Jump to content


Arrival of Armoured Warfare


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

Ode_to_OttO #1 Posted 18 October 2015 - 09:26 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19333 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013

With the release of Armored Warfare(AW), this week , has opened the door to a new era for tank lovers. Unlike War Thunders tank offering AW has started on the right footing, presenting a game with the potential to go toe to toe with WOT. Given that it is a new game there are a few kinks to iron out but AW is a move in the right direction,that War Thunder did not achieve.

Now we have to ask where do the player community stand . For us AW can only bode well for all players alike. At last we have a game that can compete with WOT and give it a run for its money.

I for one like WOT and don't plan to stop playing it But the competition it brings to the table I hope will force War gaming to get off there behinds and actually start implementing long overdue tweaks to there game. It is our hope that the competition will only benefit players  

 

 



_IMPI_ #2 Posted 18 October 2015 - 09:33 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1404 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    02-07-2014
Agreed. competition can only be good for Players. At last I hope we have a  means of forcing War gaming to look more to there players needs and less at there bank balance

Kreelan #3 Posted 18 October 2015 - 10:02 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 4416 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    07-04-2015

Tying in nicely with examples such as this threat, AW potentially have the benefit of giving WoT players a) choice b) perspective c) new reason to [edited]& moan about aspects of WoT.

 

There is more to the demise of a game than competition of similar games.    

It is not the onset of one big new game that kicked off the huge decline in World Of Warcraft but more natural evolution of the player-ship and player interest.  

 

Will AW have as huge impact on WG long term planing and strategy in regards to their franchise?

WG is not going to panic about a new product, never mind how good that appears to be, that is so new (in Beta).

Did they panic when WT was going to be the WoT killer?  Did that have a huge change on the WG direction?

 

It will be WG themselves that determine the future of WoT (and other games in the franchise) rather than some external factor. Some might say that recent and some old changes (tanks, bundles etc) is an indication of just that and that a rot has set in that is slowly killing the game.

Maybe, maybe not :mellow:

 

 

 


Edited by Kreelan, 18 October 2015 - 10:03 AM.


Ode_to_OttO #4 Posted 18 October 2015 - 10:38 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19333 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013

Yes i support your view that many factors lead to a games decline. I for one must thank WG for all they have done,and are going to do, for gaming in general. It is my hope that competition will push WOT to deliver even a better gaming experience.

It is my belief that real competition will only result in a better game for us to enjoy



PanzerKFeldherrnhalle #5 Posted 18 October 2015 - 10:50 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 684 battles
  • 708
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

Over the past week I've started playing AW and am well surprised with the game, for a couple of resons:

 

- I'm currently at tier IV (main battle tanks and AFV) and throughout tiers I, II, III and IV the game-play is / has so far been very solid, unlike what happens in WOT.  Low tiers in AW don't feel anything like lower tiers in WOT. They're actually enjoyable.

 

- You don't need to play stock tanks in random games, especially when in AW there isn't premium ammo in the same sense of WOT's. This feature is nothing short of excellent. Stock tanks can be upgraded in the PVE mode making the grinding a non-painful experience.

 

- Already mentioned above: there is no premium ammo, meaning the choice between AP or HEAT doesn't come down to gaining infinitely better penetration which would make the game a lot easier. Premium ammo in WOT makes the game easier. There is no such thing in AW.

 

As for the general experience of AW, the main drawback so far doesn't concern the game per say but the fact it needs to be learned. Knowledge of the mechanics, maps or many different tanks and classes only comes with time and in that regard I have already noticed (might be a wrong impression) that AW game mechanics are more sophisticated in comparion to WOT's.

Overall, a very enjoyable game that can (in my opinion) easily compete with WOT.



Jigabachi #6 Posted 18 October 2015 - 10:52 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 18,920
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

Competition is always a good thing if there is a kind of monopoly going on.

But to be honest... I doubt that it will actually improve WoT a lot. The game is pretty much stuck because of so many bad decisions, broken balance and all that stuff, I simply don't see any way to get the game on the (right) road again without the devs getting their hands dirty and actually WORK on the game - which won't happen.



