Jump to content


World of Tanks VS Armored Warfare


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

Schmeksiman #81 Posted 28 September 2015 - 01:15 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16739 battles
  • 6,599
  • [INC] INC
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

View Postgpalsson, on 28 September 2015 - 01:27 PM, said:

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.

 

Both will lose the same amount of games because none of the two will have any idea how to play WoT. In fact, the person paying is likely to progress faster and therefore lose more.

When I'm in battle I can't look at an enemy and say "Hey, this guy is at a disadvantage because I'm paying and he isn't", I certainly don't feel like it. You'd think that playing stock tanks would be a significant factor but honestly you can see very few stock tanks in games, mostly I'm encountering elite tanks (okay, maybe they don't have the top engine or tracks) but according to some people you'd expect the grind to be so bad that 50% of your team would be consisted of stock tanks.

 

Lastly prem ammo, I recently started buying premium account and I don't think I'm shooting more gold or winning more battle because of it. A few things did change:

  1. I'm able to grind a lot faster
  2. I'm able to retrain crews without having to drop skills or train them in a lower tier prem tank
  3. I can play tier X a lot more
  4. I'm able to play T49 with cola more

 

That's it, I don't think having lots of gold at my disposal made me any better and certainly didn't give me an advantage over other players (in a P2W sense).



Excavatus #82 Posted 28 September 2015 - 01:27 PM

    Lieutenant

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

View Postgpalsson, on 28 September 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

For the AW, I totally agree.. no one knows shite about the game. So all we can do is wait and see. I hope the game gets better and better.. At least that may make WG do some improvements over WOT.

 

For p2W, I respect your opinion but I disagree.

You are not getting higher WR by paying money, you are just grinding faster. Yes less stock grind can mean higher WR.. But one can always freeXP the stock grinds without stock grinding.. Yes it will take years.. but it is possible..

And an intelligent player can make stock grind work.. one can always earn gold from missions and being in a clan and participat in CW..

 

My point is.. my definition of p2w is, IF you: as a paying player can access for example "A special camo paint which makes you undetectable over 100meters regardless of enemy's view range" that is p2w.. or while we both have the same tank for example SU 152 and by paying real money, If you can install a new engine and go 60km/h in that.. that means that is p2w for me..

 

As I said earlier.. This game is P2GrindLess.. But there is no advantage you can gain over free players by paying.. that is my Opinion..



gpalsson #83 Posted 28 September 2015 - 01:55 PM

    General

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

Schmeksiman & Excavatus

 

While a grind from a perspective of 0% -> 100% with and without premium should give exactly the same winrate because while you play more games in the tank as stock you also play more once it is elited, that isn't what I am talking about.

You may not altar your winrate 10% I'd say there is still at least a few % difference in winrate between playing every tank with 100% crew from the first battle, getting the most important modules, having access to funds to buy equipment and shooting gold when needed + running food when needed.

 

Saying that it doesn't matter if a player is bad, isn't an argument. Just because the player is still bad, he will suck less anyway and I'd say he has a significant better chance to make a much bigger positive impact on the game if he pays.

It's fine if you disagree, but I honestly think you are underestimating all the small things combined.

 

It isn't "romulan cloaking device" or "invincible for the first 5 minutes" you get access to, so the p2w element isn't that visible, but I believe it is there and it isn't something you can purely dismiss as irrelevant.

 

You are winning more by spending money, and winning more is what we are talking about when we say p2w, isn't it?



Excavatus #84 Posted 28 September 2015 - 02:12 PM

    Lieutenant

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

View Postgpalsson, on 28 September 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

Schmeksiman & Excavatus

 

While a grind from a perspective of 0% -> 100% with and without premium should give exactly the same winrate because while you play more games in the tank as stock you also play more once it is elited, that isn't what I am talking about.

You may not altar your winrate 10% I'd say there is still at least a few % difference in winrate between playing every tank with 100% crew from the first battle, getting the most important modules, having access to funds to buy equipment and shooting gold when needed + running food when needed.

 

Saying that it doesn't matter if a player is bad, isn't an argument. Just because the player is still bad, he will suck less anyway and I'd say he has a significant better chance to make a much bigger positive impact on the game if he pays.

It's fine if you disagree, but I honestly think you are underestimating all the small things combined.

 

It isn't "romulan cloaking device" or "invincible for the first 5 minutes" you get access to, so the p2w element isn't that visible, but I believe it is there and it isn't something you can purely dismiss as irrelevant.

 

You are winning more by spending money, and winning more is what we are talking about when we say p2w, isn't it?

 

I got your point, and I believe you got mine.. lets agree on that we disagree on the definiton of p2w..

I have nothing more to say about this.. I always give the same example (ghost recon phantoms) but that game gave me nightmares.. even after I pay you need to pay constantly.. paying once or twice isnt enough..

So I do not put WOT in p2w..

 

Thanks for calm and good conversation, have a nice day..

 

 


Edited by Excavatus, 28 September 2015 - 02:12 PM.


gpalsson #85 Posted 28 September 2015 - 02:24 PM

    General

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

View PostExcavatus, on 28 September 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

 

I got your point, and I believe you got mine.. lets agree on that we disagree on the definiton of p2w..

