Jump to content


Why is there no real competitor to WOT?


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

Geno1isme #21 Posted 12 July 2018 - 11:34 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 42060 battles
  • 7,548
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostMko, on 12 July 2018 - 11:51 AM, said:

Well I think the market in Europe for a tank game is quite big, as is evidenced by the large number of tank events that people attend. So there is interest.

 

Of course there is some interest, but the genre doesn't have nearly the same standing here as it has in russia. Also people looking at tanks don't necessarily imply them being interested in arcade computer games about them, many probably prefer offline simulations instead (if they are into games at all).

 

Another problem is that you're kinda restricted with what you can do in a tank (or any military) game. A developer can't just come up with new skills or classes at will or fancy graphics effects like in a Fantasy MMORPG, everthing needs to be somewhat rooted in the real world. And you have to invest a lot in research as well, unless you plan to create a game with just fantasy tanks. There is a reason why WG makes such a fuzz about going to museums and checking archives (even if they end up implementing just fake blueprints half the time).

 

View PostMko, on 12 July 2018 - 11:51 AM, said:

Also the initial popularity of AW at the start of open beta proves that people would be willing to jump into a new game or at least they would give it a chance. What I guess is needed, the game has to be damn good, otherwise they would just go back to WOT or whatever they were playing before.

 

Part of the popularity was simple curiosity how Obsidian would merge tanks with RPG elements. Another part was having modern tanks like T-90, Challenger, Abrams or Leopard 2.

And then of course hope for something like WoT without some of its issues. However what one considers an issue in WoT is a must-have feature for someone else (e.g. arty), so in that aspect AW was kinda doomed to fail from the beginning.



signal11th #22 Posted 12 July 2018 - 11:45 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 36524 battles
  • 5,630
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011
I actually thought initially AW was better than WOT but I just couldn't be bothered to do all that grinding again.

Zedrick #23 Posted 12 July 2018 - 11:52 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15260 battles
  • 350
  • Member since:
    11-03-2012

View PostSimeon85, on 12 July 2018 - 11:11 AM, said:

The main issue is probably the grind, players have played 100s of hours, and others invested 100s of Euros to get their tier 10 tanks, they have mature accounts with multiple tanks.

 

Not sure that's a problem. At least for me, the grind is one of the things I miss. In WoT, I no longer have a Tiger or IS-3 or T-95 to look forward to. Not the reason I stopped playing WoT, but it contributes.

 

I play a bit of WT now and then (about 10000 times more than WoT), and one of the things I dislike about that is too many variants of the tanks. "Oh wow, now I have the T-34 1941, wohoo! Let's start grinding the same tank but next years model"... ie no real sense of accomplishment.


Edited by Zedrick, 12 July 2018 - 11:52 AM.


Cobra6 #24 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:00 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,691
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

Because it's too late for that by now, a competitor for WoT should have been made 2-3 years after release to be viable.

 

Everyone is already too invested in WoT to switch to another game unless they didn't spend any money at all.

 

Cobra 6



_6i6_ #25 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:06 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 7167 battles
  • 188
  • [A__K] A__K
  • Member since:
    03-22-2018

I think all 3 current tank games are more or less arcade-ish with some elements of grinding/upgrading and/or paying to (win) have an advantage.

I also tried AW and WT and played maybe 3-4 times each and just came back to WoT because essentially they are the same games with a few minor details altered(personal opinion ofcourse).

So unless a new game comes out which changes much of the general gameplay,gives an even more random possible outcome of each battle,adds characteristics which are not present in WoT already, i doubt we will see some game changer anytime soon.

I dont really know if anything is on the works from another company atm? But i pretty much doubt it.

My guess is that only a more realistic(not 100% sim) game would attract players at the moment.



jabster #26 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12535 battles
  • 23,141
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postsignal11th, on 12 July 2018 - 10:45 AM, said:

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

 

I didn’t play it much but yeah it was a bit of a case of why would I give up all I’ve ‘worked’ for in WoT for essentially playing WoT with modern tanks. I do think the big mistake AW made was trying to replicate WoT too much with the USP of we’ve spent the afternoon reading the forums to see what people moan about.



