Jump to content


World of Tanks VS Armored Warfare


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

Tidal_Force #61 Posted 28 September 2015 - 02:28 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16195 battles
  • 6,842
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    08-29-2012

View PostMr_Sukebe, on 28 September 2015 - 01:23 AM, said:

Well I heard that AW is MUCH more noob friendly.  After all, they're introducing an MM meaning that noobs will get carried.  No getting one shotted by arty.

 

What you the noobs waiting for?  Stop botting here and go play AW and REALLY enjoy yourselves!

 

In b 4 all noobs move to AW so there will be no one to carry them there :P



iplayforfun2 #62 Posted 28 September 2015 - 02:40 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24853 battles
  • 1,615
  • [-BDF-] -BDF-
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011

View PostMr_Sukebe, on 28 September 2015 - 01:23 AM, said:

Well I heard that AW is MUCH more noob friendly.  After all, they're introducing an MM meaning that noobs will get carried.  No getting one shotted by arty.

 

What you the noobs waiting for?  Stop botting here and go play AW and REALLY enjoy yourselves!

 

 

Yeah but it is the noobs who give the unicrums the stats they are so proud of. Get rid of all the reds and I wonder if the good wot players will remain at that level. Perhaps they would, IDK. Do you?

I just cannot fathom giving money to devs who have treat WG players as nothing more than cash cards. Each to their own of course, but I will not  continue to support the greed of wargaming.



Dr_LoVe69_makesWoTgreat #63 Posted 28 September 2015 - 04:38 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Clan Commander
  • 55744 battles
  • 3,301
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010

View PostBaldrickk, on 27 September 2015 - 06:40 PM, said:

Yeah. No problems doing so. 

 

But so many did not. And it is not nice first impression of the game when you have to download 20 GB of data to not be able to play the game.

 

View PostFuzzyPowa, on 27 September 2015 - 11:18 PM, said:

Well WOT is not a free2play game, because it is not free to play t10, you HAVE to pay if u want to play it cuz otherwise u lose credits hard (arty being the only exception, probably). Thus I'm wondering if it's the same "belorussian style" f2p.

 

Maybe you have to pay.

For example, I am not paying anything since 2011 and I play t10 with full prem consumables.

 

View Postsquarerigger, on 28 September 2015 - 02:40 AM, said:

I just cannot fathom giving money to devs who have treat WG players as nothing more than cash cards.

 

But you will give money to AW developers who "talk to community" but when [edited] hit the fan they suddenly went so silent?



Taegus #64 Posted 28 September 2015 - 07:09 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46687 battles
  • 1,611
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    05-01-2015

View PostHellens, on 27 September 2015 - 09:44 PM, said:

What comes WoT its nowdays pure rapish! I tested armoured warfare and its much more beter. One hing which I noticed there is some palyers makes same lemmings andcampings ystems than in WoT. And lot of polish players. But better tan WoT!

 

As someone mension there are too many cheaters in WoT. True and WoT have spoiled game by gold ammo thing also.


 

I have followed situation over 4 y now and WoT direction in going worse all the time.

 

Typical BOT. Go to AW prettly please and stay there.

Taegus #65 Posted 28 September 2015 - 07:11 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46687 battles
  • 1,611
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    05-01-2015

View PostFuzzyPowa, on 27 September 2015 - 10:57 PM, said:

Well if both suck, both will have to blow me, simple as that. And let's be honest, the most attractive part of AW is the xvm, which is not there!!! I'd be fine with skill balancing as described above. 

 

If AW will succeed it will get XVM (something like it anyway), count on it. 

TwoPointsOfInterest #66 Posted 28 September 2015 - 07:26 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 6107 battles
  • 2,002
  • Member since:
    08-07-2013
And the skilled matchmaking plans seem to favour the boys and put good players on a team full of bots

Taegus #67 Posted 28 September 2015 - 07:31 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46687 battles
  • 1,611
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    05-01-2015

View PostSchmeksiman, on 28 September 2015 - 12:05 AM, said:

Play whatever is more fun for you, nobody is judging you.

But what I find funny are the people who think WoT is some belorussian game from hell and AW the ultimate game. People don't see that AW isn't even in open beta, there will be a lot more monetizing features added (or else what's the point?) and the more players you get the bigger the problems will be. I've been in alpha and beta for WoWs, at any point I could have bragged how there's no monetizing, everything is free, grind is quick, everyone is equal and the playerbase is skilled.