I have nothing more to say about this.. I always give the same example (ghost recon phantoms) but that game gave me nightmares.. even after I pay you need to pay constantly.. paying once or twice isnt enough..

So I do not put WOT in p2w..

 

Thanks for calm and good conversation, have a nice day..

 

 

Yes, we can agree to disagree :-) 

I'll just say this: just because there are far more grave examples of p2w, it doesn't make p2w elements disappear from wot. 

But I think we agree on this : In wot, p2w isn't so pronounced that is becomes a significant problem. 

The definition doesn't matter that much. 

Have a nice day. 


Edited by gpalsson, 28 September 2015 - 02:25 PM.


RabidFeret #86 Posted 28 September 2015 - 02:35 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 3477 battles
  • 116
  • Member since:
    08-08-2014

I took part in the stress test, and the moment player numbers were up the MM worked very well thank you, when numbers were low no different than WOT... and that for me is what matters

the RNG worked ok, far less bad decisions, did not have one ghost shot or where the feck did that go...

 

it is a different game,@ T1/T2 you are in a solid tank very playable, the grind which everyone seems to worry about does not bother me at all, why because I like to learn the tanks I am going to play.

The other point it has not gone into open beta yet so moaning about a game still in what is alpha just seems a little silly, but what they did give us worked for me.

I played on the EU server and the NA server both were ok given it was a stress test... I expected a little problem or two... which the advisory pre stress test explained...

 

the graphics are also on a different level to WOT so I expect a poor PC will not cut the mustard but my system coped well, i3, 8gig mem, ssd 120, and a R7 260x gfx all gave me 60 fps@ med settings or 40 - 50 @ high settings hence I will be getting a R9 380 soon. but AW are going to optimise for lower spec pc but I have seen low settings and they are poor compared to med or high.

 

it took me back on one map when I could see the rain, not just falling and sweeping across the landscape but running down the scope, the weather is very realistic on the cry engine, very impressed.

 

for me I tried playing WOT again today and it was like playing in slow motion and RNG was as bad as ever, will I keep playing WOT to be really honest I don't know I love the game as I have said so many times, but and there is a but given a choice with the MM AW will win my cash every time, considering it worked well in alpha or pre open beta I was happy with most of the matches.

I can see the number going up once OB starts.

 


Edited by RabidFeret, 28 September 2015 - 02:35 PM.


Lil_Nas_X #87 Posted 28 September 2015 - 02:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33506 battles
  • 4,208
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013

I like AW but it barely differs from WoT. Same kind of weakspots, same kind of tank classes... Special abilities of for instance AFV's are a +1 though, same goes for the variety of missile launchers with primary and secundairy guns.

 

Problem of AW was that in the tier 8 weekend you got to try out the big boys (T-90, Leopard 2A5, M1A1, Ariete etc) and they're simply impenetrable from the front. All you do is either shoot eachother and totally waste shells and the first one to get help by flanking or arty wins.

 

Still I like both. For different reasons, that is.



Mr_Sukebe #88 Posted 28 September 2015 - 03:36 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 32924 battles
  • 2,623
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View Postsquarerigger, on 28 September 2015 - 01:40 AM, said:

 

 

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.

 

 

Just LOL.

You do realise that I've probably been the most vocal person on these forums asking for optional leagues.  clearly if that were to happen, by default I'd be chosing to playing the upper league, thus only playing with the "more competitive" players.

Amusing thing for you to ask me of all people.  Sure, I know it would affect my stats, but I don't give a stuff.  My interest is a decent set of games, not ruined by which team has the most tomatoes hiding in a corner in their top tier heavy.

 



Schmeksiman #89 Posted 28 September 2015 - 04:35 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 16739 battles
  • 6,599
  • [INC] INC
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

View Postgpalsson, on 28 September 2015 - 02:55 PM, said:

You are winning more by spending money, and winning more is what we are talking about when we say p2w, isn't it?

 

It really depends on what you consider pay to win.

For me that would be if you for example gridned a tank but I bought a tank of the same tier and class that is simply plain better, you didn't stand a chance against me in battle. Or when the game forces you to pay in order to keep playing on a reasonable level, to stand a chance against other fellow players.

 

I can understand when people say that having premium account account wins you more games but in my mind when you compare that to some other games and how WG could have made this game a lot more P2W it's really minimal. As a developer you have to give some benefits to paying players because that keeps your game alive, but remember times when premium account would offer you three man platoons, gold would buy you camo, gold shells and premium consumables? All of that is now available to a free player.

 

 

Every single game based on free to play model has some P2W element if you look at it that way, but you simply have to balance it with giving something to your paying users. If premium account gives you more exp and credits, and that's P2W what benefit should prem account offer so it's not P2W?



