as that soviet propaganda "game" (Warthunder ground forces) has demonstrated. 

 


Edited by Palora, 01 September 2014 - 12:22 PM.


baboonsRgr8m8 #102 Posted 01 September 2014 - 12:33 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18414 battles
  • 371
  • Member since:
    03-04-2013
:) Just had to do my research and the old phenomenon, known to online communities across all popular MMOs, is here again. Every time similar game, appears horde of players, who are let's say average or slightly above average at best, very loudly expressing their intention to leave [insert game name] as soon as [insert the copy's name] is available. Motivations might vary, the hype is immense. For some is this false hope they will actually be the top dogs in the new game. Not realizing one thing, that if they have sucked/have been average in [insert game name] they
Spoiler

Or the gameplay in the new game will, from vast majority, just inferior to the old game the new game is copying. For vast majority of these quitters one or the latter will happen sooner or later, after that you're likely to see players coming back, mostly very stealthily unlike their very loud exit before.

 

I'm not trying to insult someone or wish anything bad to AW, but it's the same old situation, you could've seen in many games before and it just keeps me amused every time it happens. I for one wish AW will be a great game, cause real competition would be something that would be beneficial for us who decide to stick with WoT as well.

 

Anyway, I doubt you will get rid of many things, stock grinds, some sort of prem ammo/consumables will remain, cause those are the things that make the profit, RNG will be there in one form or the other (otherwise the game would be dull) etc. Just remain realistic. I'm for example kinda afraid there will be some serious balance issues in AW, but that's just my impression from the video. Hopefully Obsidian will live up to their name tho.


Edited by theLYKKroll, 01 September 2014 - 12:34 PM.


Slyspy #103 Posted 01 September 2014 - 12:36 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14711 battles
  • 17,479
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostPalora, on 01 September 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

From the few minutes that I saw it looks like a WOT clone, but all it has to do is be less retarded then WOT, an easy task,and it might be a better game.

 

WG has been screwing up for years now, shitting on their game and the community constantly, the only thing Obsidian needs to do to win is to not fail, apparently not an easy task as that soviet propaganda "game" (Warthunder ground forces) has demonstrated. 

 

 

Every new game which has even vaguely similar components up to and including merely being online has been touted as a WoT killer. Considering that so many people think that WG are utterly incompetent and that each new game is just the best thing ever I'm surprised that WoT is still going.

Danger__UXB #104 Posted 01 September 2014 - 12:51 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 9834 battles
  • 2,880
  • Member since:
    03-07-2013

View PostM4JORPA1N, on 01 September 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

I will be the first to leave WoT for good in search of other games.. like this one. Already sent in a ticket to have my account deleted (premium tanks, gold, 70 days premium etc etc) and all my personal info removed from their system so, "so long all" enjoy your daily dose of Tomato Soup and match fixing ;)

 

TBH i dont think i will be that far behind you??...I have give up another account a few years ago (This is my 2nd) due to the HE fiasco and the treatment WG gives its customers..But came back (Because 'Reasons')

 

At the moment looking for a good replacement for my 'Tenky tenk fix'...Hell!! was even looking at Bf3 last night? lol....



peikkopepponen #105 Posted 01 September 2014 - 01:14 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 9179 battles
  • 107
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

Armored Warfare looks actually quite fun.

 

I like the big maps and it also looks good. Fact is that WoT is wery poorly optimized and it's bad engine makes our good computers choke.

 

PvE sounds really fun and this base building to.

 

For a pre Alpha it sure looks promising.

 

edit. Iam also thinking to try War Thunder. Friend says its miles better tecnically and in gameplay than WoT but it has to few maps. And those in game are most poor. If they add maps like Kursk it will be my bye bye to WoT :D ( Saw it in youtube in simulation battle, that was tank war! )


Edited by peikkopepponen, 01 September 2014 - 01:16 PM.


peikkopepponen #106 Posted 01 September 2014 - 01:19 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 9179 battles
  • 107
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostSlyspy, on 01 September 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

 

Every new game which has even vaguely similar components up to and including merely being online has been touted as a WoT killer. Considering that so many people think that WG are utterly incompetent and that each new game is just the best thing ever I'm surprised that WoT is still going.

 

What are these WoT killers you talk about?

Lord_WC #107 Posted 01 September 2014 - 01:31 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18655 battles
  • 3,277
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View PostSlyspy, on 01 September 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

Every new game which has even vaguely similar components up to and including merely being online has been touted as a WoT killer. Considering that so many people think that WG are utterly incompetent and that each new game is just the best thing ever I'm surprised that WoT is still going.

 

Currently the only 'competency' the playerbase needs is:

a) Using your freaking computer. It's not 2005 anymore, computers can handle the load, give us eye candy AND gameplay advancements (bigger maps, physics).

b) Not being a russian nationalist idiot. I don't care how you want to sell your products in the RU market, the communication seeping into the EU/US markets are bad. We get it, russians are cool and advanced (that's why 90% of the civilized world hates them now - with reason) and they need every occasion to tell them, it's just that when WE pay instead of THEM, it is really perverse to call us the lesser beings...