 

But that would be a huge lie sine I knew there would be premium ships and gold (again, I don't have a problem with that, that's the point of bussines), grinding would become much longer (in alpha and beta we had only 20% of the grind for testing purposes), people would start playing like complete idiots (in alpha you pretty much knew everyone if you visited the forum) and issues would arise.

When Jingles posted first video of arty in AW every single person was going on how AW solved the arty problem and WG is stupid, that WoT will die out. I made a comment back then that between a few interesting mechanics the arty problem hasn't been solved at all, you just made it to resemble FV304 and constantly click players, same level of annoyance ensured. And naturally everyone bashed me because of it...

 

I'd rather wait another year when (and if) AW gets a good playerbase to judge between two games, decide which one is better and why.

 

 

That depends on what you consider F2P. Personally I think WoT is one of the most fair games out there with some great solutions. Keeping players at mid tiers to grind credits and premium tanks that are worse than normal ones while still providing you with benefits.

But of course some people will complain that premium account is P2W, that you can grind faster, spend less time playing stock, use more premium ammo or whatnot. But honestly, compared to some games where paid users have clear advantage while actually playing, P2W element in WoT is pretty minor.

 

So unless you're going to prove me that you're able to run a grocery store while giving away everything for free I don't see your point.

 

I pay for the game so some can play it for free. Can I grind a little faster and have some other small benefits because of that please? I mean its not like i play and get 10% win rate more. Some people really would like everything for free. I work as software developer and I know how much work goes into developing good things. Don't get me wrong I know WG is earning huge money on WOT and I know they are greedy. Nothing new here. But expecting everything to be free...

 

For all that shitheads that think that they should get everything for free I suggest running a popular open source project. Then you will see how fun it is puting all your free time into the project just to see some people whining about it, nitpicking about every little detail, without even donating a dolar, or even saying thank you.

 

BTW this was not aimed at you Schmeksiman. :)



Taegus #68 Posted 28 September 2015 - 07:34 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46687 battles
  • 1,611
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    05-01-2015

View PostTaegus, on 28 September 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

 

I pay for the game so some can play it for free. Can I grind a little faster and have some other small benefits because of that please? I mean its not like i play and get 10% win rate more. Some people really would like everything for free. I work as software developer and I know how much work goes into developing good things. Don't get me wrong I know WG is earning huge money on WOT and I know they are greedy. Nothing new here. But expecting everything to be free...

 

For all that shitheads that think that they should get everything for free I suggest running a popular open source project. Then you will see how fun it is puting all your free time into the project just to see some people whining about it, nitpicking about every little detail, without even donating a dolar, or even saying thank you.

 

BTW this was not aimed at you Schmeksiman. :)

 

Just had a great analogy. Life is just like torrrents. Some always seed and others always just leech :)

cb99 #69 Posted 28 September 2015 - 08:14 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12228 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    01-25-2013

First,

I will state something pretty obvious, the text below is IMO and my speculation.

 

Second,

I will quote this wonderful saying,

Trust arrives on foot but leaves on horseback.

 

Even that the life cycle is very different both Obsidian and WG have succumb and do suffer from prestige ridden marketing people without good enough knowledge and reality check.

 

The ability to stand up and show some spine and admit I was wrong you know the things that builds trust in the ability to recognize problems and act on them quick and with force is a very rare thing.

 

AW/Obsidian,

Suffers under a financier that you really have not seen much of so far, but under the recent test did show some amazing arrogance and lack of flexibility and IMO personal pride (typical marketing behaviour) came well ahead of better judgement and common sense and instead of stand up and correct instead hunkered down.

 

WoT/WG,

Letting marketing do what ever they want now to “fix” the revenue leek for the moment, this without the capability of understanding the game community. Noticeable example by limiting map rotation, tearing apart well functioning parts of the game and causing confusion with statements like changing crew perks and removing names on enemy in battle circumvent the real issues.

All of that will not stem the revenue leek but increase it, just stabbing more holes into the gaming body, apparently no one is strong enough to point this out that what should be happening is stem the flow by directly reverting bad decisions like map limitations and don't rock the boat and ride it out.

 

During my years I seen overeager prestige-filled marketing departments "full of them self" destroying huge values because there egos go above the well-being of the company that they actually do serve and who pay there salary.

 

Last,

Personally I will keep track on the development and spend time in both games which I enjoy, they are after all pretty different even that they are very similar.