TwoPointsOfInterest #90 Posted 28 September 2015 - 05:18 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 6107 battles
  • 2,002
  • Member since:
    08-07-2013
I'm honestly surprised by how constructive this topic has been. Another off putting of AW is that armour and she'll types seems a bit too complicated to me, and I don't like the idea of some tanks being completely impenetrable from the front 

orthi #91 Posted 28 September 2015 - 06:46 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 23317 battles
  • 109
  • [COPS] COPS
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostToxic_Toast, on 28 September 2015 - 05:18 PM, said:

I'm honestly surprised by how constructive this topic has been. Another off putting of AW is that armour and she'll types seems a bit too complicated to me, and I don't like the idea of some tanks being completely impenetrable from the front 

 

That is something I actually enjoy. The maps permit maneuvering to get around. When you lose your tank, eventhough you have been in strong position then you feel outplayed and outwitted. Not outbought as in WoT, where the solution to the problem would have been to load prem and be done with it. Also HE still hurts, so you cannot sit around like a road block.

Baldrickk #92 Posted 28 September 2015 - 07:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,878
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostToxic_Toast, on 28 September 2015 - 05:18 PM, said:

I'm honestly surprised by how constructive this topic has been. Another off putting of AW is that armour and she'll types seems a bit too complicated to me, and I don't like the idea of some tanks being completely impenetrable from the front 

I did the tutorial mission, and it told me to flank that MBT. Well. I tried, but it turned too fast, and I couldn't approach whilst unspotted.

 

So I shot it in the lower plate to kill it.

 

I think I learnt the wrong lesson there.



Dragos_CS #93 Posted 28 September 2015 - 08:51 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 23124 battles
  • 2,081
  • [LGEND] LGEND
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
The MBT was ez to kill. I cant see the point of that tutorial. Its WoT levels of redundance when it comes to teaching stuff.

Anuviell2013 #94 Posted 07 October 2015 - 12:42 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 14991 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

Tested Armored Warefare now for almost two days(50 battles), did not play WoT during that time and I have to say, after about 10 battles it was just fun fun fun, new maps, new sound, other tanks, (rapid fire guns, yeahhh) bigger maps. I like it and WoT will not see me that often anymore

To me MM appears to be better, but it is still closed beta, so we will see once it is open for all players.

The game works absolutely well, had no issues at all. Graphic looks cool, even if not yet that detailed as in WoT. But WoT is now 4 years old and if I recall beta in WoT it was worse.

 

My conclusion, give it a try and see wheter you like it or not,   I DO already LIKE IT a LOT



AnotherGoldNoob #95 Posted 07 October 2015 - 01:45 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 27405 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    03-19-2014
I em so [edited]happy when new free game Armored Warfare coming.I em deffenetly 1 player who dont look back this world of tanks,becuse i dont like this game before 9.7 patch released:reporting bad MM and if you play this game with top tier tanks you basicly dont earn nothing.Guestion WOT TEAM : If this game are free and you dont own premium tank or premium account, then how you play this game free if you are average player(not skilled) and own lvl 10 tank???

Baldrickk #96 Posted 07 October 2015 - 03:09 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,878
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostAnuviell2013, on 07 October 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

Tested Armored Warefare now for almost two days(50 battles), did not play WoT during that time and I have to say, after about 10 battles it was just fun fun fun, new maps, new sound, other tanks, (rapid fire guns, yeahhh) bigger maps. I like it and WoT will not see me that often anymore

To me MM appears to be better, but it is still closed beta, so we will see once it is open for all players.

The game works absolutely well, had no issues at all. Graphic looks cool, even if not yet that detailed as in WoT. But WoT is now 4 years old and if I recall beta in WoT it was worse.

 

My conclusion, give it a try and see wheter you like it or not,   I DO already LIKE IT a LOT

Actually. It is in open beta now. 



overcorpse #97 Posted 07 October 2015 - 06:04 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23818 battles
  • 359
  • [BEXF] BEXF
  • Member since:
    10-16-2011

View PostBaldrickk, on 07 October 2015 - 03:09 PM, said:

Actually. It is in open beta now. 

 

No it's not.OBT starts tomorrow,this week has been head start for Founder pack buyers.

Baldrickk #98 Posted 07 October 2015 - 09:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,878
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postovercorpse, on 07 October 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

 

No it's not.OBT starts tomorrow,this week has been head start for Founder pack buyers.

What's a day amongst friends?



Orgul_Gro_Grokul #99 Posted 08 October 2015 - 12:51 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 92 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    07-01-2015
Just watched this video made by orzy fgt, and it just sounds like fixed wot, to me. only thing which is worse is the graphics and game engine IMO.


_Flagada_Jones_ #100 Posted 15 October 2015 - 11:35 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35198 battles
  • 1,684
  • [OMGR] OMGR
  • Member since:
    03-20-2012

So all they said:

Camping: it camps even more than in wot, allready have half the team camping in the base... Thx this 10% rng, people answered me: this game is a sniping game (with mbt).


Skill MM: no skill MM that was just lies. The only thing they took in consideration is the number of game in the tank... If you are a big noob playing 100 times same tank, you have a better rating than a good player playing it 5 times.

 

Insult: bla bla you will gety banned very fast bla bla... NOTHING, still as much insults as in wot.



The most important thing:

Majority of players comes from wot, so exactly same community, and WoT community make me stop every 6 months to take some "rest"...


The only good thing: No mods, but i'm not sure people allready find the way to cheat... But i did not see aimbot like in wot.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users