Jump to content


AW vs WOT


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
328 replies to this topic

teamoldmill #301 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 16:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 15392 battles
  • 11,438
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Post_Ninjax_, on Jan 20 2016 - 13:56, said:

 

Personally I think that if you find AW boring that the problem is you.

 

Meanwhile WoTs has several clones of the same tank so if you really want to go there.

 

Not to mention that the AW engine is far better and the gameplay is a hell of a lot more enjoyable and hey no corridor meta.

 

You can also actually out real upgrades onto your tanks that actually does stuff rather than using the same 4 equipment pieces over and over and over again.

 

It is roughly the same as WOT, but with much less variation in tanks. Looks a little prettier, sure. Everyone runs the same equipment anyway. Maps are just as crappy as WOT too. AW has a few neat things, no doubt. But it is just much more arcadey, less historical simmy feeling if those were words.

 

And ya, the problem is me, I don't equate a graphical engine with good or deep game play.

 

When AW has 400 tanks or whatever the number WOT has, I can imagine 50 Leos, 50 Abrams, etc. what variety.

 

Good game in its own right, just could have been so, so much better with some depth and variety.



SpitYoYoMafia #302 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 17:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 18942 battles
  • 14,069
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012

View Postteamoldmill, on Jan 20 2016 - 07:53, said:

 

It is roughly the same as WOT, but with much less variation in tanks. Looks a little prettier, sure. Everyone runs the same equipment anyway. Maps are just as crappy as WOT too. AW has a few neat things, no doubt. But it is just much more arcadey, less historical simmy feeling if those were words.

 

And ya, the problem is me, I don't equate a graphical engine with good or deep game play.

 

When AW has 400 tanks or whatever the number WOT has, I can imagine 50 Leos, 50 Abrams, etc. what variety.

 

Good game in its own right, just could have been so, so much better with some depth and variety.

 

Everyone runs the same equipment? How so? There are several different mods that you can choose from and you can only equip one of each type. Whether you choose stability, accuracy, fire rate, damage, etc. 

 

Also a lot of tanks in WoTs are either flat out garbage, or are clones. Every AW tank is usable. I'd take quality of quantity any day.

 

I think that both games are different and should not be viewed the same but WoTs has some serious flaws that makes the game unfun to play. I haven't found those same problems in AW.

 

I like the style of WoTs better but the things making the game unfun just make it not worth it.


Edited by _Ninjax_, Jan 20 2016 - 17:01.


WarStore #303 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 17:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 39528 battles
  • 13,516
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View Postteamoldmill, on Jan 20 2016 - 15:53, said:

 

It is roughly the same as WOT, but with much less variation in tanks. Looks a little prettier, sure. Everyone runs the same equipment anyway. Maps are just as crappy as WOT too. AW has a few neat things, no doubt. But it is just much more arcadey, less historical simmy feeling if those were words.

 

 

Not by a long shot.

I still don't know what to equip in my Leo 2A5. You choose the equipment based on how you play the tank. Based on what you want, you can either turn the tank into a long range sniper, close range high alpha striker or DPM machine or a damage sponge.

That is a lot different than rammer + vents + vert stab. The little variation comes from those tanks that can't equip rammer (autoloaders) or vert stab (low tiers).


Edited by WarStore, Jan 20 2016 - 17:12.


Zoldner #304 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 18:45

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 44239 battles
  • 327
  • Member since:
    02-15-2011

Don't Care for it. CryteK has its limitations. It really shows in the tank models. No floppy tracks. Textures have no metallic shine. 

Plus the missile warning every 5 sec when you start to climb tiers. WoT has way more balance to it. Its like a circus in AW. no thanks.   



9999bc #305 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 18:57

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 37738 battles
  • 691
  • Member since:
    07-01-2014
AW is really not the answer to WOT suggest by so many people. It has even more balance issues. The biggest is OP MBT; other vehicles just can't compete with MBT in AW. Your only hope to fight against a MBT is by driving a MBT yourself or has arty on your side.



SpitYoYoMafia #306 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 19:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 18942 battles
  • 14,069
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012

View Post9999bc, on Jan 20 2016 - 09:57, said:

AW is really not the answer to WOT suggest by so many people. It has even more balance issues. The biggest is OP MBT; other vehicles just can't compete with MBT in AW. Your only hope to fight against a MBT is by driving a MBT yourself or has arty on your side.
 

 

 

You do realize that the game mechanics are different there right? If a MBT exposes its sides you can shoot that and penetrate them. You probably are still playing AW like WoTs but they are 2 different games. MBT have strong frontal armor but their sides and rear armor are extremely weak and there won't be any [edited]auto bouncing you can penetrate them.

 



WarStore #307 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 19:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 39528 battles
  • 13,516
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View Post9999bc, on Jan 20 2016 - 17:57, said:

AW is really not the answer to WOT suggest by so many people. It has even more balance issues. The biggest is OP MBT; other vehicles just can't compete with MBT in AW. Your only hope to fight against a MBT is by driving a MBT yourself or has arty on your side.
 