 

 

-cb99



tajj7 #70 Posted 28 September 2015 - 08:34 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28260 battles
  • 16,461
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

I will give it a go at some point, biggest thing putting me off is grinding again, it's why my progress in WOWs has stalled a lot I got to tier 10 in the closed BETA then lost it all and had to start again. 

 

But comparing the two games to me seems stupid. 

 

AW is not even out yet, it's not even in an open beta, WOTs has 5 years of development so if they are even managing to do some elements better than WOTs then that's already good. 

 

But competition is good, basically the arty re-balance in WOT will make or break for me, if Arty becomes more bearable (and I get my Chieftain) then I can;t see me moving to another similar game, but if WG f it up then I'm probably gone.



RdzawyRycerz #71 Posted 28 September 2015 - 11:01 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 24332 battles
  • 111
  • Member since:
    02-27-2012
Well AW have 1 thing that look like Wot will never get..... Chieftain

Murphy1up #72 Posted 28 September 2015 - 11:08 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Military Reserve
  • 11327 battles
  • 7,279
  • [-QQ-] -QQ-
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

moved to off topic section

- Ectar



Signal11th #73 Posted 28 September 2015 - 11:10 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 44667 battles
  • 6,338
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011
Tried both like both but still prefer WOT overall, Both have good things and bad things, Do like the much bigger maps and the fact arty is sensible in AW though. If arty in WOT isn't sorted though within a year I will probably end up moving to AW permanently.

Edited by signal11th, 28 September 2015 - 11:11 AM.


gpalsson #74 Posted 28 September 2015 - 11:30 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 24508 battles
  • 8,965
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

Having played AW, I think these are the major differences for me:

 

Maps

Well it's pretty simple. I just like that maps better in AW, because they are larger and while some maps are riddled with corridors like WoT there is also room for open spaces with flanking and really fun and fast repositioning. They seem less dumbed down.

 

Some parts of physics

I have yet to get get killed because I got too close to some annoying arbitrary hill where the groundresistance suddenly went from 1 to 10000 so I can't turn anymore. This happens in WoT, and I hate it. Still the vehicles feel strangely detached to the ground in AW. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I just don't feel like the tanks are heavy. However I don't really feel that in WoT either, then I drive 80 tons into a tiny staircase and go full stop and get stuck in buildings and annoying fcking stupid sh1t like that.

 

Arty

While arty is still super annoying and should be remove and burned, they are slightly better in AW because there is no XVM focus, and there is no oneshots. I don't like mega alpha / oneshots in WoT. It creates too much camping and annoying gameplay. Arty however, is still an idiotic decision to keep. Make a new game...repeat same mistake as WoT. Why?

 

Shell types

I feel that there aren't any shells that are "just better at everything" like in WoT. This however can make it hard to go up against MBTs tanks that are 2 tier higher. Especially when you aren't even pen the flattest side of their turret with AP, even thought you are in a TD. On the other hand, HE does damage almost no matter what. I think that's actually OK. Much better than WoT overall.

 

Missiles

Probably what I dislike the most in AW. I don't feel it adds anything to the game. They do a ton of damage, and it seems a bit too random if they do damage or not because the targets are often super far away. Also, they either do full damage or no damage. I don't like the missiles.

 

Graphics

I think it's easy to feel that AW is running on a better engine, but at the same time that there hasn't been so much time to care about all the models yet. I think this is something where we just have to wait and see. Right now, I think WOT looks better.

 

Spotting system

It's much like WoT, except you can't fire continually from a bush without getting spotted.

There is also partial spots, where you get seen, but without an outline. I don't know what I like better. I feel WoT is more simple and easy to understand. I also have a hard to getting actual data on how stuff works in AW. This however will most likely be fixed within a pretty short timeframe.

 

Mods and UI

The UI is much better and more informative than WoT. I am still missing stuff like a damage log, but generally I feel that the UI is very much superior to WoT. I also think that it's nice to know why you get the exp/credits that you get. This part is just so much more transparent than WoT that you clearly feel it's ridiculous when you then go back to WoT. AW is not middable right now. Someone will probably find a way, and although I really miss having zoom [shift] fixed to certain zoom levels, I don't cry myself to sleep every night about missing mods.

