Jump to content


WOT or AW: Your choice


  • Please log in to reply
167 replies to this topic

Slyspy #41 Posted 20 October 2015 - 02:25 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14464 battles
  • 17,125
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postjinx_uk, on 20 October 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

 

That's a good point on the 'grind'. Even with me playing WoWS more I'm finding the grind tedious so have decided to stick to tier 5 to 7 as my target across all lines and hopefully never progress to tier 8 and beyond as a goal. It'll happen when it happens and for once in my miserable gaming existence I've dropped worrying about stats and actually having quite a bit of fun. It does becomes monotonous quite quickly, so extended gaming sessions are a no go, but at least they're adding night battles and a bit more variety soon.

 

WoT is the first "grindy" game which I've stuck with for any length of time.

enu_ #42 Posted 20 October 2015 - 02:34 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 22897 battles
  • 3,212
  • [-322-] -322-
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010
WoT, to much time and money invest in it to walk away now. i play AW from time to time few PVE battles just to relax brain

Baldrickk #43 Posted 20 October 2015 - 03:03 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 31993 battles
  • 15,985
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostSlyspy, on 20 October 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

 

WoT is the first "grindy" game which I've stuck with for any length of time.

Same here, and I don't want to give it all up, go to another and start all over again.

 

I will, if WOT annoys me enough, but so far AW isn't giving me enough incentive to shift. Inertia is a powerful thing.

I am playing AW, picked up a Sheridan, playing mostly PvE with friends. I don't feel that the game is superior to WOT though, even though some of them do. One has every premium tank so far, another has ground every tank line up to tier 5 and some beyond that already.



CroustibatFR #44 Posted 20 October 2015 - 03:47 PM

    Brigadier

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

Playing both but ... there is something missing from AW. It feels like playing that other game that was supposed to be a COD killer, in which you could "double jump", have an autoaim pistol and could mount a mechwarrior. there were bots in both teams, you could not remove them. In the end it just was rubbish.

There is the same look and feel with AW. Maps are sure big, and tonks are faster, but all i see is more corridors than in WOT, and people going faster to the same camping spot / choke points and they don't move from there. So map size is not really relevant. It was supposed to be nice looking, but tanks looks like plastic boxes. I also can't run the game in ultra, and FSAA is simply out of question, while i get 60fps constant in WOT. Finally siemas and whiners are everywhere too.

 

Finally, i can have a beer and smoke while playing WOT. Can't do that in AW, so what is the point really :trollface:

 

I don't know why, but i don't have the urge to select a tonk and press "battle" in AW like i have in WOT. I guess i'll try a bit more... later.

 

 

 



blademansw #45 Posted 20 October 2015 - 04:21 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14083 battles
  • 1,844
  • [A-W-G] A-W-G
  • Member since:
    09-26-2012

View PostGloris, on 20 October 2015 - 01:03 PM, said:

Many will probably stick with WoT.

 

Not because WoT is better mind you, but because it's more comfortable, they got used to it for years.

 

Switching would mean leaving some old friends behind, it would mean getting used to a different metagame and having to learn everything anew, it would mean starting from 0.

 

Does not mean WoT is better, just that it was here first.

 

I think this is pretty much nail on the head.  I have played AW since early access on and off.  It has the potential to be a very good game, but I am afraid the modern tanks don't do anything for me like the old classics in WoT.  I think the big threat to WG is players who have either a) not played WoT, or b) have a low(ish) battle count and are not as "invested" in WoT.

 

For me, WoT is like an comfortable old pair of slippers.  Still enjoy playing WoWs though!



Strange_Neighbour #46 Posted 20 October 2015 - 04:23 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 2617 battles
  • 2,585
  • Member since:
    03-25-2015

Neither. Both are cancerous to your health.

But if you put a gun to my head and forced me, I'd say WoT.


Edited by Strange_Neighbour, 20 October 2015 - 04:24 PM.


SanyaJuutilainen #47 Posted 20 October 2015 - 04:30 PM

    Lieutenant

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

View PostBaldrickk, on 19 October 2015 - 06:58 PM, said:

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???

It actually worked that IRL - the most famous is the red triplane in WWI, but even in WWII, the tankers knew the most dangerous enemies of the enemy by numbers and insignia on their tanks. If you were Russian and met a Tiger with 301 on it, you were about to have a VERY bad day. Some tankers even copied famous insignia to give themselves courage and scare enemies. The same goes for national insignia (I know of some Czechoslovak ones, they were almost always inspirational and used to boost morale).

So in terms of the game, giving the crew some 1 or 2 % bonus isn't necessarily bad per se.

