Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Toxn

WoT v WT effort-thread

Recommended Posts

I've been having a think here, and have come to the conclusion that historicity rather than realism may be the most problematic factor.

As an example, think of how much better WoWP would have been if, instead of real-world designs it had used the same class approach (fighters, GA, heavies and so on) on clean-sheet designs inspired by real aircraft.

It could be perfectly realistic (use X-plane or something to model flight characteristics and keep the old weapon/damage model) without having the baggage the real aircraft bring along. Plus, balance becomes the infinitely easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I have recently come into a windfall of free exp, how should I spend it? Here are the tanks within my reach at the moment:
 

M41/T49
T54E1
Cent 7/1
Jdgpanther II
Ferdinand
Leopard PT A
E-50
AMX-50-100
T-54 Lt
Obj 416
Type 61

I am primarily a light/medium driver, as that's what I enjoy best. However, I'm always open to new experiences, so that doesn't really lock me out of things I don't specialize in.

Also note, I have no interest in tier 10 tanks, so do not take that into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey guys, I have recently come into a windfall of free exp, how should I spend it? Here are the tanks within my reach at the moment:

 

M41/T49
T54E1
Cent 7/1
Jdgpanther II
Ferdinand
Leopard PT A
E-50
AMX-50-100
T-54 Lt
Obj 416
Type 61

I am primarily a light/medium driver, as that's what I enjoy best. However, I'm always open to new experiences, so that doesn't really lock me out of things I don't specialize in.

Also note, I have no interest in tier 10 tanks, so do not take that into account.

 

 

I have the 50-100, M41/T49, Cent &/1 and E50.  I don't like the 50-100, the Cent is ok, the US lights are a riot and the E50 seems cool, plus if you like ramming stuff, it's nice. 

I haven’t player any of them much, since I don’t dig on the higher tier stuff much, but of them the T49 is the most fun so far, the derp gun on it is just too funny.

Do you have the LTTB, it’s kinda like the T-50-2s long lost cousin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go for the Bulldog first, I guess. I'll probably have exp left over, and then I guess we'll see where I dump that.

ED: Nabbed the Bulldog; I have the ability now to research but not upgrade the 416. That does seem like the most interesting one on my list. Pancake tonk!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been having a think here, and have come to the conclusion that historicity rather than realism may be the most problematic factor.

As an example, think of how much better WoWP would have been if, instead of real-world designs it had used the same class approach (fighters, GA, heavies and so on) on clean-sheet designs inspired by real aircraft.

It could be perfectly realistic (use X-plane or something to model flight characteristics and keep the old weapon/damage model) without having the baggage the real aircraft bring along. Plus, balance becomes the infinitely easier.

 

Historical balance is the least of WoWP's issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, WoT/WoW vs WT/WTGF...

 

I know it's been hashed out before, but I'd kind of like to discuss it from a design/play perspective instead a whine/wish-fulfilment fantasy one (background reading).

 

 

For my money, WT is enjoyable but commits some of the cardinal sins of the Free-to-play/pay-to-win model. There is an obscene level of grinding, along with ridiculous advantages for the lucky few who can afford to sink a fortune into it. Don't even get me started on premium vehicles.

 

On the other hand; it's hella pretty, realistic/simulation battles are my thing and the pacing is slow enough so that my ridiculous lag doesn't make me too uncompetitive.

 

WoT, on the other hand, is a more polished online game; with better balance (yes really) and more tactical play than 'point at thing, click button'. Additionally, I feel that WoT is the better model for free-to-play: less pandering to whales and less obvious money-sinks means that the player base is likely to remain bigger and more active than WT.

 

I'd value your thoughts here, on the strict basis that this doesn't generate into another whine/gloat thread.

Having played both for a long period of time, I have to disagree with many of your points.

The grind in WT is much shorter than the grind in WoT, especially considering that you can use any vehicle in the game to grind for another, making it so you aren't forced to spend money on frustration past a roadblock vehicle as you can just play another one.

The premium account is worth for for its money in WT too and it has better priced premiums IMO along with being able to convert your favorite vehicles into premium vehicles. Even premium vehicles are actually pretty well balanced, although usually re-skins of other vehicles.

WoT has better balance due to several factors, more variables to balance with and more statistics of each vehicle, partially due to being unable to skip any in the grind.

 

 

I've only played Wart Chunder in the arcade scenario. Whether it's planes or tanks, the games feel like you're wandering around aimlessly and whether the game is won or lost is completely random and outside of your control.

Planes lelcade is a superior version of WoWP, but WoWP is utter shit anyway.

Playing tanks lelcade isn't even playing War Thunder. It's like playing World of Tanks, except without the balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to post Rossmum's summary of it, though keep in mind this is from May of last year so alot of changes have happened to both games since.

 

 

Gaijin have finally rolled out the ground forces element of War Thunder, and for the past few days, I've been playing it rather a lot. It's only early days yet, but having also been a World of Tanks player since the early stages of closed beta, I figured I may as well pass comment on how the games compare and some thoughts on their communities and philosophies.

I remember how WoT was when it first came out of beta - unpolished, but captivating. Gaijin seem to have gone the opposite route with a very visually impressive game that has little substance so far. Allow me to elaborate before the hordes of War Thunder fans (including a significant number of players who found World of Tanks to be "rigged" against them, in other words sufferers of severe manifestations of the Dunning-Kruger effect) tear me apart.

On release, WoT was running on a rather dated and not particularly impressive engine. It still is, but Wargaming have since overhauled BigWorld with fairly impressive results. Back then, however, the game didn't look immensely impressive. It was clear a lot of effort had been put into getting the tanks to look right, as they were lovingly detailed, but graphically the game was lagging behind the curve while running quite poorly for it.