Slyspy #7 Posted 18 October 2015 - 11:09 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14194 battles
  • 16,616
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostJigabachi, on 18 October 2015 - 10:52 AM, said:

Competition is always a good thing if there is a kind of monopoly going on.

But to be honest... I doubt that it will actually improve WoT a lot. The game is pretty much stuck because of so many bad decisions, broken balance and all that stuff, I simply don't see any way to get the game on the (right) road again without the devs getting their hands dirty and actually WORK on the game - which won't happen.

 

I suspect that once a project of this size gets to a certain point there is no going back and no possibility of a fundamental rework without creating a whole new game. It isn't a question of somehow being lazy.

PanzerKFeldherrnhalle #8 Posted 18 October 2015 - 11:25 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 684 battles
  • 708
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

View PostSlyspy, on 18 October 2015 - 10:09 AM, said:

I suspect that once a project of this size gets to a certain point there is no going back and no possibility of a fundamental rework without creating a whole new game. It isn't a question of somehow being lazy.

 

It's not a matter of going back needing to rework an entire game. It is in fact the opposite. The game's core (WOT) is excellent and most issues result of bad decisions on the X, Y or Z matters. Most of those issues, except for one, could be easily fixed. It is not hard to balance overpowered and underpowered tanks. It is not hard to rework artillery or completely remove it from the game. It is perhaps hard or time consuming to work on a better matchmaking but even if WG were to leave the matchmaking as it is, the mere fixing of the artillery problem and tanks-balancing would resolve a big deal of the game's frustration.

 

WOT isn't a much better game because that is not a priority. The priority is making money. That's the reason.



Jigabachi #9 Posted 18 October 2015 - 11:25 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 18,920
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostSlyspy, on 18 October 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

I suspect that once a project of this size gets to a certain point there is no going back and no possibility of a fundamental rework without creating a whole new game.

True. It's nearly impossible to fix some of the problems now. Just take the bad playerbase - even if WG would add perfect tutorials and a progress system now, it wouldn't help at all, because WoT already reached its peak in terms of players and all the "problem-players" already reached tier ten.

 

Block Quote

It isn't a question of somehow being lazy.

Well. Yeah.  But then again, the overall situation of the game is a result of lazyness. And greed. And incompetence.

Over the past five years, they didn't even manage to improve (let alone fix) one single issue of the game. If they started to actually WORK on the game, it wouldn't be that stuck now...

 

View PostLegioCenturion, on 18 October 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

Most of those issues, except for one, could be easily fixed.

That's what many people say. And that's where many people are wrong.

Fixing or balancing stuff isn't just about changing some numbers.

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Jigabachi, 18 October 2015 - 11:29 AM.


Slyspy #10 Posted 18 October 2015 - 11:44 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14194 battles
  • 16,616
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostLegioCenturion, on 18 October 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

 

It's not a matter of going back needing to rework an entire game. It is in fact the opposite.

What you are asking for is a fundamental reworking of long established key features.

The game's core (WOT) is excellent and most issues result of bad decisions on the X, Y or Z matters.

Seems reasonable. No one can get it right all the time, plus some decisions have unforeseen consequences and almost all are made with objectives which we, as the consumer, are unaware of.

 Most of those issues, except for one, could be easily fixed. It is not hard to balance overpowered and underpowered tanks.

Yes it is, even if you only consider the man-hours required.

It is not hard to rework artillery or completely remove it from the game.

Again, both of these require a fundamental and sweeping change to the game. Both options are awash with problems and extremely complicated to undertake.

It is perhaps hard or time consuming to work on a better matchmaking but even if WG were to leave the matchmaking as it is, the mere fixing of the artillery problem and tanks-balancing would resolve a big deal of the game's frustration.

Strangely, some tweaks to the existing MM system are probably fairly easy to make (eg to the parameter which governs team "weight" balancing). But again, these will have consequences beyond those which are desired (eg on queue times).

