Jump to content


Why is there no real competitor to WOT?


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

Solstad1069 #41 Posted 12 July 2018 - 09:36 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 39637 battles
  • 3,029
  • Member since:
    06-15-2013

View PostPaketeman, on 12 July 2018 - 09:20 AM, said:

 the day they stop making money with it, they would not mind closing the game and throwing away all your time invested .....

 

The time invested would never be wasted if they close the game tomorrow. I had fun, and fun is well invested money.



Solstad1069 #42 Posted 12 July 2018 - 09:38 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 39637 battles
  • 3,029
  • Member since:
    06-15-2013

View Postsignal11th, on 12 July 2018 - 11:45 AM, said:

I actually thought initially AW was better than WOT but I just couldn't be bothered to do all that grinding again.

 

...and i couldnt be bothered to be the noob again.

Mko #43 Posted 12 July 2018 - 10:16 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16066 battles
  • 1,151
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010

View Postvixu, on 12 July 2018 - 08:22 PM, said:

Lol tractors are fun to play. why to get rid of 1/4th of the content?

There was a reason why WoT is not going to modern tanks. They are different. More of multi-purpose battle battle unit, then for tank-on-tank engagement. 

So, players will be done with the game in half a year?

Maybe whole tier system will not be there...

OK. sounds fine

why to have it at all if you don't like it? I say that its fine at 25.

Imho - big mistake. PvE is a good content if done right.

It is not about cheaper or more expensive. You have to offer items that people want, w/o making the game pay to win. Dont worry about player's money. There are people who have money to blow on a game and there are players who will not by it even cheap.

Game has to offer much different gameplay for me to jump WoT.

 

Well, I don't think the lowest tiers in WOT are that interesting to play, they are just introductory tiers and the game mechanics don't really play much of a role. You can have introductory tiers in Shermans and stuff like that. If you add some modern tanks beyond the scope of WOT, then you don't really lose anything content-wise.

Modern tanks can surely be made fun, AW was a lot of fun before Balance 2.0 up to tier 6. Especially the mid tiers were really well done and these were far beyond the scope of WOT.

Of course if the game was less grindy, there would have to be other reasons to play than grind, that's why focus on competitive play. There would still be grind, just less of it. There are hundreds of armored vehicles that could be added over time, and there is a lot of room for content in terms of maps, game modes, etc.

I'm not sure I could avoid a tier system if I wanted to include vehicles from different eras. The only way I see to avoid a tier system would be to make a sci-fi game with lots of various vehicles at equal level. Basically it would be an Overwatch-type system where you would choose your tank (hero) and play it. There would be no tier progression then. Alternatively there could be a very small number of tiers, so that the low tiers could have slightly simpler mechanics, so the game would be easier to get into. There is a huge amount of options what a sci-fi vehicle combat game could do. I think an authentic one with real vehicles would be more interesting for players, though, as the vehicles would be easier to relate to.

A game like this needs some level of RNG, but 25% is way too much. 10% or 5% is much more reasonable.

PvE in this type of game is a problem, you can maybe do it once your game is established, but if you do it too soon like AW did, you split the (small) population, which has devastating effects.

 

Yeah, I guess the main reason why there is no real WOT competitor is that the companies concluded (or did market reasearch which shown) that people wouldn't leave WOT, so there is no market for another game.



NoobySkooby #44 Posted 12 July 2018 - 11:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9171 battles
  • 1,427
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View PostMko, on 12 July 2018 - 10:16 PM, said:

 

Well, I don't think the lowest tiers in WOT are that interesting to play, they are just introductory tiers and the game mechanics don't really play much of a role. You can have introductory tiers in Shermans and stuff like that. If you add some modern tanks beyond the scope of WOT, then you don't really lose anything content-wise.

Modern tanks can surely be made fun, AW was a lot of fun before Balance 2.0 up to tier 6. Especially the mid tiers were really well done and these were far beyond the scope of WOT.

Of course if the game was less grindy, there would have to be other reasons to play than grind, that's why focus on competitive play. There would still be grind, just less of it. There are hundreds of armored vehicles that could be added over time, and there is a lot of room for content in terms of maps, game modes, etc.