Gvozdika #27 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38155 battles
  • 550
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

AW promised so much but rapidly got a bit stale due to all the MBTs playing very similarly and the very nature of modern tank combat. It often just came down to a case of who had the biggest gun or thickest effective armour. I did like the ammo type options and the fact that they were alternatives - rather than flat out superior premium options - available. Arty wasn't half as annoying as in WoT.

 

I'm currently back into WT again (realistic only) and finding it much less of an exercise in tolerance/frustration than the average WoT random (e.g. not spending the entire evening being crapped on by the MM and gold-spammed to death). The lack of arty is fantastic (nothing personal - I just enjoy not spending every waking moment hugging the nearest rock/building). The spotting system is better and the gameplay just feels a more 'tanky' - slower, more deliberate. The game isn't as polished as WoT in terms of interface and progression systems but it is certainly more fun.

 

I just occasionally dip back into WoT for a game or two - then soon remember why I don't play it so much now. The fun has gone. Frontlines was VERY good and if nothing else highlighted how much of a blast WoT could be with a perfect MM, limited premium round use and maps that truly allowed a bit of mobility warfare/vision control tactics. 

 

WG isn't all bad - I still very much enjoy WoWs - much less frustrating, better MM, a considerably less toxic player base and in many ways the kind of game WoT used to be. 



Geno1isme #28 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:31 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 42060 battles
  • 7,548
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View Post_6i6_, on 12 July 2018 - 01:06 PM, said:

My guess is that only a more realistic(not 100% sim) game would attract players at the moment.

 

That niche is covered by ARMA already.

_6i6_ #29 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:36 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 7167 battles
  • 188
  • [A__K] A__K
  • Member since:
    03-22-2018

View PostGeno1isme, on 12 July 2018 - 01:31 PM, said:

 

That niche is covered by ARMA already.

 

damn i had forgotten about ARMA..

tbh i havent played ARMA 3.

how is it? anyone playing it?

on a side note, ARMA cannot be considered full on tank game since most of its part is tank support to infantry and i suppose you need, as before, combined roles.

but i see there is a TANKS DLC released which maybe gives more focus to actual tank battles


Edited by _6i6_, 12 July 2018 - 12:43 PM.


nakkipeppu #30 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:37 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 30983 battles
  • 211
  • [LGGF] LGGF
  • Member since:
    04-10-2012

AW was pretty aggressively marketed to those most dissatisfied of WoT/WG, even hiring the biggest whiner with a soapbox as some sort of community manager. As people rarely change, I'm not surprised how it turned out at all.

 

 

 



Nayonac #31 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:42 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 18580 battles
  • 79
  • [B1C] B1C
  • Member since:
    12-28-2011

Same problem that World of Warcraft  KILLERS are coming up against, you have a player base that is heavily invested in 1 game due to hours money or both. 

After spending quite a lot of time in tanks and money, why would i change game? 

If they came along and said OK we will look at your WOT account and see what you have then work out a compensation into our new game, then maybe i would play that... but most likely i would go back to what is familiar because its familiar, i don't need to invest a huge amount of time relearning the game and or money.

People don't want a new game they want new stuff in their current game.

Why was Pubg popular? over all the million other games doing the same thing ?

A it was Familiar to all the other games thus easy to pick up and learn, you didn't need to invest time into it as it was simple or money for that matter... 

Keep it simple stupid (Kiss).

Next up you see a game with an established player base or a new game with no players... Do you A join the established game and spend money getting invested or do you B join the new game and probably not spend any money because you have no clue as to its future..

 

 

 



_6i6_ #32 Posted 12 July 2018 - 01:09 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 7167 battles
  • 188
  • [A__K] A__K
  • Member since:
    03-22-2018

View PostNayonac, on 12 July 2018 - 01:42 PM, said:

Same problem that World of Warcraft  KILLERS are coming up against, you have a player base that is heavily invested in 1 game due to hours money or both. 

After spending quite a lot of time in tanks and money, why would i change game? 

If they came along and said OK we will look at your WOT account and see what you have then work out a compensation into our new game, then maybe i would play that... but most likely i would go back to what is familiar because its familiar, i don't need to invest a huge amount of time relearning the game and or money.

People don't want a new game they want new stuff in their current game.

Why was Pubg popular? over all the million other games doing the same thing ?

A it was Familiar to all the other games thus easy to pick up and learn, you didn't need to invest time into it as it was simple or money for that matter... 

Keep it simple stupid (Kiss).