WOT isn't a much better game because that is not a priority. The priority is making money. That's the reason.

Of course it is. My own employer is really keen on making a profit and for the sake of my own employment I'm happy to help them to do so.

 

View PostJigabachi, on 18 October 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

 

Well. Yeah.  But then again, the overall situation of the game is a result of lazyness. And greed. And incompetence.

Over the past five years, they didn't even manage to improve (let alone fix) one single issue of the game. If they started to actually WORK on the game, it wouldn't be that stuck now...

 

 

 

Possibly, but I can't help but shake the feeling that you are making judgement calls from a position of ignorance.



zerosumgame #11 Posted 18 October 2015 - 11:46 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46319 battles
  • 961
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    10-11-2011
AW is a copy of WoT with different tanks, I will be playing it for that. WT made some big mistakes and I am no longer playing WTGF for those game breaking errors. I think I can easily divide my time with WoT and AW.

Slyspy #12 Posted 18 October 2015 - 11:51 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14194 battles
  • 16,616
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postzerosumgame, on 18 October 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

AW is a copy of WoT with different tanks, I will be playing it for that. WT made some big mistakes and I am no longer playing WTGF for those game breaking errors. I think I can easily divide my time with WoT and AW.

 

I don't think I can. I can't even divide my time between WoT and WoWS. So I'll be sticking with the game with which I'm already invested (and which has slower gameplay and more historical interest).

Enforcer1975 #13 Posted 18 October 2015 - 11:54 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20760 battles
  • 10,789
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostJigabachi, on 18 October 2015 - 10:52 AM, said:

Competition is always a good thing if there is a kind of monopoly going on.

But to be honest... I doubt that it will actually improve WoT a lot. The game is pretty much stuck because of so many bad decisions, broken balance and all that stuff, I simply don't see any way to get the game on the (right) road again without the devs getting their hands dirty and actually WORK on the game - which won't happen.

 

View PostSlyspy, on 18 October 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

 

I suspect that once a project of this size gets to a certain point there is no going back and no possibility of a fundamental rework without creating a whole new game. It isn't a question of somehow being lazy.

 

You can always learn by looking at the mistakes of others when copying their product ( in some way or another ). When they reach the size WoT has now they too will run into problems since it is basically the same community of moaners and whiners who will always say: "Company A does that better than company B, why can't they do that too?" As Sly said, once you reach a certain size it's hard to rvrn out mistakes you made or ignored during that time without rerolling the game which is in my eyes the biggest mistake WG did when introducing new tanks without looking at the bigger picture.

Slyspy #14 Posted 18 October 2015 - 11:57 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14194 battles
  • 16,616
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostEnforcer1975, on 18 October 2015 - 11:54 AM, said:

 

 

in my eyes the biggest mistake WG did when introducing new tanks without looking at the bigger picture.

 

In the eyes of the consumer that may be a mistake. But it may well be part of WGs successful business plan and, from their point of view, no mistake at all. 



Ode_to_OttO #15 Posted 18 October 2015 - 11:57 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19333 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013
It is our belief that Wot is fixable, as stated above all it needs is some real work. I hope that the competition generated will nudge WG to do this. If it is not done I fear that WOT will slowly loose there player base until like the  Ice sheets around the world will come crashing down into obscurity

Balc0ra #16 Posted 18 October 2015 - 11:58 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 65953 battles
  • 16,076
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

WG did not react or do anything when WT came. As they more or less said they expected nothing form it. And the were right then. But atm AW is still in the early stages. There is still things that annoy me there to as with WOT. But it has a way better ground to walk on vs WT. I hope they will take each other seriously and look what the other one is doing and not get cocky and ignore it like WG and WT did. We would not have the consoles we have today if they ignored what the other one was doing all the time. Don't want em to do copycat things. As in I don't want WOT to copy the AW arty way, but find their own solution to it inspired what AW did. As AW have done their own twists on things WOT did.

