Jump to content


WOT or AW: Your choice


  • Please log in to reply
167 replies to this topic

fredo_k #1 Posted 19 October 2015 - 04:49 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29793 battles
  • 248
  • Member since:
    12-30-2012
So i see lots of threats towards leaving wot for aw thinking wg are going to take notice. I tell you what, only one thing will get wg's notice and that's how many people are logged in their servers. I have no idea what the numbers have been since aw open beta started last week but would be interested to know. So in short stop complaining about this and that and start doing something about it if you really care (start some form of strike or leave as you say). Personally i say the grass is not always greener but i agree with some of the complaints (please put type 59 for sale again). Tanks for reading.

Balc0ra #2 Posted 19 October 2015 - 05:00 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 67337 battles
  • 17,048
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

AW don't have server numbers at like they did in closed beta. But fear not. Their forum is full of the same topics as here. Bad MM, steam rolls, broken spotting, OP tier 6 tanks "XM1", retrofit is pay 2 win etc. So it's not all glory like most wanted it to be when they created a rage topic here when they left.

 

 

But yeah. It's indeed our choice. I play both, but WOT more then AW. I've given up WOWS atm. Is it better then WT? Yes it is. And that's what WG needs. They might take this "competition" more serious. And that's good as it will inspire good competition between em so both will improve. But now it's not the time to look at that as most playing AW is just exploring atm. Wait a moth or two and see how many still play it. That's the interesting part. No one played WT as much after 2 months vs the start. Thus WG just ignored it.


Edited by Balc0ra, 19 October 2015 - 05:02 PM.


Vannor #3 Posted 19 October 2015 - 05:06 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 21097 battles
  • 62
  • Member since:
    09-25-2011
I choose WoT.

__Zippy__ #4 Posted 19 October 2015 - 05:34 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 33282 battles
  • 2,203
  • Member since:
    09-04-2011

They are both different games, and I will play both.

 

Iggy P



Joggaman #5 Posted 19 October 2015 - 05:44 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 24386 battles
  • 6,486
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011
Sadly I don't have time for another game. I will stick to wot until all my friends (in-game) are gone, then find something else where I can be an even bigger noob. Problem is, I love this game too much! I tried wows, but all I was thinking while playing was "Why did I start this game? I'm losing valuable wot time!" Not sarcasm, in case you wondered. 

brisha #6 Posted 19 October 2015 - 05:50 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15936 battles
  • 1,518
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012

I play AW for now because I'm taking an extended break from WOT to see if they sort a few of the issues out that I care about. The numbers are also at an all time low but not because they have left for AW.

 

AW numbers are however pathetic in comparison to WOT, you see the same players in battle over and over again meaning they really are struggling to get the numbers they need to give us the promised MM. The MM is. as far as I'm concerned, just a copy and paste of the WOT one, just like the rest of the game. AW is no WOT killer, WOT will suicide all by itself, but AW is no better, same game same issues, just a different era.


 


 



jabster #7 Posted 19 October 2015 - 05:54 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12598 battles
  • 24,038
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postbrisha, on 19 October 2015 - 04:50 PM, said:

I play AW for now because I'm taking an extended break from WOT to see if they sort a few of the issues out that I care about. The numbers are also at an all time low but not because they have left for AW.

 

AW numbers are however pathetic in comparison to WOT, you see the same players in battle over and over again meaning they really are struggling to get the numbers they need to give us the promised MM. The MM is. as far as I'm concerned, just a copy and paste of the WOT one, just like the rest of the game. AW is no WOT killer, WOT will suicide all by itself, but AW is no better, same game same issues, just a different era.
 

 

I presume you're using the same source as for you last set of figures of how many players WoT had lost recently. Do you want to borrow my torch for next time?

How_hard_can_it_be #8 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:12 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 40507 battles
  • 2,031
  • Member since:
    09-18-2012
Both games are fun, both have their own strenghts and weaknesses but I am afraid most people that are already commited to wot. Commiting to 2 online games that require a lot of time to unlock their full potential ( high tier tanks, many of them ) is probably too much for most of us.

Codename_Jelly #9 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:13 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 16404 battles
  • 5,061
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013
I may have been tempted to try it out but they also decided to have artillery.

PanzerKFeldherrnhalle #10 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 960 battles
  • 731
  • [RVNGE] RVNGE
  • Member since:
    09-14-2013

I've been playing AW more than WOT. In AW the grinding is pleasant and (same as for WOT) once you start picking the game and actually caring, you feel more compelled to play AW relatively to WOT. At least I do. The game-play is good, the variety they offer in very different types of tanks and different kinds of game-play they provide is excellent, stock tanks aren't a problem, arty isn't a problem (at least in mid-tiers, that's where I'm at), there is no premium ammo and in AW you have one certainty:

 

Do well and you're almost guaranteed to gain more exp than 4/5 of the enemy team even if your team loses the game.

