Jump to content


How did Armored Warfare die again?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

bfp4f360 #1 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 00:53

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15017 battles
  • 598
  • [LOAD] LOAD
  • Member since:
    06-27-2012
Was it when they fired OE or wat? Ik its dead and all, but how tho

Ironmike11B #2 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 01:06

    Captain

  • Players
  • 26981 battles
  • 1,667
  • [BOND] BOND
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013
When Obsidian gave up.

Scorpiany #3 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 01:12

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 29709 battles
  • 10,875
  • [N1NJA] N1NJA
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013

The problem with Armored Warfare was that most people flocked to the PvE battles; which left PvP badly undermanned. With so few people playing PvP, when people did try to play it, they were quickly disappointed. Once PvE gets old and they want to play PvP, they can't because nobody plays PvP. And thus, the game's population declined.

 

Kind of disappointing; WoT needed some competition to keep WG in check.



NoEvidenceNoProblem #4 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 01:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 47373 battles
  • 2,490
  • [RUSHB] RUSHB
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012

They promised to make a better version of WoT with no arty. They failed on making a game good enough to get a lot of players to change games. For some reason they thought if they add arty it would make people want to play the game, which made a lot of people quit actually.



Viper69 #5 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 01:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 7428 battles
  • 3,995
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
The problem is this. You can't pull people away from a game they have a lot of time/money invested in unless it's a awesome game. The problem is that AW was not an awesome game, it was a knockoff and a poorly done one. So people who have a vested interest in WoT give AW a try and realize it's not well done and go back to the game they have time invested in. It's the same reason people still play WoW. There isn't a new game that doesn't it good enough to get people to throw away what they worked for.

Vextron #6 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 02:05

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21107 battles
  • 162
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

View Postmereelskirata, on Jul 03 2017 - 19:13, said:

They promised to make a better version of WoT with no arty. They failed on making a game good enough to get a lot of players to change games. For some reason they thought if they add arty it would make people want to play the game, which made a lot of people quit actually.

 

This is why I quit AW, and why I try to spend as little as possible on WoT

Nonamanadus #7 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 03:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 23851 battles
  • 3,057
  • [HBG] HBG
  • Member since:
    02-02-2013
The look and feel of AW was kinda like a wanna be WOT game but fell short of expectation, felt to much like a SIM than an arcade game. WOT leans more to the arcade spectrum than the SIM (but not excessively).

Worland #8 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 03:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 16506 battles
  • 4,085
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
I played it for quite a while. Almost entirely WoT players there. Brought their whining and complaining with them. Arty complaints 10X worse than here. Arty is pretty much removed from the game now.  

What really killed AW was that everyone flocked to the PvE. That got boring pretty quick. Even toxic. Platoons of clan mates would expect everyone else to spot for them, so they could rack up the damage and kills. Berate you in chat if you didn't do what they wanted. Sound familiar?

Jump over to PvP and wait 5+ minutes for a battle. Get stomped by platoons in OP premium tanks. Yeah.... back to PvE.

oldewolfe #9 Posted Jul 05 2017 - 22:54

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 10798 battles
  • 1,710
  • [1STBN] 1STBN
  • Member since:
    11-08-2014

Never did get to try it, Comp went South before I could....       WT was OK for somethings, but have yet to Reinatsll it after getting the Comp back up and running due to a Lack of Space, 120Gb SSF's don't hold a lot....       lol

 

Now that the Comp's acting up again, won't be doing WoT either until I get it figured out....



SpectreHD #10 Posted Jul 06 2017 - 04:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16318 battles
  • 15,452
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

From my view, it was publisher, mail.RU that caused it to die in the West with some blame on the playerbase itself.

 

First off, the mail.ru just wanted a WoT clone with modern tanks because it became apparent that all mail.ru ever wanted was just a piece of the WoT pie monopoly. Nothing more, nothing less. As such, they inhibit the implementation of Western ideals in game design. 

 

Then there is the playerbase who also just wanted a WoT clone. This is in terms of the matchmaking. Some vocal minorities were crying how skill team balancing was so heavily punishing them all the while claiming Random is the best. The irony is that they still wanted to platoon i.e. making things less "random". When argued that this makes things harder for solo players, y'know, the majority of the players. Instead solo players were told to be not social inept and make friends.

 

What the elitist don't realise it is the solo players that make up the majority of players. So not putting in provisions to make solo players' quality of life better meant they left. Even better when the devs decide to let the matchmaker make smaller teams for PVP. The justification for it is that if players in PVP can get matches sooner, then they are likely to continue playing PVP which would then have more players playing PVP so that PVP can get a healthy player pool. Of course for some reason, the forums did not like that. One argument brought up is that platoons would mess things up. Gee.... who would have thunk platoons mess up "random" matchmaking. But of course, screw the solo players. They are just social inept players.

 

In the end what the elitists failed to grasp is that "random" MM means random players. End of story. It doesn't mean making a balanced team should be left to chance. When the MM already balances vehicle class, platoons and tier spread, why not balance the players too? Pretty much every other successful match based online game has some sort of system to balance the players either through  an ELO, tier or other rating system.

 

But the players that left WoT for AW wants to keep the "random" MM system that many WoT players constantly complain about.