 

It's not hard to achieve both of these. WTGF failed at the second while delivering worse gameplay than WoT.

 

HP system for modern tanks is good (otherwise it would be either you oneshot the enemy or you won't be able to pen him no matter what), maps are big enough, graphics are okay, physics present. We'll see how the company behaves.


Edited by Lord_WC, 01 September 2014 - 01:35 PM.


bean57 #108 Posted 01 September 2014 - 01:48 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18721 battles
  • 2,951
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

View PostSlyspy, on 01 September 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

 

Every new game which has even vaguely similar components up to and including merely being online has been touted as a WoT killer. Considering that so many people think that WG are utterly incompetent and that each new game is just the best thing ever I'm surprised that WoT is still going.

 

 

 

Agreed.  It was only a few short months ago this forum was full of gleeful threads banging on about how WTGF was going to ruin WarGaming and how WoT would be dead in the water inside six months as "all the good players" were going to desert it for the opposition.  We all know what happened there don't we :sceptic:


 

Bottom line is, if you want to play another game go ahead and good luck to you, no one is stopping you,  But why all the hand-rubbing wishing for WoT to fail as a result.  Personally I love the game and I'm going to carry on playing it regardless



3Form #109 Posted 01 September 2014 - 02:16 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 18245 battles
  • 1,830
  • Member since:
    09-09-2010

I'm really looking forward to this. Looks like there'll be lots of "light tank" type vehicles. AFVs, wheeled tank destroyers etc, lots of very mobile looking things. Mobile things are always a lot of fun to play! :)

 

Want to get myself a Wiesel! Serious pew pew pew pew.


Edited by 3Form, 01 September 2014 - 02:17 PM.


silverdwarf #110 Posted 01 September 2014 - 02:28 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8485 battles
  • 310
  • [0MG] 0MG
  • Member since:
    08-18-2012

WOT for what it is, is ok.... the problems arise when the game tries to be all things to all players, and very few games achieve that... WOT has a few problems which the perception is nothing is been done about them, and player loyalty only stretches so far... doing something after the fact(new competition) will not endear the players to WOT...


 

been involved with setting up games and games forums and it takes so long for developers to actually respond, mostly because they don't see a problem or because they are working on the pet game feature, then suddenly its too late the player base moves on to something else... at the moment WOT really does have a closed market once that market opens I fear for the game... and then a rushed version 2 to try and allure players back... other ftp games have done or are doing this


 

and yes I like this game, just think it is still in beta with all the problems that goes with that, I also think it can be sorted by giving players choice, game engine setting options, like 0/+1/+2 tier choices, there could be quite a few added options client side, bearing in mind they are redoing the engine for Havoc...


 

that's just hope and prayers though   


 

SD



Defy #111 Posted 01 September 2014 - 02:50 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 7343 battles
  • 512
  • Member since:
    12-25-2010

View PostFurlock, on 31 August 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

1000-1300ft maps.

 

End of story. Low end wot-approach. There was expectation, they had a fair chance to do something really interesting... and just hopped into the nest. A disgrace.

 

maps are up to 1.2km wide.... Much bigger than wot.Low end approach on high end engine? Game definitely plays similarly to WoT, but thats what they were going for arcady action with realistic ballistics and armor simulation.

Murphy1up #112 Posted 01 September 2014 - 02:58 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Military Reserve
  • 11327 battles
  • 7,283
  • [-QQ-] -QQ-
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

Moving to off topic section - "General Discussion" is for World of Tanks only.  No problem with you guys discussing other games but our main section of the forums isn't the place for that

- Ectar



Bortasqu #113 Posted 01 September 2014 - 03:03 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 1082 battles
  • 344
  • Member since:
    11-06-2010

View PostNya_Chan, on 01 September 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

Just a side note - it's not. For four two years already.

 

Fixed it.

mihai_sorin2 #114 Posted 01 September 2014 - 03:43 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 15703 battles
  • 95
  • Member since:
    03-21-2012

View PostEctar, on 01 September 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

Moving to off topic section - "General Discussion" is for World of Tanks only.  No problem with you guys discussing other games but our main section of the forums isn't the place for that

- Ectar

 

when topics like this are moved that means something. fear about the competition.

 



olukej #115 Posted 01 September 2014 - 03:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 100 battles
  • 4,186
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View Postmihai_sorin2, on 01 September 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

 

when topics like this are moved that means something. fear about the competition.

 

 

If WG was afraid of the competition, wouldn't they simply delete the topic like we know they have no problem doing? As opposed to simply moving to the off-topic section a topic that has nothing to do in general discussion ?

 

 

Anyway back to the subject at hand, I find it interesting that Armored Warfare seems to have a very WoTesque gameplay when you compare it with War Thunder GF, which went for a very different flow and feel to distinguish it from the WG giant. I guess the fact Armored Warfare features modern day vehicles as opposed to WW2 tanks means they have more leeway in copying succesful core design elements. Gaijin knew if they wanted to compete with WG they had to present something very different, since at heart they were both online shooters about WW2 tanks, so they went with added realism. Armored Warfare has the advantage of offering something people can't find in WoT, modern tanks, while at the same time giving them a similar gameplay experience.