 

So far I've only played mainly AFV and Lights. Only have 1 MBT and that's the 155. AFV is good fun, but some of the high pen auto guns needs tweaking still, and by the looks of it, some will. XM800 is the most fun so far IMO.  No option to filter game modes. Little love for Encounter there to,  as its the other way around form WOT. In WOT it's fast cap. In AW it's avoid the cap and go lemming as far away as we can and don't reset.

 

MM issues form closed beta is still there as I've only played 15ish games in my T92 so far. Just about every single one of em in PVP I was the only tier 2 on the map vs 29 tier 1 tanks.

 

Do I like it? Yes I do, I play both atm. But like WOT, AW is not without it's faults to "unlike the AW forum making it sound perfect". Spotting system is broken atm "though still beta, so I'll let that one slide" As I spot tanks 350m away in the middle on towns when I am outside it with no LOS, and I get spotting XP on him. You still get 15-2 or 15-1 games. In fact for me, just about every game is a steam roll. WOT have corridor maps. AW have one sided maps. Port encounter is the worst one so far. North gets the high grounds in less then 15 seconds. South takes 25 seconds to get there. So North gets the high ground looking at the cap that south has to attack via the low ground. On low tier the flank route is removed, as then 40% of the map is off limits. Seems to be a pattern atm. Though not many maps either yet. So I'll let that one slide to. They are still learning after all.

 

Most interesting thing about it so far? Base building to get % bonuses. Tho fun early on. It's pointless tbh at the same time. Even if you don't play for days, you still get resources each day and can get the same bonuses as fast as those that do play early on. Though building time takes longer for each level. Should be given for each day you logon, not each day you are not there.

 

 

 



jabster #17 Posted 18 October 2015 - 12:05 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12535 battles
  • 23,104
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSlyspy, on 18 October 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

 

In the eyes of the consumer that may be a mistake. But it may well be part of WGs successful business plan and, from their point of view, no mistake at all. 

 

Well quite. There is a correlation between what is good for the players and what is good for WG but they're not the same thing. The talk of how they the devs are incompetent and lazy seems a bit silly to me as it leads to the conclusion that in spite of all this they were just lucky in developing a game that has been so successful.

 

That's not to say they haven't been lucky to some extent (happening to have the right idea at the right time) but that's very different to saying it's the same as them winning the lottery.



Roudari #18 Posted 18 October 2015 - 12:10 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34124 battles
  • 730
  • Member since:
    01-28-2011
Iam just here for the ww2 tanks i dont care any other tanks. :)

Element6 #19 Posted 18 October 2015 - 12:22 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29305 battles
  • 10,394
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostSlyspy, on 18 October 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

I don't think I can. I can't even divide my time between WoT and WoWS. So I'll be sticking with the game with which I'm already invested (and which has slower gameplay and more historical interest).

Pretty much exactly this.

 

And no way I can be bothered to re-grind all these tanks, irrespective of how much "better" the product is. Better always being a personal opinion and not technical facts.



Slyspy #20 Posted 18 October 2015 - 12:23 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14194 battles
  • 16,616
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postjabster, on 18 October 2015 - 12:05 PM, said:

 

Well quite. There is a correlation between what is good for the players and what is good for WG but they're not the same thing. The talk of how they the devs are incompetent and lazy seems a bit silly to me as it leads to the conclusion that in spite of all this they were just lucky in developing a game that has been so successful.

 

That's not to say they haven't been lucky to some extent (happening to have the right idea at the right time) but that's very different to saying it's the same as them winning the lottery.

 

The crucial decision was the one which saw them turn the game from swords 'n' sorcery to tanks instead.

 

Edit:

 

View PostElement6, on 18 October 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:

Pretty much exactly this.

 

And no way I can be bothered to re-grind all these tanks, irrespective of how much "better" the product is. Better always often being a personal opinion and not technical facts.

 

 

Fixed it for you! But yes. I can't even be bothered to grind tanks in WoT (the grind has rarely been my focus), yet alone a whole new game.


Edited by Slyspy, 18 October 2015 - 12:25 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users