 

Starting from from tier 7. Until then, TDs eat MBT's for breakfast.

But it is not a matter of MBTs being OP, but other classes being inferior even to their own predecessors. ERC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other TD that comes after it.



9999bc #308 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 19:12

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 37738 battles
  • 691
  • Member since:
    07-01-2014
It's true only in low tiers. MBT gains insane side armor in high tiers. MBT is just too OP, and I know why. MBT are designed that way in real life, i.e. MBT is meant to dominate other tanks and other armored vehicles. That's why more modern MBT ( higher tier in AW) just dominate the battle field.


Ecksdeee #309 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 19:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 17178 battles
  • 10,308
  • [WRPCK] WRPCK
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View Post_Ninjax_, on Jan 20 2016 - 14:56, said:

 

Personally I think that if you find AW boring that the problem is you.

 

Meanwhile WoTs has several clones of the same tank so if you really want to go there.

 

Not to mention that the AW engine is far better and the gameplay is a hell of a lot more enjoyable and hey no corridor meta.

 

You can also actually out real upgrades onto your tanks that actually does stuff rather than using the same 4 equipment pieces over and over and over again.

 

Mfw finding a game boring because it takes longer to find a pvp queue than it does to give birth.

 

Mfw the upgrade system is basically some inbred spawn of WT's tech tree and WoT's tech tree.

 

View Post_Ninjax_, on Jan 20 2016 - 19:01, said:

 

 

You do realize that the game mechanics are different there right? If a MBT exposes its sides you can shoot that and penetrate them. You probably are still playing AW like WoTs but they are 2 different games. MBT have strong frontal armor but their sides and rear armor are extremely weak and there won't be any [edited]auto bouncing you can penetrate them.

 

 

Except for overwhelming numbers of people still complaining about the t90ms


Edited by shadowhazcookie, Jan 20 2016 - 19:14.


WarStore #310 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 19:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 39528 battles
  • 13,516
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View Postshadowhazcookie, on Jan 20 2016 - 18:13, said:

 

Mfw finding a game boring because it takes longer to find a pvp queue than it does to give birth.

 

Mfw the upgrade system is basically some inbred spawn of WT's tech tree and WoT's tech tree.

 

 

Except for overwhelming numbers of people still complaining about the t90ms

 

Which received an unintended buff. Where else did I see that? Oh, right. T110E5



Deputy276 #311 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 19:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 19942 battles
  • 5,775
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostWarStore, on Jan 20 2016 - 06:55, said:

Weird. They don't have XVM there, and it seems everything is XVM`s fault here. 

 

They recently allowed the posting of stats like they have on this forum. It's an option. So far no stat shaming of any consequence going on there. Most of the problems come from refugees from WOT that go over there and start asking for buffs and nerfs as their first post. Old, bad habits die hard.

pepe_trueno #312 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 19:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 41451 battles
  • 6,386
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostWarStore, on Jan 20 2016 - 19:08, said:

 

Starting from from tier 7. Until then, TDs eat MBT's for breakfast.

But it is not a matter of MBTs being OP, but other classes being inferior even to their own predecessors. ERC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other TD that comes after it.

 

while its true tanks dont see much of an improvment, the biggets issue with MBTS is they just gave them the whole package. they have nearly inmune front armor and the sides are not weak at all, they olso have very strong guns, good view range and are surprisingly mobile for the maps.

 

AW did a few good things like frontal armor being strong and with no easy frontal weakspots, arty doing little but consistent damage, all amunitions having real pros and cons and overall reduction of luck factor.

but they olso screw it in things like class balance where MBT have the whole package of armor, firepower and good mobility while tds have pretty much nothing or making missiles way to abundant.

 

all in all AW got the mechanics (acuracy, spoting, penetration) more or less right but they blow it with the balance between classes.

 



Deputy276 #313 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 19:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 19942 battles
  • 5,775
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View Postteamoldmill, on Jan 20 2016 - 07:25, said:

 

True, but nowhere near the boring factor of AW. Imagine if Tier 6 through 10 was Tiger II, Tiger II A, Tiger II B, Tiger II C, Tiger II D...... I dunno, had no interest in just looking at the lines. Game play was fine, but no desire to grind out a tank because it has a different letter in its name and not really much else.

 

Thing is, the different tanks in that other place ARE actually different. For instance, the tier 5 T-72Ural is VERY different from the tier 6 T-72A. Not just different names. Different abilities like missile launching. 

Deputy276 #314 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 19:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 19942 battles
  • 5,775
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View Post9999bc, on Jan 20 2016 - 11:57, said:

AW is really not the answer to WOT suggest by so many people. It has even more balance issues. The biggest is OP MBT; other vehicles just can't compete with MBT in AW. Your only hope to fight against a MBT is by driving a MBT yourself or has arty on your side.
 

