Jump to content


Your thoughts about Armored Warfare

aw

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

Dan_Abnormal #41 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:55 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32665 battles
  • 4,420
  • Member since:
    10-14-2011
Looks even more corridor style FPS shooter than what WoT is turning into, no thanks.

carnivorous #42 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 17925 battles
  • 582
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

Looks interesting, tho that video didn't reveal enough. I'm interested in seeing how much you can customize your tank, how the crew functions etc.

 

It has lots of similarities to WoT atleast what it comes to user interface and players vs bots -game mode. Have to try it out when I can.


Edited by carnivorous, 31 August 2014 - 03:55 PM.


Slyspy #43 Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14703 battles
  • 17,469
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

I'm not much interested in another tank game.

 

I'd be very surprised to see this thread lasting into next week.



psychobear #44 Posted 31 August 2014 - 04:23 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19606 battles
  • 2,144
  • [L3GND] L3GND
  • Member since:
    06-21-2012

Signed up for beta.

 

Will play both games as a freeloader at first, then the first of them to remove farty gets my money. Simple as that.



Enforcer1975 #45 Posted 31 August 2014 - 04:33 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 21568 battles
  • 10,968
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
I'd rather have some sort of combined arms game in the dimensions of ArmA than another copy no matter how good it will be/not be. BF is a combined arms game but it's arcady and full simulations are only for the cracks among us and what is labeled as sim isn't always really a sim.

p0tp0t #46 Posted 31 August 2014 - 04:36 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 182 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    05-31-2011

View PostRider_of_Doom, on 31 August 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

It could be from WG...

 

 

This would require Armored Warfare to have an abysmally bad game engine though.



The_Shoe_Salesman #47 Posted 31 August 2014 - 04:47 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 5029 battles
  • 4,570
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

View Postp0tp0t, on 31 August 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:

 

 

This would require Armored Warfare to have an abysmally bad game engine though.

 

For a MMO CryEngine isn't the best also. You need to scale down the graphic and the code isn't very optimized (That's one reason, why the code will be rewritten for Star Citizien).

 

Maybe that's the reason, why Obsidian only showed PVE. :bajan:



Jigabachi #48 Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:16 PM

    Field Marshal

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

Just a general thing:

Basically EVERY game is a ripoff. Sometimes it's more obvious - like in this case - and sometimes less. The big question is: Did they do it well and did they add new features/fix broken ones... or did they just c&p everything?

So... please don't call EVERYTHING a ripoff.

 

 

@ topic: It's obvious where their inspiration came from... but then again: It's just tanks shooting each other. Nothing fancy. It's like [random shooter 2] copying the basic concept of [random shooter 1] - which is nothing but creeping around and shooting stuff.

And I actually like the UI. That's something WG didn't manage to improve at all.

I guess it will offer a lot more variation, so I might check it out when it's published... if my PC can handle it. But starting another arcade tankgame? Hmm... most likely... nope.



Balc0ra #49 Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:28 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 73542 battles
  • 20,954
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postpsychobear, on 31 August 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

Signed up for beta.

 

Will play both games as a freeloader at first, then the first of them to remove farty gets my money. Simple as that.

 

They don't have much arty. Just top mounted missiles that does 700+ damage by the looks of it and took 90% of some poor sood. But a few tanks have defenses against it tho.

Grimdorf #50 Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11658 battles
  • 1,919
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

The things that most excited me in that video was:

1) the PvE team missions, which is a long long overdue element missing from WoT.

2) the Maps, which looked much more interesting than most WoT maps, except for the recent Kharkov.

 

As to the "its a copy of WoT" - well so what? 

Thats a bit like saying all phones look the same cos they are all rectangular.

Most same genre games look similar in many respects as there are a limited number of ways that actually work well.

Look at most RPG's, most 1st person shooters, they generally have many things in common.

So the "copy" comments really are pointless imo.

 

It looks promising to me so far (based on VERY limited info in that video) but wether it will be a good or even great game remains to be seen in 2015 +.

Can they get the PvP game play right?

Can they get the tank / team balance right?

Can they avoid the frustrating elements of WoT that make me quit for days at a time?

Can they balance the rewards v grind well, while avoiding rewarding afkers/bots unlike Wot?

 

Lots of questions to be answered before we see wether its worth playing.

 

But if it does work out well then I'll quite happily switch over and relegate WoT to the very occasional play session.

 

WG have had plenty of time to address the worse, most frustrating issues with gameplay in WoT and have done very little about them ( poor MM balance, ludicrous OP fantasy tanks, bots/afkers, and so on) and so have lost all loyalty from me this year.