 

Crew and equipment

I think that almost all crew options and equipment options are somewhat viable. This is in contrast to WoT where only very very few combinations of equipment is viable and competitive. This is something that will probably change in WoT, but it could take years to devs to balance it because they also have to think about how to compensate everyone. I like AW crew and equipment (retrofits) setup much better.

 

General game speed

Every tank in AW goes 50+ (at least from what I have gathered) but MTBs take looong to get there. They also turn slowly, and they aim much slower than other classes.

However, that means that HT's in AW (MBTs) have a real chance to reposition, which I find refreshing but also a bit annoying because it makes the maps (still larger than WoT) seem smaller.

I don't know what I like better, it just seems like AW is at a different pace.

 

PvE

TBH, I personally think PvE is boring and sucks in AW. I don't see any reason for it to exist. I know a lot of people seem to be into PvE and it's the main reason they want to try AW, but for me it just seems pointless.

 

The grind

In AW, the grinds are horrifically long. I suspect they will have to balance this at some point. If you think grinds in WoT are too long, you haven't seen anything yet.

On the other hand, I find tier 1-4 much much much much more enjoyable in AW than in WoT. There is actually armor in the tanks and you CAN sidescrape, you have to aim at weakspots and stuff like that. It feels more like WoT in tier 5-7 than WoT tier 1-4. This surprised me a lot when I played the first times.

 

The players

Don't think AW magically has fewer idiots. They whine just as much in AW. They want SBMM and don't understand why they will still lose or get steamrolled. They whine about players comming from WoT to destroy they game, even though the game won't even exist for very long unless they can get some players from WoT.

They whine about noob teams. They whine about campers. They whine about every possible thing they can whine about. Just like in WoT.

 


Edited by gpalsson, 28 September 2015 - 11:46 AM.


Excavatus #75 Posted 28 September 2015 - 12:13 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18980 battles
  • 1,656
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-28-2013

My initial opinions are as followed,

 

* AW is easier than WOT this is why so many bobs like it than wot. I prefer to learn by dying in WOT.

* AW doesnt give so much to leave everything I grinded and earned in WOT. It is just not there.

* The player base will grow. And If the player base will be huge as wot, be sure that there will be mods and xvm like features.

* We still dont know how the game calculations handled. How the cheats will be handled in AW. Shall wait and see.

* SBMM will continue to put good players in teams with bobs. Thinking 7 out of ten players are bobs, 1 is average, 1 is good and 1 is unicum, the retard teams for unicums will grow fast and good players at some point will say "Fak it I am going back to my tonks!" Because If you are a player of deep blue or above, you will have to carry every match in all time. This will mean no relaxed play for good players.

 

But as a general idea, I believe we need to wait and see. It is too early to have an opinion on AW. There will come a time that AW developers will say "the game is ok now. Lets start making money" This will be the time which the game will be decided F2P or P2W..

 

As for WOT being p2w.. the guys who say that has no idea what a p2w game I guess.. Have you tried GRP?.. that is the definiton of p2w. Go try it. After you reach level 10 and leave newbie league.. you'll see you have to pay money or you cannot win more than 2 in 10 matches..

p2w means you BUY and advantage in game.. over f2p players.. You will access some features with only real money which f2p players cannot.

 

please give any example what advantage WOT gives you in exchange of money.

shorter grinds is not an advantage. earning more credits are not an advantage.

The only thing you can buy ONLY with real money are premium tanks which are worse then equivelant tier elited tanks.

yes you can earn more xp, and more credits and train crews faster. But these are not advantages over a f2p player...

There is not a single ingame element which you can only BUY with REAL MONEY that gives you advantage over a f2p player..

If you think there is I am sorry but you need to learn to play... or better.. go to AW..



gpalsson #76 Posted 28 September 2015 - 12:27 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 24508 battles
  • 8,965
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

View PostExcavatus, on 28 September 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

 

* The player base will grow. And If the player base will be huge as wot, be sure that there will be mods and xvm like features.

* We still dont know how the game calculations handled. How the cheats will be handled in AW. Shall wait and see.

 

 

These things are closely related, and the only reason XVM can gather stats is because of the API that WG made to allow the phone app to get statistics. If AW dpoesn't want that, they can easily prevent that from working.

Even if XVM was present in AW, it wouldn't become as widely used because the main things that made XVM popular (terrible terrible clunky and non-informative UI made by WG) are already working in AW. Besides, it's allowed in WoT. It's not in AW, so people would be labbeled as cheaters in AW. 

