Jump to content


Your thoughts about Armored Warfare

aw

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

EbenezerScrooge #21 Posted 31 August 2014 - 02:37 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 3143 battles
  • 108
  • Member since:
    10-27-2013

every competition to paleo WG is more than welcome

 

we nailed them sounds good as we hit them hard used to but WG removed it because they are noobs


Edited by EbenezerScrooge, 31 August 2014 - 02:39 PM.


mihai_sorin2 #22 Posted 31 August 2014 - 02:38 PM

    Lance-corporal

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

View PostTichy67, on 31 August 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:

Saw it on FTR, thought it looks like WoT with some mods and tier 11+

 

Spotting notification - good.

Did not listen to anything what they were saying because I would not understand it anyways (my english is not good enough for this) - just wondered, are the enemy tanks players or just drones? Seems they were standing around most of the time.

 

it's a PvE game mode. you're fighting against AI, not against real players.

TR_ASHley #23 Posted 31 August 2014 - 02:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16172 battles
  • 1,309
  • Member since:
    02-05-2014
Looks like a dumbed down wot to me.....

Dragos_CS #24 Posted 31 August 2014 - 02:41 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19681 battles
  • 2,010
  • [LGEND] LGEND
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View PostDanloJr, on 31 August 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

 

wow - you got all that from that video - you must be a genius to see all that from one pre-alpha vid

 

and tbh wg camo/vision mechanics are terrible anyway - only spotting a tank if you see one of 5 1inch squares on the tank is a joke.

Maybe, but tomato unfriendly. :trollface:

Therefore i like it. The more complicated the better.



Galleoth #25 Posted 31 August 2014 - 02:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14699 battles
  • 694
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

PVE mode could open up a lot of possibilities and give a viable alternative to people who don't perform well in PVP modes to still enjoy the game, the tanks and the graphics.

 

I'm glad this game is in the works, maybe WG will at least realise that every monopoly situation ends, and if they can't fix the issues in their own game people will look and find viable alternatives.

 

Since the footage is pre-alpha I don't really want to comment on the gameplay, but I think the game will be worth checking out.



Alecsandru010 #26 Posted 31 August 2014 - 02:42 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 34619 battles
  • 719
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010
Ctrl+C; Ctrl+V; :tongue: 

Feinel #27 Posted 31 August 2014 - 02:53 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24382 battles
  • 928
  • Member since:
    09-24-2011

Guess it partially comes down to whether you want to play ww II era tanks or mbts. I'll never accept graphics as a fundamental argument to rate a game above another, gameplay goes above all. No matter how much people like to hate on the graphics in wot, it fits the game just fine.

Might give it a spin a year after release if the general opinion is very positive. But I doubt I'll enjoy it more than WoT.

 

If anything, I hope this game draws some of the plebs who get all winded up about graphics out of here.



mihai_sorin2 #28 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:00 PM

    Lance-corporal

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

View PostAlecsandru010, on 31 August 2014 - 03:42 PM, said:

Ctrl+C; Ctrl+V; :tongue: 

 

yes, but PvE is something that WoT really lacks/needs. in the current state WoT is such a dull and frustrating game. AW looks like a much more fun ctrl+c ctrl+v. though, it's a personal opinion.

TheLordFlasheart #29 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:02 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13188 battles
  • 337
  • Member since:
    01-02-2013
I'll wait till beta before passing judgement. Remember when we saw WT:Ground Forces pre-alpha footage and cries of "WT will kill WG!!!!" etc, well we now how that went.....

Edited by TheLordFlasheart, 31 August 2014 - 03:02 PM.


Trakais #30 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:05 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34129 battles
  • 1,035
  • Member since:
    03-17-2011
Basically a copy/paste with 0 creativity. Maybe it will change, but now it just looks like a flashy (those indicators, is this some Sci-Fi starship arcade?), dumbed down version of WoT (quite an achievement considering how dumbed down WoT is), which is aimed at kids.