This could indeed be a very interesting game which might pontentially siphon a lot more players from WoT than GF ever managed to, as not everybody is interested in realism, but almost everybody here is interested about more new tanks. 


Edited by olukej, 01 September 2014 - 04:00 PM.


Navarome #116 Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:42 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 26773 battles
  • 2,069
  • [GOP-A] GOP-A
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

i dont care about graphics, i play with low to fast my pc, and the less thing to distract me , the better.

 

i also dont like that info painel



agentsmith1612 #117 Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:53 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19507 battles
  • 237
  • [SYNC] SYNC
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostSt4n, on 31 August 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

According to WG argumentation this will not have a big playerbase...

Objects on tanks according to equipment used. - Would put too much load on player PCs.

Bigger maps. - Would put too much load on player PCs.

Smokescreens. - Would put too much load on player PCs.

So only some people in EU/US with highend PCs will be able to play this game... LOL. *sarcasm*

 

Most people in EU/US have a good enough PC/laptop to handle "too much load" from this stuff (if it isn't awfully bad implemented).

If PCs can handle Battlefield 3 or 4 they can handle this stuff with ease. How many people are actually playing this game on a PC that can barelly handle it?

So WG wan't all those russian players to play the game on their 10year old bricks? Fine.

AW will give people from more wealthy countries what they can handle with thier "not 10year old" machines.

 

Time for WG to get the stick out of their asses and hire more people for actualy developing the game. Delivering features, physics and graphics that are common standard in the western hemisphere.

 

So I dont care so much about graphics, but when you say WoT is optimized for low end PCs that most of the eastern Europe and Russian players have. Why the [edited]we have not more than 100 fps on mid class and high end machines? I have a brand new PC, in BF3 and BF4 more than 80 fps but in WoT sometimes less than 40?
The fact is that WG dont care about optimization. Look at the size of the client.

WG trys to compare bad engine and the graphics with new HD models. HD models are looking great but the rest? It is totaly old and looks crapy.

 

From Armored Warfare I am looking forward for the game, but the main part of the game where we can figure out if it will be fun or not is not shown now. This is balance, maps, game modes, progression system etc. Only if we can play it we will see if its good or not. Graphics are great, tanks are exciting but the fun will come with playing.



Jigabachi #118 Posted 01 September 2014 - 05:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 21,021
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostPAKFA, on 31 August 2014 - 09:59 PM, said:

And why is it aimed at a complete different market?

It's basically a better version of WoT with modern tanks and it's f2p. What different market are you talking about?

Think about why WG struggles so much with improving the graphics/physics and with all that HD-stuff. Hint: The majority of the playerbase plays the game on high end potatoes.

 

View PostSmileyMan73, on 31 August 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

Erm copy much?

FFS the whole interface is a straight copy.

Err... nope.

In WoT, you only have a fraction of information available you see in that video. They just took the basic concept (WG didn't invent that btw. It's just a basic interface, nothing new.) and improved it. If you call that a simple copy... well...

 

View PostFlapjackbatter, on 31 August 2014 - 11:58 PM, said:

Pre alpha ....That is just meaningless.

Just as meaningless as calling it beta, and at the same time sell for RL money. Yes, gaijin, I'm looking at you.

Alpha , beta ... those therms are just meaningless these days.

Yeah, that's something I really hate. Full price purchases during alphas and betas... that's just stupid.

But I actually don't know whom I hate more: The devs or the stupid players who buy that stuff...

And you actually don't have to look at gaijin - WoT isn't better. To some extend it's still a beta with that many major changes coming up years after release, as well as a plethora of day-one-problems.

 

View Postl0ngstrike, on 01 September 2014 - 12:01 AM, said:

Looks like an exact copy of WoT, quite embarassing.

I hope you don't play any other game except WoT, which is indeed somewhat unique.

 

View Postmihai_sorin2, on 01 September 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

when topics like this are moved that means something. fear about the competition.

No. It means that the topic doesn't belong into the "WOT general discussion"-subforum. D'uh.



3Form #119 Posted 01 September 2014 - 07:46 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 18245 battles
  • 1,830
  • Member since:
    09-09-2010
Since my PC struggles with MWO I'm a little bit worried about how well it'll handle this to be honest :S

Charliefoxtro_ #120 Posted 02 September 2014 - 12:32 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31954 battles
  • 1,114
  • [L-BUN] L-BUN
  • Member since:
    12-28-2012

View PostOutlawz0111, on 31 August 2014 - 10:53 PM, said:

Looks like my new tank game and i will go for the brits!.

 

Challenger 2 come to papa!

 

One thing though: arty + no /little rng = camp warfare? although there is the aim time idk, we got to play first.







Also tagged with aw

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users