 

View PostExcavatus, on 28 September 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

 

* SBMM will continue to put good players in teams with bobs. Thinking 7 out of ten players are bobs, 1 is average, 1 is good and 1 is unicum, the retard teams for unicums will grow fast and good players at some point will say "Fak it I am going back to my tonks!" Because If you are a player of deep blue or above, you will have to carry every match in all time. This will mean no relaxed play for good players.

 

 

Well, maybe but the thing is you don't actually know this because XVM isn't there.

I will judge if it is so terrible (I suspect it might be) once the game is sufficiently popular and has enough players for me to be able to actually judge this. Right now, you and I don't know sh1t.

 

 

View PostExcavatus, on 28 September 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

 

please give any example what advantage WOT gives you in exchange of money.

 

 

 

Ok lets first define P2W. If you get higher winrate by paying money, it's p2w right?

Explain to me how getting 100% crew as opposed to 75% isn't p2w? While you are grinding those crews, you will win less. So it is p2w.

This is probably the most obvious example, and you asked me to name one - so now I just named one.

Likewise, a premium player will be able to spam much more premium ammo than a non-premium user, and probably getting a higher winrate because APCR is just better in every way than AP.

That being said, it's I mainly have a problem with the crew thing. The crew retraining is probably the most true and direct p2w thing there is in WoT, and a strong second is the premium ammo / consumables.

But it doesn't stop there. If you are new, you will have to wait much much much longer before you can get access to equipment.  You will take a large hit in effectiveness without equipment.

 

This combination of stock grinds with no premium ammo, no equipment and lowly skilled crew will make you lose a huge amount of battles when you first start playing the game, as opposed to a player who does all these things.

 

 



malachi6 #77 Posted 28 September 2015 - 12:31 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 50920 battles
  • 4,276
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
Given that currently AW is pay to play.  No thanks

keba_marokanac #78 Posted 28 September 2015 - 12:39 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 30071 battles
  • 174
  • [V-TER] V-TER
  • Member since:
    08-01-2014

View Postsquarerigger, on 28 September 2015 - 01:21 AM, said:

I will likely play both. But for now my money will go towards AW.


 

I am tired of supporting WGs money grabbing ways. Time to give my dollars to somebody else for a while. I want WOT to improve and the best way I can think of to do that is by helping out the competition.

 

 

 


 

 

dont know for you and other players who are paying for WoT

i have IS-6,AMX CDC and lot of T6 and T5 T4 and T3 premium tanks

and every of that tank i buy with gold

and that gold i earned from clan or ESL

if you need gold play ESL you can earn good gold every week



Yndy_ #79 Posted 28 September 2015 - 01:02 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 37774 battles
  • 439
  • Member since:
    03-17-2013

I had early access in AW but I gave up on it a few weeks ago, my hard disk ran out of space while updating AW and since i need room for other stuff as well, I just gave up - 20GB is way too much.

 

Also PVE were kind of fun but i assume you get bored eventually.

 

The game had a very arcade feeling, it felt like a bad quality wot clone. 



RedlineRailgunningRemmel #80 Posted 28 September 2015 - 01:10 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 43818 battles
  • 720
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Posted Image WoT Vs AW Posted Image

 

One of SilentStalker spearheads is just a joke:

 

AW has just as bad of daily bases insults as WoT, I could make a gif just like my signature for AW.

 

Arty is less of annoyance:

 

Not too big of an influence or being completely useless thx to RNG like in WoT. I also read there would be smoke shells or something in that direction to help the team? Didn't see it once yet.

 

More open maps:

 

In WoT devs are submitting more and more to the clueless potatoes in this game by adding hills and removing snipe bushes everywhere to help them survive for their mistakes, more and more and more and more mindless brawling without the need to use brain since there is also a thing called prem ammo, making entire tank lines completely obsolete.

 

No mods:

 

While sad you can't make your own voice crew mod everyone has the same interface that means there is no advantage for others, also that means no XVM is possible -> no stupid arty low bob players focus the higher skilled player every battle all the time no matter the tier, i'd buy that for a dollar!

 

No "prem" ammo:

 

Means no whining every battle, i'd buy that for a dollar!

 

Vehicle balancing:

 

No comment for now, they are still tweaking i think.

 

I am a bit worried to about the 4 different Leopard 2 tiers that are just evolutions of the previous one.


Edited by Remmke, 28 September 2015 - 01:11 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users