 

In the end though, the final nail for AW was mail.ru dismissal of Obsidian Entertainment because having AW be somewhat successful in Russia was all it really wanted.


Edited by SpectreHD, Jul 06 2017 - 04:29.


120mm_he #11 Posted Jul 06 2017 - 05:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 13617 battles
  • 15,217
  • [PBS] PBS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011
Didn't jynxx hop over to aw? Might be something to the name after all. :bajan:

tod914 #12 Posted Jul 06 2017 - 05:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 49276 battles
  • 1,724
  • [RDNKS] RDNKS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013
I didn't care for the graphics.  Looked cartooney.  However, my shots hit where I aimed and I didn't have streaks of getting hosed by RNG or ping spikes effecting game play.  I also prefer the WW2 era tanks to modern.  Wasn't too bad.  Just didn't want to invest the time learning it.  Didn't play it enough to have an opinion on the community.

Edited by tod914, Jul 06 2017 - 05:43.


SpectreHD #13 Posted Jul 06 2017 - 06:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16318 battles
  • 15,452
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View Posttod914, on Jul 06 2017 - 12:42, said:

I didn't care for the graphics.  Looked cartooney.  However, my shots hit where I aimed and I didn't have streaks of getting hosed by RNG or ping spikes effecting game play.  I also prefer the WW2 era tanks to modern.  Wasn't too bad.  Just didn't want to invest the time learning it.  Didn't play it enough to have an opinion on the community.

 

Well, the RNG there is either 15% or 10%. Can't remember. It allowed skill to be a major player in that game. No RNG that decided that gopher in front of the enemy needed to die.

joshww2legoguy #14 Posted Jul 08 2017 - 00:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 12530 battles
  • 3,391
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    12-30-2013
Gameplay was Horrid like this game.

SpitYoYoMafia #15 Posted Jul 08 2017 - 05:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 17652 battles
  • 12,406
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012
arty and lack of a playerbase

SpitYoYoMafia #16 Posted Jul 08 2017 - 05:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 17652 battles
  • 12,406
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012

View PostSpectreHD, on Jul 05 2017 - 21:41, said:

 

Well, the RNG there is either 15% or 10%. Can't remember. It allowed skill to be a major player in that game. No RNG that decided that gopher in front of the enemy needed to die.

 

yea the longer you aimed the more accurate you were which rewarded skill and patience but snap shots and shots on the move were horribly inaccurate as they should be

Midna1 #17 Posted Jul 08 2017 - 06:11

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 24734 battles
  • 99
  • [BOC] BOC
  • Member since:
    08-03-2012
i still play it and i enjoy it, but i do have to agree with OP that platooned clanmates in pve are really toxic. 

uberdice #18 Posted Jul 08 2017 - 22:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 22549 battles
  • 9,475
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012

Like Scorp said, the PVP player base died because the game had to share the population with its own PVE mode.

 

Add to that the fact that a lot of the population were ex-WoT players who were salty about the fact that they were terrible at PVP to begin with, so naturally they'd flock to PVE... because AW's PVP came out of the box almost mechanically identical to WoT's PVP with only a couple of bells and whistles added, like tighter RNG, auto 6th sense and eagle eye, and real ammo differences. While these things change the gameplay slightly, the core experience remained about trading hitpoints with each other in a single-death PVP format. The problems and qualities inherent in this format, for the average player, do not change just because you alter the ways damage is applied.

 

AW, like WoT, was about:

- putting your tank in a position where you could do damage without taking as much in return

- focusing down enemy tanks to gain numerical advantage

- rolling up one flank and then flexing around the map to support your team before they run out of hitpoints

- using rewards from your battles to upgrade your tank so that you could grind some more to upgrade your tank again, and so on

 

It was on its deathbed the minute people realised, consciously or no, that it was basically the same PVP game, with only superficial differences.



RaiderSSG #19 Posted Jul 09 2017 - 01:04

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13170 battles
  • 117
  • [PANE] PANE
  • Member since:
    01-20-2013
I have played AW for a while, enough to get to tier 8, i guess, then PvP died, and PvE was boring, so thus, i uninstalled it. WoT has a bigger player Base, and WT bans people for pointing out bugs and errors within their game.

8bit_Gamer #20 Posted Jul 09 2017 - 01:28

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13912 battles
  • 659
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostViper69, on Jul 04 2017 - 00:19, said:

The problem is this. You can't pull people away from a game they have a lot of time/money invested in unless it's a awesome game. The problem is that AW was not an awesome game, it was a knockoff and a poorly done one. So people who have a vested interest in WoT give AW a try and realize it's not well done and go back to the game they have time invested in. It's the same reason people still play WoW. There isn't a new game that doesn't it good enough to get people to throw away what they worked for.

 

Actually....Obsidian was trying, and succeeding in many ways, to make a different game. The base each player had to customize and upgrade and how the commanders worked are two examples off the top of my head. The problem was that the company funding the project wanted a WoT clone but with modern tanks.

 

They , I forget the name, eventually took Obsidian off the project for NOT making a WoT clone.

 

Also AW removed arty from PvP play quite a while ago. It has only been allowed in PvE for some time.

 

As previously stated...PvE killed AW, as well as the pay master pulling Obsidians strings.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users