Jump to content


WOT or AW: Your choice


  • Please log in to reply
167 replies to this topic

CroustibatFR #161 Posted 27 October 2015 - 05:48 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 23297 battles
  • 4,135
  • Member since:
    09-14-2011

View PostBonecrusher, on 27 October 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

 

That's not true at all. WoT on full HD version, max settings, 1920 X 1080 is less optimized than AW on full HD version, max settings, 1920 X 1080. And in AW you have more visual effects like storms, rain, smoke screens.

And for me, as someone who spent 1000 EUR on a decent game rig is OK. Bigworld engine is outdated. Now that is true:)

 

WOT runs full detail and 1080p at 60fps constant on my computer, which is decent: HD7970, core i5 3570k@ 4.3GHz, 16Gb ram and so on.

AW needs FSAA disabled and still drops at less than 30fps depending on maps and conditions. Even going less than ultra on some settings does not allow 60fps.

 

So yeah, i'd rather have WOT "monocore" than AW "multicore", and i don't care how much AW is "optimized"; what i care is how i can run it.

 

Fact : i can't run it in ultra, nor with FSAA, while i totally can run WOT with everything maxed - and WOT does not have plastic looking tonks, nor funnily shaped "grass and bushes"...



Tall_Toot #162 Posted 29 October 2015 - 04:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24744 battles
  • 730
  • [HO_PO] HO_PO
  • Member since:
    07-03-2011

Played WOT for years, been playing AW also since Closed Beta but still only low tiers my opinions are still forming. But a few observations on play in AW on some of the subjects that leave me howling at the screen when playing WOT;

 

  • No XVM – I appreciate this a contentious issue and has been argued to death elsewhere, but as no-one has it in AW and the developers have said it will not be included I much prefer the gameplay; good players aren’t singled out, and no one has the preposterous advantage of knowing how experienced each enemy they face is.
  • MM & Tier Spread – 90% of games are same Tier MM, don’t think I’ve had a single +/- 2 spread yet but as the guide says, it’s only very rare. And as reported earlier by others, if you do well and yet lose you will earn more than most of the winning team that failed to contribute.
  • Arty – You receive warnings that you are targeted, their damage is generally no greater than that of other tanks of their tier, limited to 2 per game max (although so far I’ve only seen one per side). The arty are generally more mobile to compensate encouraging relocation rather than camping.
  • Aiming – Round dispersion more closely resembles WOT before the last aim nerf i.e. most shots tend to the centre of the circle, rather than being at the edge of the circle the moment they ‘leave’ the barrel resulting in ridiculous point blank misses. Note – this isn’t based on any empirical info, just personal experience.
  • Maps – Graphically the AW maps are pretty stunning, but the map size needs increasing in both games IMHO. Find the extra objects on most maps in AW means more opportunities for spotting/ hiding – I think this is what leads to a lot of complaints regarding the spotting system. Personally, when you have so few decent spotting locations on the few non city maps in WOT that you can tell exactly where the enemy spotter is the second your light goes off hardly commends WOT map design.
  • Vehicles – Purely subjective as to which game has the most enjoyable to play. Both games have to try and ignore real vehicle performance figures to attempt to ‘balance’ out clear advantages/ disadvantages in certain vehicles or by adding non-existent and/or prototype and blueprint tanks with made up ‘stats’ - so it's your choice what you prefer. But as they’ve made a mess of British tanks in WOT….. ;)

 

So overall I prefer the less pressurised, statistic driven, and less frustrating gameplay of AW. I’ll continue to play WOT on a social basis with the fabulous people I’ve got to know here, but I shan’t be renewing my WOT premium during the Christmas special as I have for the last three years – of which I’m sure WG won’t be concerned with anyway.



elFred #163 Posted 30 October 2015 - 02:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 24043 battles
  • 4,143
  • [BIMA] BIMA
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View PostCroustibatFR, on 27 October 2015 - 05:48 PM, said:

 

WOT runs full detail and 1080p at 60fps constant on my computer, which is decent: HD7970, core i5 3570k@ 4.3GHz, 16Gb ram and so on.

AW needs FSAA disabled and still drops at less than 30fps depending on maps and conditions. Even going less than ultra on some settings does not allow 60fps.