 

View PostSlyspy, on 20 October 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

I'm sticking with WoT. I only really have time for one online game  and since I struggle to enjoy the grind in WoT I very much doubt that I'll do so in a game which is so very similar but of much less interest to me. I can't even find the time or enthusiasm to play and grind WoWS and that did interest me right from the off.

 

About the same. I am quite interested in WW2 tech because of the game (and GUP) and the modern tech doesn't do it for me. The only tank I find interesting is Merkava and that's not enough to grind a new game. WW2 tanks, for me, have a personality, they are full of mistakes (AMX 40!), but that just makes them the more lovely. I am not even trying out AW, it's not my thing - that's all.



spuriousmonkey #48 Posted 20 October 2015 - 04:51 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 44843 battles
  • 3,362
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011
Once it gets raving reviews I will switch. I played the closed beta but wasn't convinced then.

jabster #49 Posted 20 October 2015 - 05:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12649 battles
  • 25,346
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSanyaJuutilainen, on 20 October 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

It actually worked that IRL - the most famous is the red triplane in WWI, but even in WWII, the tankers knew the most dangerous enemies of the enemy by numbers and insignia on their tanks. If you were Russian and met a Tiger with 301 on it, you were about to have a VERY bad day. Some tankers even copied famous insignia to give themselves courage and scare enemies. The same goes for national insignia (I know of some Czechoslovak ones, they were almost always inspirational and used to boost morale).

 

Not sure what your point is with that as a tank with nn1 on it would most likely have been named because of who commanded it not to give the crew a 'boost'.

Edited by jabster, 20 October 2015 - 05:06 PM.


Element6 #50 Posted 20 October 2015 - 05:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30854 battles
  • 11,118
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostSanyaJuutilainen, on 20 October 2015 - 04:30 PM, said:

About the same. I am quite interested in WW2 tech because of the game (and GUP) and the modern tech doesn't do it for me. The only tank I find interesting is Merkava and that's not enough to grind a new game. WW2 tanks, for me, have a personality, they are full of mistakes (AMX 40!), but that just makes them the more lovely. I am not even trying out AW, it's not my thing - that's all.

It was with Flightsims as it is with WoT, it is the era that is intriguing, not quality of product. Damn I miss those long hours in IL-2...

 

Did I ever play a modern fighterplane sim? Nope.



Baldrickk #51 Posted 20 October 2015 - 05:44 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 31993 battles
  • 15,985
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postjabster, on 20 October 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

 

Not sure what your point is with that as a tank with nn1 on it would most likely have been named because of who commanded it not to give the crew a 'boost'.

Yeah it would have been the tank commander who was important to performance, not some pictures on the side.

 

You think Michael Wittmann would have performed differently in a tank with a different insignia?



HundeWurst #52 Posted 20 October 2015 - 05:45 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 73566 battles
  • 4,544
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

i play both games right now. both are decent.

 

however!

 

currently wot is jsut better because its much closer to a final game than armored warfare is right now. AW has so many broken mechanics, bad balancing and such which decreses at least my fun by quit a bit. however we need to remember that aw is thiss a beta and its not to late for major changes if they are needed.

wot on the other side is final. a i.e. removal of arty is never ever going to happen. even major changes will take years to be implemented because they dont want to lsoe their customers.

 

in the long run both games most likely will have to exist (i hope for that at least). the competition hopefully will in the long run improve both and make them better and less of a money gabbing lvl.



Frostilicus #53 Posted 20 October 2015 - 05:49 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 22830 battles
  • 3,316
  • [-ZNO-] -ZNO-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View PostBaldrickk, on 20 October 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

Yeah it would have been the tank commander who was important to performance, not some pictures on the side.

 

You think Michael Wittmann would have performed differently in a tank with a different insignia?

 

The emblems on the side in real life might serve to discourage the enemy, thereby gaining the wearer of them some kind of advantage, thinking of Red Baron, Spitifire bias etc

You could hardly make another player have a worse RNG because your tank is using an emblem, think of the screams that would get, so giving a tank a tiny boost for having an emblem on it seems ok to me - although if it's only 1 or 2% as suggested I can hardly see it being a game-breaking difference



Baldrickk #54 Posted 20 October 2015 - 06:07 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 31993 battles
  • 15,985
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostFrostilicus, on 20 October 2015 - 05:49 PM, said:

 

The emblems on the side in real life might serve to discourage the enemy, thereby gaining the wearer of them some kind of advantage, thinking of Red Baron, Spitifire bias etc

You could hardly make another player have a worse RNG because your tank is using an emblem, think of the screams that would get, so giving a tank a tiny boost for having an emblem on it seems ok to me - although if it's only 1 or 2% as suggested I can hardly see it being a game-breaking difference

Isn't that what XVM is for though?



jabster #55 Posted 20 October 2015 - 06:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12649 battles
  • 25,346
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBaldrickk, on 20 October 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

Yeah it would have been the tank commander who was important to performance, not some pictures on the side.