I'm not sure I could avoid a tier system if I wanted to include vehicles from different eras. The only way I see to avoid a tier system would be to make a sci-fi game with lots of various vehicles at equal level. Basically it would be an Overwatch-type system where you would choose your tank (hero) and play it. There would be no tier progression then. Alternatively there could be a very small number of tiers, so that the low tiers could have slightly simpler mechanics, so the game would be easier to get into. There is a huge amount of options what a sci-fi vehicle combat game could do. I think an authentic one with real vehicles would be more interesting for players, though, as the vehicles would be easier to relate to.

A game like this needs some level of RNG, but 25% is way too much. 10% or 5% is much more reasonable.

PvE in this type of game is a problem, you can maybe do it once your game is established, but if you do it too soon like AW did, you split the (small) population, which has devastating effects.

 

Yeah, I guess the main reason why there is no real WOT competitor is that the companies concluded (or did market reasearch which shown) that people wouldn't leave WOT, so there is no market for another game.

 

I think as WG EU are trying their level best to kill this very game, maybe they should do some more market research, Fucked up MM, PMM scandal, OP tanks, nerfed tanks, tanks which need fixing but they cannot be arsed, and all this coming from a WoT's addict, when this happens the game is truly fucked:angry:

Mko #45 Posted 12 July 2018 - 11:43 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16066 battles
  • 1,151
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010

View PostNoobySkooby, on 12 July 2018 - 11:41 PM, said:

 

I think as WG EU are trying their level best to kill this very game, maybe they should do some more market research, Fucked up MM, PMM scandal, OP tanks, nerfed tanks, tanks which need fixing but they cannot be arsed, and all this coming from a WoT's addict, when this happens the game is truly fucked:angry:

 

Well that's not WG EU doing it. WG EU only support the game in the region, I don't think they make development decisions such as what MM should be like. Plus they do have some analytics departments here I think. But the development is in Minsk or Cyprus or wherever. At least that's what it used to be. It may be different now since WG got much bigger than it was.

NoobySkooby #46 Posted 12 July 2018 - 11:50 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9171 battles
  • 1,427
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View PostMko, on 12 July 2018 - 11:43 PM, said:

 

Well that's not WG EU doing it. WG EU only support the game in the region, I don't think they make development decisions such as what MM should be like. Plus they do have some analytics departments here I think. But the development is in Minsk or Cyprus or wherever. At least that's what it used to be. It may be different now since WG got much bigger than it was.

 

Ok I stand corrected, WG whoever where ever

vixu #47 Posted 13 July 2018 - 12:02 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 41524 battles
  • 3,033
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostMko, on 12 July 2018 - 10:16 PM, said:

 

Well, I don't think the lowest tiers in WOT are that interesting to play, they are just introductory tiers and the game mechanics don't really play much of a role. You can have introductory tiers in Shermans and stuff like that. If you add some modern tanks beyond the scope of WOT, then you don't really lose anything content-wise.

Modern tanks can surely be made fun, AW was a lot of fun before Balance 2.0 up to tier 6. Especially the mid tiers were really well done and these were far beyond the scope of WOT.

Of course if the game was less grindy, there would have to be other reasons to play than grind, that's why focus on competitive play. There would still be grind, just less of it. There are hundreds of armored vehicles that could be added over time, and there is a lot of room for content in terms of maps, game modes, etc.

I'm not sure I could avoid a tier system if I wanted to include vehicles from different eras. The only way I see to avoid a tier system would be to make a sci-fi game with lots of various vehicles at equal level. Basically it would be an Overwatch-type system where you would choose your tank (hero) and play it. There would be no tier progression then. Alternatively there could be a very small number of tiers, so that the low tiers could have slightly simpler mechanics, so the game would be easier to get into. There is a huge amount of options what a sci-fi vehicle combat game could do. I think an authentic one with real vehicles would be more interesting for players, though, as the vehicles would be easier to relate to.

A game like this needs some level of RNG, but 25% is way too much. 10% or 5% is much more reasonable.

PvE in this type of game is a problem, you can maybe do it once your game is established, but if you do it too soon like AW did, you split the (small) population, which has devastating effects.

 

Yeah, I guess the main reason why there is no real WOT competitor is that the companies concluded (or did market reasearch which shown) that people wouldn't leave WOT, so there is no market for another game.