 

LOL...there's a reason why they are called MAIN Battle Tank. :teethhappy:

WarStore #315 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 19:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 39528 battles
  • 13,516
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View Postpepe_trueno, on Jan 20 2016 - 18:28, said:

 

while its true tanks dont see much of an improvment, the biggets issue with MBTS is they just gave them the whole package. they have nearly inmune front armor and the sides are not weak at all, they olso have very strong guns, good view range and are surprisingly mobile for the maps.

 

AW did a few good things like frontal armor being strong and with no easy frontal weakspots, arty doing little but consistent damage, all amunitions having real pros and cons and overall reduction of luck factor.

but they olso screw it in things like class balance where MBT have the whole package of armor, firepower and good mobility while tds have pretty much nothing or making missiles way to abundant.

 

all in all AW got the mechanics (acuracy, spoting, penetration) more or less right but they blow it with the balance between classes.

 

 

Some MBT's have strong side armor, which still have weakspots if the driver just tries to angle the tank a little bit. The Challenger I is the one that comes to mind. The rest has garbage side armor. Abrams can't even think of angling. Leopard seems to have a bit stronger side armor, but can't be relied upon.

When I play top tier TDs, the things that bothers me is not MBT having strong armor, but the fact that TDs becomes inferior to their predecessors. Until tier 5, all TDs have awesome camo and view range. You can take flank shots at MBT all day without having to worry about being spotted. Once you get the Centauro, the camo is garbage and the view range is worse. That is not a problem with MBT. 

Class balance is something hard to achieve. WoT still hasn't reached it (and frankly, I've lost all hope, as the devs clearly don't know what they are doing), so you can't expect another game to reach it during beta.

 

Block Quote

 They recently allowed the posting of stats like they have on this forum. It's an option. So far no stat shaming of any consequence going on there. Most of the problems come from refugees from WOT that go over there and start asking for buffs and nerfs as their first post. Old, bad habits die hard. 

 

 

I don't see the problem with people wanting a more balanced game. 

If you look at the post I had quoted, the guy is talking about in-game, not forums. XVM is a game thing.



JA_Pinkerton #316 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 19:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 32029 battles
  • 4,449
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

View PostDeputy276, on Jan 20 2016 - 01:50, said:

 

Well I have some bad news for you. WOT isn't in all that great a shape either. The players numbers on the NA server are dropping WAY down. They only go up on school holidays or during Summer vacation. People are tired of crappy RNG, MM, and other problems that have plagued WOT since it's inception. New players are discouraged playing the same crappy maps over and over. And experienced players are tired of corridor maps and good maps disappearing with no replacements being made. Or "new" maps like Pilsen, which is just a ripoff of 3 existing maps. WOT may still be here, but it's not a healthy game by any stretch. :(

 

By my count, WoT NA server population took a drop from 2013 to 2014 of about 25%.  That said, server population seems to be stable since then.

ArtofTanks #317 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 20:16

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 14113 battles
  • 571
  • Member since:
    09-10-2014
AW feels like a cheap knock-off to me.  The game itself is pretty much a clone and the modern tanks feel odd fighting each other so close up.  I love Obsidian games but AW feels more like someone else made it and they stamped a name on it.  I've really only found one use for it and that is to keep it on hard drive for when my 9 yr old nephew comes over wanting to play "tanks."  He's happy playing it and I get to keep him off my wot account.

Deputy276 #318 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 20:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 19942 battles
  • 5,775
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostJA_Pinkerton, on Jan 20 2016 - 12:56, said:

 

By my count, WoT NA server population took a drop from 2013 to 2014 of about 25%.  That said, server population seems to be stable since then.

 

I play mainly in the evening. All I know is the NA server West is almost dead after 10PM. Everyone has to play East to get a game with halfway decent MM. Be careful about "counts". Many people stay connected even when they aren't playing the game.So "online" counts become pretty meaningless.

HazardDrake #319 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 20:53

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9291 battles
  • 2,083
  • Member since:
    09-18-2014

View PostDeputy276, on Jan 20 2016 - 20:26, said:

 

I play mainly in the evening. All I know is the NA server West is almost dead after 10PM. Everyone has to play East to get a game with halfway decent MM. Be careful about "counts". Many people stay connected even when they aren't playing the game.So "online" counts become pretty meaningless.

Part of the "problem" is that you have a bunch of people like me, who used to play just tanks, who now spend most of their time over in Warships. I didn't mostly stop playing tanks because I am sick of it, I moved over to warships because I like warships better than tanks right now.

 

I can easily see that taking a couple thousand people off of the NA servers.



WarStore #320 Posted Jan 20 2016 - 21:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 39528 battles
  • 13,516
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostHazardDrake, on Jan 20 2016 - 19:53, said:

Part of the "problem" is that you have a bunch of people like me, who used to play just tanks, who now spend most of their time over in Warships. I didn't mostly stop playing tanks because I am sick of it, I moved over to warships because I like warships better than tanks right now.

 

I can easily see that taking a couple thousand people off of the NA servers.

 

My brother was in Warships, but then I found him something much better. Now he is completely addicted to the new game.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users