 

So yeah, i'd rather have WOT "monocore" than AW "multicore", and i don't care how much AW is "optimized"; what i care is how i can run it.

 

Fact : i can't run it in ultra, nor with FSAA, while i totally can run WOT with everything maxed - and WOT does not have plastic looking tonks, nor funnily shaped "grass and bushes"...

 

AMD drivers are likely the reason why AW performances are bad, having an nvidia I've not problem with AW.

 

AW doesn't have "plastic looking tonks, nor funnily shaped "grass and bushes"..." IF (and that's a BIG if) you have a nvidia card :) 



Baldrickk #164 Posted 30 October 2015 - 03:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 31993 battles
  • 15,978
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostelFred, on 30 October 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

 

AMD drivers are likely the reason why AW performances are bad, having an nvidia I've not problem with AW.

 

AW doesn't have "plastic looking tonks, nor funnily shaped "grass and bushes"..." IF (and that's a BIG if) you have a nvidia card :) 

I run nVidia GFX and think the tanks look like plastic. It is the lack of texturing across surfaces.

And some maps look over saturated which doesn't help.


Edited by Baldrickk, 30 October 2015 - 03:49 PM.


CroustibatFR #165 Posted 30 October 2015 - 05:34 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 23297 battles
  • 4,135
  • Member since:
    09-14-2011

View PostelFred, on 30 October 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

 

AMD drivers are likely the reason why AW performances are bad, having an nvidia I've not problem with AW.

 

AW doesn't have "plastic looking tonks, nor funnily shaped "grass and bushes"..." IF (and that's a BIG if) you have a nvidia card :) 

 

I don't care why. I have a decent computer, it works with WOT, it does not with AW. The problem is "simple" : maps are not optimized at all, some have far too much visible triangles, and frankly their texture are poor. This is not a driver problem, this is a map design problem.

 

Considering rendering, you might like the way the rendering goes, and to each their own, i won't comment on it, tastes are different. I just don't like it.

 

I know the concept of a hardware abstraction layer, which is what directX is; if the options are the same, the rendering is the same too, unless the driver makers went seriously off spec, which would have caused their drivers not to be certified by microsoft.

 

Honestly, it may be brutal to you, but i feel like you can't accept anyone may have a different opinion, and you consider any analysis (valid or not) going against your opinion is not even remotely possible.

Facts are here though. I don't understand why you can't accept them. I can totally accept you like AW graphics, but you can hardly deny AW has quite some work to do on modeling, texturing and map optimizing.



elFred #166 Posted 31 October 2015 - 04:34 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 24043 battles
  • 4,143
  • [BIMA] BIMA
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

what a diatribe  :)

 

In your previous post you said :

Fact : i can't run it in ultra, nor with FSAA, 

 

Why do you even try to compare ? 

 

 

Edit btw  I agree with you about the driver being an abstraction layer but it's pretty much theorical 

I've better performance in AW with my older nvidia based computer than a friend with an AMD new ride

I don't know the culprit ,I just state it

 

PS : it can be helpful : http://aw-guide.com/...phics-settings/


Edited by elFred, 31 October 2015 - 04:43 PM.


Feuchte_Grotte #167 Posted 01 November 2015 - 01:52 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 7590 battles
  • 307
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010

To be honest.. I spent like last 4 years playing WoT. I love Tanks. WoT was an awesome concept. The second they put gold ammo for credits they killed me. Everything I knew , strategy wise, was gone. So my desire to play.

WoT is a great game, but for me it's just a product now, something to sell and buy, not something special. AW will get the same in a couple of years, I'm pretty sure. But like we all know beginnings are awesome, ppl give 100% at the beginning. And now I like AW coz it's on its beginnings and ppl ( devs ) care.



SanyaJuutilainen #168 Posted 02 November 2015 - 12:11 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20820 battles
  • 1,876
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostBonecrusher, on 01 November 2015 - 01:52 PM, said:

To be honest.. I spent like last 4 years playing WoT. I love Tanks. WoT was an awesome concept. The second they put gold ammo for credits they killed me. Everything I knew , strategy wise, was gone. So my desire to play.

To be honest, it was players - very big majority of them - who wanted this, saying gold only is P2W. If you search the old forums, there was high demand for it, andafter the switch there were many threads welcoming it.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users