No matter what happens, if you have a good game you will be rewarded for it.



We_Just_Dinged_Em #11 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:28 PM

    Captain

  • Clan Commander
  • 17559 battles
  • 2,011
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-12-2010

Wish there was a macro for anyone starting 'ermergerd AW is the end of WOT' or anything vaguely related threads would instantly be rickrolled into oblivion.

 


Edited by We_Just_Dinged_Em, 19 October 2015 - 06:29 PM.


Shufuni #12 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:45 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 31061 battles
  • 93
  • [HO_PO] HO_PO
  • Member since:
    08-17-2011

View PostLegioCenturion, on 19 October 2015 - 06:26 PM, said:

I've been playing AW more than WOT. In AW the grinding is pleasant and (same as for WOT) once you start picking the game and actually caring, you feel more compelled to play AW relatively to WOT. At least I do. The game-play is good, the variety they offer in very different types of tanks and different kinds of game-play they provide is excellent, stock tanks aren't a problem, arty isn't a problem (at least in mid-tiers, that's where I'm at), there is no premium ammo and in AW you have one certainty:

 

Do well and you're almost guaranteed to gain more exp than 4/5 of the enemy team even if your team loses the game.

No matter what happens, if you have a good game you will be rewarded for it.

 

As above, plus for me, I feel that the outcome of the decisions made in game produce results along the lines you would expect, without the trolling results cooked up via RNG.

 



Enforcer1975 #13 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20912 battles
  • 10,913
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
Not such a huge fan or CoD Modern Warfare with tanks, i'd rather stay and play CoD World at war with tanks.

brisha #14 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:50 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15936 battles
  • 1,518
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012

View Postjabster, on 19 October 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

 

I presume you're using the same source as for you last set of figures of how many players WoT had lost recently. Do you want to borrow my torch for next time?

 

You do realise there is a server counter at the top of the screen yes? You do realise there are sites that track the server numbers across all servers yes? Don't worry if you need a calculator to work out the percentage drop from peak time a few months ago compared to now, I will swap you one for your torch.

Pansenmann #15 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:53 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 34534 battles
  • 12,797
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

they said mechwarrior will kill wot.

they said WT will kill wot

now they say the same about AW.

 

I highly doubt it by now.



jabster #16 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:53 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12598 battles
  • 24,038
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postbrisha, on 19 October 2015 - 05:50 PM, said:

 

You do realise there is a server counter at the top of the screen yes? You do realise there are sites that track the server numbers across all servers yes? Don't worry if you need a calculator to work out the percentage drop from peak time a few months ago compared to now, I will swap you one for your torch.

 

Yes WoT News is one of them. You remember the one you ignored when you last posted your 'facts'. So off you go and show which source you're using for WoT numbers being at an all time low.

 

Edit: Oh and here is one of your last posts showing how even when it's pointed out to you how wrong you are you're quite prepared to just use a variant on the same thing again. It's ok being ignorant but it gets problematic when it's pointed out that you're incorrect but just ignore it anyway.


Edited by jabster, 20 October 2015 - 04:30 AM.


jabster #17 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:54 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12598 battles
  • 24,038
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostPansenmann, on 19 October 2015 - 05:53 PM, said:

they said mechwarrior will kill wot.

they said WT will kill wot

now they say the same about AW.

 

I highly doubt it by now.

 

Diablo III as well I think.

Hard_Target #18 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:54 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 71247 battles
  • 1,533
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011

AW is far away from WoT. Thaty why the s***** in low player base.

 

 



jabster #19 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:56 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12598 battles
  • 24,038
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostHow_hard_can_it_be, on 19 October 2015 - 05:12 PM, said:

Both games are fun, both have their own strenghts and weaknesses but I am afraid most people that are already commited to wot. Commiting to 2 online games that require a lot of time to unlock their full potential ( high tier tanks, many of them ) is probably too much for most of us.

 

I don't know about most but I really wanted to like AW but it's almost too similar for me to get into it. Do I really want to grind out tank lines and learn the different aspects for a game which isn't that much different.

Edited by jabster, 19 October 2015 - 06:59 PM.


Baldrickk #20 Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30507 battles
  • 14,623
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013
I still prefer WOT.
Even though I hate the idea of the new emblem system.

Camo paint providing small camo boost? Sure.

Painting a small logo on the side making crew work better???




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users