 

ps Someone mentioned the fact that its modern tanks so no chance of playing historical Tigers, etc.

That would be a valid point, and is the reason I started to play WoT, if WG had bothered to balance things around historically built tanks and not make so many fantasy / prototype / paper design tanks so much better.

Not to mention the completely stupid way WW2 era artillery is implemented......( ie why, oh why have a silly "superman" map view rather than say arty being able to tab thru their own teams view, similar to what you can do when dead, that would at least represent tanks calling in info, or observer tanks, used in real life)

 


Edited by Grimdorf, 31 August 2014 - 05:48 PM.


M4JORPA1N #51 Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:50 PM

    Warrant Officer

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

View PostBalc0ra, on 31 August 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

 

They don't have much arty. Just top mounted missiles that does 700+ damage by the looks of it and took 90% of some poor sood. But a few tanks have defenses against it tho.

 

They have plenty ... they've got all the modern Self Propelled Artillery including a number of variations for each nation.. not just one for each.

 

 

Boy, I'm looking foward to this lol


Edited by M4JORPA1N, 31 August 2014 - 05:59 PM.


Alezul #52 Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39095 battles
  • 1,189
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

Yay, this game also has sky cancer. I will never understand people's fascination with being shot for a lot of damage by people that you can't shoot back, like snipers in normal fps games. I hope to jebus they will have modes with no cancer though i doubt it since it's pretty much a wot clone.

 

I've learned from war thunder to not be excited until i try it out myself but as long as this game doesn't have tanks dying in one hit like in WT and actually uses all of my PC so i can get decent fps while also looking good, i'll switch over.

 

I'm also kinda worried about that ammo balance. Those missiles could be pretty annoying like gold ammo is here. 

 

But was i the only one who noticed the game says when you spot someone? It seems like every time WG said "soon" or "low priority" to something they went in and did it anyway.



Pig86 #53 Posted 31 August 2014 - 06:09 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16936 battles
  • 351
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011
This looks really good, however i like the scenario WG created more as in modern tank combat it is more about who sees someone first wins

CommanderNuts #54 Posted 31 August 2014 - 06:11 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5846 battles
  • 99
  • Member since:
    04-22-2013

View PostDragos_CS, on 31 August 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

Seems like a dumbed down version of WoT for me. It has arty so i hate it from the start.

 

Dumbed down? How would that even be possible and how did you even manage to form that opinion?

spuriousmonkey #55 Posted 31 August 2014 - 06:16 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 44843 battles
  • 3,362
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011
stopped being interested after i read it had arty.

5_InchFl0ppy #56 Posted 31 August 2014 - 06:23 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40975 battles
  • 1,646
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012
I think it has potential but I am disappointed they decided to add arty into the game. I think as long as they don't rely too heavily on gimmicky mechanics like the smoke and thing that shoots enemy missiles down (whatever the hell its called) then they should have a contender for WOT. I'm not going to get too excited though as I had high hopes for WT GF and that turned out to be pretty bad overall.

Jigabachi #57 Posted 31 August 2014 - 06:23 PM

    Field Marshal

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

View PostPig86, on 31 August 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

This looks really good, however i like the scenario WG created more as in modern tank combat it is more about who sees someone first wins

Actually, that's exactly what WoT is all about... :harp:



ZeLemanRuss #58 Posted 31 August 2014 - 06:50 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 30913 battles
  • 234
  • [-SOLO] -SOLO
  • Member since:
    06-29-2012

View Postmihai_sorin2, on 31 August 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

Hi guys, what are yout thoughts about recently launched gameplay-footage of AW? Could it be a better game than WoT, or not?

 

View PostiBeNoob, on 31 August 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

 

It's a joke, right?

Please tell me it's a joke.

 



Rollerbob #59 Posted 31 August 2014 - 06:55 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9842 battles
  • 79
  • Member since:
    06-22-2013

View PostAlezul, on 31 August 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

I'm also kinda worried about that ammo balance. Those missiles could be pretty annoying like gold ammo is here. 

 

Can't pen him? Shoot some missiles! I can see the chat spam already:

 

'Missilenoob'

 

:hiding:


Edited by Rollerbob, 31 August 2014 - 06:55 PM.


_Aztec_ #60 Posted 31 August 2014 - 07:04 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 17081 battles
  • 377
  • Member since:
    02-07-2012
This is alpha footage, but Wot is a succesful concept and competition to appear was just a matter of time.





Also tagged with aw

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users