 

You think Michael Wittmann would have performed differently in a tank with a different insignia?

 

Sorry I should have mad it clearer. I can see how emblems may have given some very slight moral advantage with a simple example being the 'pride' that tanks crews had of sporting the Desert Rats symbol but numbers on German tanks were purely for identification purposes with xx1 meaning the tank was a commander's vehicle.

spuriousmonkey #56 Posted 20 October 2015 - 06:14 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 44843 battles
  • 3,362
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

This is not a tank simulator. If emblems do something beneficial. Then they do so.

 

It is a game.



Aiston #57 Posted 20 October 2015 - 06:19 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20591 battles
  • 1,460
  • Member since:
    03-26-2013
Prefer AW, looking forward to see how it progresses.

CleoClickClicks #58 Posted 20 October 2015 - 06:33 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 676 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    02-28-2015

I know that a lot of players have spent a considerable amount of money on WOT and probably won't leave for AW just to spend money again.

But the gradual decline in player numbers is cannot be attributed to more games of the same ilk. 

WOT has got problems that it is certainly ignoring and as a result people are turning away from this game.

Personally i love this game, but i do have concerns about a number of areas that need attention by the developers.

i.e Mods. Some people are sad enough to need 'cheat mods' because they need to win so badly it's almost pathetic. I have read that there are no cheat mods according to WOT but some servers have banned them.

     If WOT won't ban these 'cheat' mods then why not open up a server purely for these sad cases and see how many players you'll get on them.

     MM. Its not broken (just Crap). Totaly unfair sides in the majority of games leading to huge defeats and not many close games. also the balance of vehicles is usually unfair as some sides get more heavy tanks than the other. But worst of all is the discrepancy in player ability. If you have stat mods with the colour coding that tells you of players current ability, you can easily predict the outcome just by counting the reds v Purples on each team.

   there are many other areas that need looking at and many players will have there own opinions on the matter. But negative posts on the forum won't get anything done. If people posted constructive ideas about things they feel need attention then i'm sure the developers might do something about them.



NineMonthsAndItsYouSadly #59 Posted 20 October 2015 - 06:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 47347 battles
  • 1,823
  • [_CHS_] _CHS_
  • Member since:
    07-21-2011
Im not entirely sure about AW now. I was very positive towards AW but then I gave it a go.
Its not like something is wrong with the game. Graphics looks cool, garage and module development look fine. All those technical data, names. It all gives me this feeling that I am close to those war machines.
But it doesnt give me as much joy as WoT does. I get the similar feeling when I try new FPS. None of the new shiny FPSs can give me shivers like the old good Counterstrike 1.6 does. Counterstrike is a simple game with old graphics but its way more fun than Coc* of Doody or Cornfield.
WoT for me is a more simple game when I compare it with AW. Shiny graphics doesnt change a thing.
Maybe I need some more time with AW. And let's not forget - its still in beta.

Edited by SPANIELfromPOLAND, 20 October 2015 - 06:48 PM.


Mr_Sukebe #60 Posted 20 October 2015 - 06:50 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 32377 battles
  • 2,623
  • [ZOLO] ZOLO
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

Any think this looks familiar:

 

http://postimg.org/image/i63cuiopz/

 

Only played something like 10 games and I was on the receiving end of a 15:2 defeat, i.e. my whole team managed TWO kills. 

Present thoughts:

 - Nice looking, but frankly I don't a problem with WOT graphics

 - 4th battle in and it turned into a "siemka" trolling debate after one player had asked "PL" and it all went downhill from there

 - Tier 1 and 2 tanks are clearly more interesting than their WoT equilvalents.  They play more like T5 tanks in WoT

 - Some of the maps are even worse in their corridor format and chokepoints than WoT map, though in general, they seem to be more open and I found nothing as small and nasty as say mines, which is a ridiculous map for say T10 tanks

 - Tried the PVE mode, far more relaxing than WoT.  I can see me playing more of that just for a laugh

 - Still clearly dependant upon teams and AW are still playing to introduce their "screw the better players" matchmaking.  That in itself doesn't bode well

 - Physics don't feel as well done as WoT, though it is early days.  Just feels less "involving" somehow

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users