Next up you see a game with an established player base or a new game with no players... Do you A join the established game and spend money getting invested or do you B join the new game and probably not spend any money because you have no clue as to its future..

 

 

 

 

I dont think there is a definite answer to that.

Going with the flow means as you said you are going somewhere where you already know what it is.

But sometimes people just want something new or just a change.

Ofcourse the result might not always be what they expect. But this is in the context of risk-taking.


Edited by _6i6_, 12 July 2018 - 01:10 PM.


Thuis001 #33 Posted 12 July 2018 - 02:28 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5960 battles
  • 466
  • [-SBN-] -SBN-
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

There are multiple reasons as to why there isn't any real competition, most have been mentioned before but still.

 

1. Large investments are required to make such a game. Research must be done, graphics need to be made, you need to code the game etc. all of this would cost large sums of money and a lot of time, something that people won't do for reason 2.

2. Earlier attempts: Besides WoT you have WT which, while it takes place in mainly the same time period is a completely different niche and is focused much more on historical accuracy, realism etc. On the other hand you have AW which while it's just hanging on to life is the only other game that is somewhat of a competitor of WoT. And last but not least, you have WoT which altough it has many issues is still a solid game. Overall gameplay is decent, the graphics are quite good since 1.0 and there are overall few bugs and glitches. Besides that, a lot of players have put large amounts of time and money into the game, and they are generally not willing to just abandon that. Besides that they are generally not willing to just start again.

3. Monopoly of WoT: As I said before WoT basicly owns the arcade-WW2-tank game genre and it would be almost impossible to make a game that could compete with it. This sadly also means that WG can essentially do whatever the **** they want as there isn't a different game people can flock to en masse. (Before people say: But WT..., NO WT isn't even CLOSE to WoT, it is a VERY different niche.) allowing them to get away with much more then for example a Battlefield or CoD (altough those also do what they want both frenchises appear to be in a bit of a decline since they started to pull BS.) which do actually have some decent competition.



Alice_Shimada_Chan #34 Posted 12 July 2018 - 05:54 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 27777 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    12-09-2012

Probably the same thing why WoW was (or still is I really don't know) the king of MMORPGs for such a long time. Various MMOs were released during the years and some of them were called "WoW killers", and in the end playerbases of that new games were slowly dropping down, while WoW is still healthy with really good number of subs - and actually many players returned to latest expansion legion.

 

I think it's hard to compete with something that is

 

- already out for a some time

- has (or had before/during the release) good commercials

- has large playerbase

- can always find new content no matter how stupid it is

 

Many players rage on rng, buffing/nerfing, maps, ... just everything, and they still play this game. Crybabies in general chat writing their EDITS every day still play this game.

 

Before WoT when I was active WoW players, I tried Guild Wars 2 and then SWTOR, but in the end I returned to WoW, because reasons that could be applied to WoT vs other tanks games as well.

 

I returned to WoW because I already knew everything about the game and was quite good at playing it. I was just used to it, how its played, ... Same thing could be applied to average WoT players that for example tries WT, and then returnes to WoT, because hes like: nah, in WoT I already know all maps, I know a tricks, game mechanics etc. Also money spent in this game is ofc another factor. when somebody has many premium tanks, spent lot of money in this game...

 

I am not saying same aplies for every player, but - this is only my opinion - I think people don't like changes, and some people don't like learning new things in case they knew everything about the old thing.

 

One last thing: I tried WT myself, but I enjoy WoT arcade style much more. Only RNG could be lower, perhaps 15 % +-.

 

If in future game similar to WoT would be released, then I would try it. If it would be better then .. :D

 

I still enjoy this game, even when some people say its getting worse and worse (but then again same things people said with every new WoW expansion), but I do agree this game has some really big problems, and WG could quite easily fix some of them and thus make WoT more competitive against possible future competitors.

 

I wonder if anyone will even read this :D


Edited by Katyusha_Taichou, 12 July 2018 - 05:56 PM.


Procjon #35 Posted 12 July 2018 - 06:06 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 54904 battles
  • 476
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Why is there no real competitor to WOT?...

 

...because nobody can handle that much of vodka....;)

 

HF


Edited by Procjon, 12 July 2018 - 06:06 PM.