TheLordFlasheart #31 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:06 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13188 battles
  • 337
  • Member since:
    01-02-2013
Love how you are all passing judgements on a pre alpha video, and never even played the game.

Tuench #32 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:07 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 33122 battles
  • 398
  • [MILAN] MILAN
  • Member since:
    02-18-2012

Really? WoT Modern Warfare? ^^

 

I say its a big honor to WG that such a big game dev just fake WoT. But really Obsidian, how about some own content?



SignalFire #33 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:10 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 20325 battles
  • 176
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    08-20-2012

Any competition to WG is always welcome, it will make them move their bums. As for Armored Warfare, I think the game has great potential (no it's not copy-paste, stop being such blind WoT fanboys) and the PVE mode is very attractive (I love co-op game modes where I can play with a friend or two and complete objectives and missions). Oh and by the way, CryEngine 3. Arguably the best game engine available at the moment, not the joke that BigWorld is. CryEngine 3 delivers great visuals AND good performance as well. So WG can take their "it will put too much load" crap back where they found it from. Personally I look forward to it :)

 

Edit: Taking the "tank" idea and improving upon it is not "copy-paste". It could only bring more fun and variety to the games that we play. It's actually funny how some of you consider the game "copy paste" just because it has some similar aspects to WoT. 


Edited by SignalFire, 31 August 2014 - 03:16 PM.


M4JORPA1N #34 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 4847 battles
  • 571
  • Member since:
    09-17-2012

View Postmihai_sorin2, on 31 August 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

 

it's a PvE game mode. you're fighting against AI, not against real players.

 

Yea but the game will actually be PVP with another mode like you say.. Co-Op PVE to gain loot n shizz! Gotta to say with the stresses of playing WoT I will be looking forward to it. Not to mention there wont be the silly differences you get with US / EU / RUS with WG favoring Ruskie community.

MadFelineHoarder #35 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:19 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1476 battles
  • 354
  • Member since:
    06-21-2013

Well, being part of the tomatoes, I must say it looks interesting (I've thought so from the get go). I really like the idea of the PvE mode, making scrubs like me feel like we might be able to accomplish something, without destroying the gameplay for better players. Hopefully, it'll be possible to form platoons or similar, and then you can derp around with friends in the PvE mode, trying to accomplish these missions (especially if you're getting your butts handed to you in the PvP mode).

 

WoT copy? Sure looks like it at a first glance (and second, and third), but I really can't say if that's negative or not. I mean, I like WoT after all. :tongue:

 

So, yeah. It looks interesting, and I'll probably try it later on. Will I abandon WoT and/or will this be able to steal a big portion of WoT's playerbase? I don't know. Only time will tell. However, competition is good, and WG could do with some.



L0ddy #36 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:33 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 86266 battles
  • 2,506
  • [TWD] TWD
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

damn, looks like i'll have to upgrade my 5yr old pc.

 

for a pre-alpha build, it looks far superior to WOT, I hope WG have seen it......:smile:

 

 



St4n #37 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:42 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19511 battles
  • 956
  • [WU36] WU36
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

PvE? How can they afford that? It puts sooo much load on the servers to have NPCs on the maps!

...says WG...

Yeah, how about stopping to complain that it puts additional load on the servers and instead put some serious money in your server farms?

The excuse "too much load for the server" is the same as "we don't want to spend the money we get from you into our server infrastructure".

 

But havok is possible without slapping us with the same argument?

Ohhh, guess what... AW has havok AND PvE. Impossible!



Furlock #38 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 66258 battles
  • 688
  • [EWOKS] EWOKS
  • Member since:
    08-20-2012

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.


Edited by Furlock, 31 August 2014 - 03:43 PM.


panzeraustirol #39 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:46 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8191 battles
  • 728
  • Member since:
    10-29-2013
Its total WOT knockoff. Just tanks are different.

Forgottenduty #40 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:51 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14820 battles
  • 230
  • [GLOF] GLOF
  • Member since:
    06-04-2013
I like the fact that the hud is similar to WoT, it will make the transition that much easier.





Also tagged with aw

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users