 

I think, WoT had big appeal of having historical vehicles. And it started to have some issues, once the UFO designs hit the game. Anyways, many of these items are just personal preferences I believe. 

 

Grinding however is more about the business model. I don't think that you can substitute it with competitive gameplay simply because not everybody is interested in competitive game play. If you are as bad as I am, then you dont care much about stats. 



Geno1isme #48 Posted 13 July 2018 - 09:41 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 41108 battles
  • 6,928
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostMko, on 12 July 2018 - 11:16 PM, said:

Of course if the game was less grindy, there would have to be other reasons to play than grind, that's why focus on competitive play. There would still be grind, just less of it. There are hundreds of armored vehicles that could be added over time, and there is a lot of room for content in terms of maps, game modes, etc.

 

The grind is what brings in money. Reduce the grind and you reduce the need to spend money.

Majority of the WoT userbase don't care about eSports or competitive modes at all. They just want to drive and shoot tanks, the result is secondary if not irrelevant. If you focus on competitive gameplay you're focusing on a niche market. To get a large userbase you have to address casual players. Working people that come home and want to shoot some stuff to relax without bothering about any results or consequences. People which don't care if they're fighting against other people or bots.

 

View PostMko, on 12 July 2018 - 11:16 PM, said:

PvE in this type of game is a problem, you can maybe do it once your game is established, but if you do it too soon like AW did, you split the (small) population, which has devastating effects.

 

Nope. Quite the opposite actually, they should have focused on PvE right from the start (make it a tank-based MMORPG basically), and only add Global OPS and PvP later on once the userbase can support it. Of course if you really want to focus on competitive gameplay that's a different story.



Mko #49 Posted 14 July 2018 - 11:46 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16066 battles
  • 1,151
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010

View PostGeno1isme, on 13 July 2018 - 09:41 AM, said:

 

The grind is what brings in money. Reduce the grind and you reduce the need to spend money.

Majority of the WoT userbase don't care about eSports or competitive modes at all. They just want to drive and shoot tanks, the result is secondary if not irrelevant. If you focus on competitive gameplay you're focusing on a niche market. To get a large userbase you have to address casual players. Working people that come home and want to shoot some stuff to relax without bothering about any results or consequences. People which don't care if they're fighting against other people or bots.

 

 

Nope. Quite the opposite actually, they should have focused on PvE right from the start (make it a tank-based MMORPG basically), and only add Global OPS and PvP later on once the userbase can support it. Of course if you really want to focus on competitive gameplay that's a different story.

 

Grind is also old-fashioned. Why grind when you could just play the game because you actually enjoy it?

If people just want to drive and shoot tanks, I think it's in contradiction with the grind. When you just want to drive and shoot tanks, then why are about the grind? Or does it matter so much if you drive a Sherman or a Pershing?

 

I think focusing on PvE from the start is the wrong way to go about it, because making PvP then will require huge changes because PvP is much more sensitive to balance and game design than PvE. If you start with PvP, you can nail it down, and then PvE can be designed around the PvP vehicles. Since you have full control of what your PvE looks like (but PvP is also determined by players), I think it makes a lot more sense to make PvP first, and only then think about PvE. Maybe if you make good PvP, you don't even need PvE.



Geno1isme #50 Posted 14 July 2018 - 05:06 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 41108 battles
  • 6,928
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostMko, on 14 July 2018 - 12:46 PM, said:

Grind is also old-fashioned. Why grind when you could just play the game because you actually enjoy it?

If people just want to drive and shoot tanks, I think it's in contradiction with the grind. When you just want to drive and shoot tanks, then why are about the grind? Or does it matter so much if you drive a Sherman or a Pershing?

 

Of course people don't want to drive just any tank, they want to drive the biggest and strongest tanks available.

 

You're only looking at it from a players perspective, that's the issue. The grind is the obstacle between the player and its goal. To overcome it he has to invest time and/or money. Investing time results in an overall larger population, which makes the game more attractive to other players. Investing money means profit for the developer.

 

Of course that's simplified greatly.



vixu #51 Posted 14 July 2018 - 05:44 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 41524 battles
  • 3,033
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostMko, on 14 July 2018 - 11:46 AM, said:

 

Grind is also old-fashioned. Why grind when you could just play the game because you actually enjoy it?