Mko #36 Posted 12 July 2018 - 06:26 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16132 battles
  • 1,188
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010

View PostKatyusha_Taichou, on 12 July 2018 - 05:54 PM, said:

I wonder if anyone will even read this :D

 

I read it :)

 

Well, of course it's hard to compete with something established. But that's not really an issue for the big publishers, as they have the money/resources to fully secure the development and marketing of AAA games, so they also have hte resources to make a WOT competitor.

 

Damn I myself would like to make one, but I'm not a big publisher. BTW this thread is not "market research", I don't have the resources to develop a game. I just have a lot of experience from these games and from other games, and a lot of ideas on what a tank combat game should be like. I'm also a decent programmer (I hope I'm decent or better, lol), but I have 0 experience with developing 3D models.

 

Couple days ago me and my flatmate somehow got to a discussion about startups, and how most startups fail. There are articles about it on the internet, and apparently about 50% of startups fail because there is no market "need" for their product. So I started wondering about the tank game situation... since the companies that have the resources to develop a WOT competitor are not doing so, maybe there is no market for such a game? But I think that there actually should be one, because tanks are relatively popular in Europe and it's not that hard to improve on the WOT formula. That's what AW tried to do, but then it had lots of problems, and I guess the problems overshadowed whatever improvements in brought. And maybe it was also not different enough, though myself as a rather experienced player could "see" a lot of differences between WOT and AW, especially in like tier 5 and up with really modern vehicles. The gameplay felt different and required a different mindset (flanking was key, while in WOT flanking is generally a bad idea unless you are sure it is safe).

 

I personally really dislike WT, the oneshotting is just not good game design in my opinion. Every time I try WT I feel like it's a game that totally hates new players and does everything it can to push them away... Arcade is kinda silly, but realistic is already really hard to get into. Too much of a gap there. If there was a mode in between these two, I think it could work quite well.

 

As for WOT competition... It's really easy to improve on the formula, but then it is really just an improved "almost copy". Innovating is much harder. Going with historical and modern vehicles, it's not very possible to innovate with the vehicles themselves because you have to keep the game somewhat authentic. It's possible to "innovate" with game mechanics and modes. However, any improvements you make in game mechanics (such as lower RNG, no arty, ...), WOT could adjust very quickly and easily. So it would only be possible to innovate with some excellent game design and game modes, I guess.

 

At the same time, if I imagine a very much improved WOT formula:

Start at roughly tier 3/4 in WOT, screw the loltraktors. Start with tanks that already have interesting gameplay.

End with modern vehicles, so most likely more tiers if you want to go all the way to the Armata.

Different progression system, less grindy (top secret idea in my head lol)

+-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?



DangerMouse #37 Posted 12 July 2018 - 07:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 25752 battles
  • 628
  • [FLOG] FLOG
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

Not really my thing but I came across this video earlier today, more sim than WOT obviously.

 



Mko #38 Posted 12 July 2018 - 07:57 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16132 battles
  • 1,188
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010

View PostDangerMouse, on 12 July 2018 - 07:37 PM, said:

Not really my thing but I came across this video earlier today, more sim than WOT obviously.

 

 

It's cool but hardcore combat sims are generally not much fun (you know, real combat is not fun), and tend to attract only a very small audience.

HundeWurst #39 Posted 12 July 2018 - 08:17 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 69026 battles
  • 4,318
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

Because WoT is a huge giant quit hard to engage.

I successfull attack on WGs WoT requires a lot to go right. The only company which tried (ulimately it was mail.ru) made so many bad decisions and was just after another hit and run.

 

So why even bother. I guess now would be the perfect time to publish a game like WoT. WG has problems right now, hardly a better time to win players rather easily.



vixu #40 Posted 12 July 2018 - 08:22 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 42356 battles
  • 3,319
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

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

 

...

 

At the same time, if I imagine a very much improved WOT formula:

Start at roughly tier 3/4 in WOT, screw the loltraktors. Start with tanks that already have interesting gameplay.

 

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

 

End with modern vehicles, so most likely more tiers if you want to go all the way to the Armata.

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. 

 

Different progression system, less grindy (top secret idea in my head lol)

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

 

+-1 MM

Maybe whole tier system will not be there...

 

No arty

No gold ammo

Smoke

OK. sounds fine

 

Much lower RNG, maybe as low as 5%

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

 

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

 

No damn PvE.

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

 

Much cheaper premium stuff (possibly higher conversion rate)

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.

 

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?

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

 






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users