If people just want to drive and shoot tanks, I think it's in contradiction with the grind. When you just want to drive and shoot tanks, then why are about the grind? Or does it matter so much if you drive a Sherman or a Pershing?

 

 

I think focusing on PvE from the start is the wrong way to go about it, because making PvP then will require huge changes because PvP is much more sensitive to balance and game design than PvE. If you start with PvP, you can nail it down, and then PvE can be designed around the PvP vehicles. Since you have full control of what your PvE looks like (but PvP is also determined by players), I think it makes a lot more sense to make PvP first, and only then think about PvE. Maybe if you make good PvP, you don't even need PvE.

 

 I'll give you a bit different perspective. Driving top tank is not as interesting as getting it. If I would've researched all trees in 1 year, then I would've been pretty bored within next half a year, cause of no goals in the game which are not depending on 14 bots-wanna-bees that I may get in my team for next 15 minutes. For me playing a game is about having some long-term progress. Could be grind, could be PvE content. Its for that reason I am stack with grinding some of the worst PoScrapMetal in the game atm. I do agree that some tanks a a bit too much. Mostly lights and mediums of tier 8+. Their XP cost feels to be way too high. But all in all, grind is ok, as long as it is free.

As for PvE - I think there should be some strategic or tactical PvE component in the game (i.e. solo content). I am sure that are many players that are playing only for couple of hours late at night..

Besides, within a year you can get yourself tier10 tank of the branch you want to have the most. The rest is up to you.



Cuck0osNest #52 Posted 14 July 2018 - 07:15 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6935 battles
  • 724
  • [YGDRA] YGDRA
  • Member since:
    07-25-2016
WG just have more experience in maintaining tank mmorpg. But it is easy to get copyed with different mechanics, well it will be easy only with some knowledge of real problems and experience of crystal clear vision is required.

Lord_Barbarozza #53 Posted 14 July 2018 - 07:27 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5799 battles
  • 74
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

World of Tanks is good enough for me, the problem is just the WG owners and developers milking money when they could rebalance the game and probably make even more money than now, but they want the quick cash.

 

Its easier to play one game than playing 2 grinding games getting half way on both of them.



LordMuffin #54 Posted Yesterday, 07:51 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 47395 battles
  • 10,512
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

If a new game was to be launched, it should aim at US/Canada and western Europe as main markets.

US/Canada is unexploited by WoT, so it should be possible to create an audience in that area.

How?
Make American tanks slightly stronger then the Russian.
Introduce M1 Abrams as top tier.
And other things that make Americans feel proud of their tanks.

Play with American patriotism.

 

Kind of like WoT used Russian patriotism to get their game liked by Russians. 


Edited by LordMuffin, Yesterday, 07:59 AM.


Trooper_One #55 Posted Yesterday, 10:08 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20908 battles
  • 448
  • Member since:
    01-06-2012

View PostMko, on 12 July 2018 - 06:26 PM, said:

 

+-1 MM

No arty

No gold ammo

Smoke

Much lower RNG, maybe as low as 5%

Focus on competitive gameplay, but friendly for casual players with extensive tutorials to bring them into the game

No damn PvE.

Much cheaper premium stuff (possibly higher conversion rate)

 

Basically imagine AW done right and then even better, but also with WW2 vehicles. Wouldn't that be a game people would flock to? Or would it still not be worth leaving WOT for that?

 

I had this thought for a long time. I think Europe, especially Germany and Eastern Countries, would be a huge market for a "WOT pure" that gives players the feeling it`s not an arcade-style, overpriced RNG game.

More history, less fantasy, less randomness, better data transparency and fairness on MM would create wonders.

 

Also, I doubt people stay at WOT because the did all the grind. This is what ppl are actually missing. There is nothing new in this game besides finding creative ways to make customers spend their money. It is losing players atm, this summer active players hit an alltime low (both EU and RU, US is already done). Bots is becoming an increasing issue.

 

I agree that WOT biggest asset is it is well programmed and technically clean and WG are kind of established in the marketing with history and as a "WW2 company" (which is actualy pretty cynical). But look at the success of PUBG: if the concept "feels right" ppl are willing to show patience. Post Scriptum is another example. I think its not a matter of inventing something new but just cutting of the slack focus on what the customer wants to play.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users