From the very earliest days of beta, War Thunder has looked quite impressive, Gaijin having taken the existing engine from Il-2 Birds of Prey along with many existing art assets (and probably more than a little of the code). There is a very important caveat here though, which is that while the game is graphically impressive and boasts many beautiful vistas, several maps have prominently jaggy areas that look more like they belong in the previous decade than a fairly recent title.

More importantly, the tanks themselves are one place where Gaijin have the technical means but not the artistic ones: I can say without reservation that Wargaming's recently-overhauled tanks look far better, both from an artistic and a historical standpoint. Wargaming have gone to the trouble of actually consulting historians to weather the tanks in a realistic fashion, while Gaijin have taken the classic approach of "eh, just throw mud at it and scratch all the paint off of all the hard edges". Having seen a lot of tanks, I know which I am giving points to.

With the above said, War Thunder does immerse you more in the environment by forcing a much closer viewpoint to the tank. A lot of WoT players, myself included, spend most of their time zoomed out far enough to miss the smaller nuances of the scenery (which, I should note, Wargaming do quite a nice job on themselves). War Thunder, in general, has been trying for immersion. I wish I could say it worked out for them, but, well... I wouldn't be writing this if it had.

There is a lot of ground to cover here, but I'll start with the most basic: control. WoT controls are simple enough, your tank does exactly what you tell it to and handles more or less like a car. Wargaming handwave this for the player's benefit - you have a driver after all, you're just telling him where to go. This is part of WoT's much more friendly, simplified approach - it takes the historical specifications of tanks into account and offers some pretty deep information for players to work with, but it simplifies the tanks themselves to a more rational system of hitpoints, RNG rolls, and abstracted values. Incidentally, this approach works very well for tanks but horribly for planes, which I would venture is a major part of the reason World of Warplanes hasn't been doing very well.

Wargaming have indicated that the tanks' handling will be adjusted in the near future, with actual gears, suspensions, and proper traction implemented. However, these will still be handled by the ingame driver, and so it is likely little will change other than pleasant visual feedback as you drive your tank around. I'm unaware of any plans with regards to steering, but the implementation of realistic steering in the game - particularly for the largely clutch-and-brake WWII-era tanks it features - would seriously complicate driving, and so I expect they will omit it. Similarly I doubt Wargaming intend on making gear changes too intrusive, as being able to use the arcade agility of the tanks in the game is a major factor in how players actually battle.

War Thunder, in stark contrast, has gone all-out with the realistic handling... or at least, with their interpretation of it. Tanks lurch about constantly, getting up to speed can be quite a lengthy process, and heaven forbid you need to suddenly stop and reverse. In that regard, then, they have achieved a goal of immersive and realistic handling. Steering on the other hand leaves a lot to be desired, with most tanks being reluctant to turn at all within certain speed ranges. The actual process of turning the tank ingame neither simulates realistic mechanics nor smooth gameplay, and it's not uncommon for it to glitch out entirely and force your tank to do something you didn't want it to. Gaijin have players spending more time fighting their tank than fighting the enemy (incidentally, something Wargaming have openly stated they intend to avoid), and it can be incredibly frustrating.

Shooting, too, is affected. World of Tanks players are used to systems of hitpoints, alpha strike, DPM, and other familiar terms to many gamers. Critical hits exist in War Thunder as they do in WoT, but they're... different. This is my biggest problem with the game, actually - it wants to be realistic, but it often takes five or more penetrating shots to finally knock out an enemy tank regardless of what you hit, and being on the receiving end of incoming fire is unpleasant beyond words as every hit cripples your tank in some new or exciting way. Occasionally, though, it only takes one despite doing nothing differently from the previous attempts. There are no repair kits or medkits in War Thunder. Damage is repaired over time (if at all), with even basic repairs taking over a minute. Wounded crew cannot be healed or replaced, so losing a gunner effectively puts you out of the game. In general, the game punishes aggressive play.

While most War Thunder matches result in players hiding in bushes and exchanging fire at extreme ranges or rushing to their deaths, the same events usually take longer to transpire in WoT. Players tend to be more aggressive, and will actively move into crucial positions even if it puts them at risk of being hit. In fact, the most oft-complained about things in the game are those which punish that aggressive play, such as high-alpha tank destroyers, autoloaders, and artillery.

The biggest difference between the two seems to be the mindset of their players. I will state quite surely that World of Tanks players are far more competitive on the whole, with those of us who are the most prone to such behaviour using mods that sacrifice that same immersion that Gaijin are looking to foster in their own game. I still have grass turned on because I like the visuals, but many turn it off. I have gun recoil turned off, as well as the tank sight rocking from acceleration. Many turn off shadows and particle effects, though I do not.

The average War Thunder tanker, in stark contrast, displays little interest in anything at all, much less winning matches and building a name for themselves. By and large, they seem quite content to putter about the field paying little attention to the map, the objectives, or tanks from either team as they enjoy being immersed in their little world where they're driving a little tank about the wilderness. That's okay, we all need something like that from time to time. However, there are games that do that kind of thing a lot better, such as Red Orchestra or any given tank sim.

Ultimately, that's War Thunder's biggest problem. It wants all the immersion of a simulator, but all the casualness of an arcadey free-to-play game. Wargaming found a happy medium, and ended up propelling themselves into the forefront of online gaming developers. Gaijin, meanwhile, have produced a game where all the people who quit WoT over spotting mechanics¹, RNG², and artillery³ will find the very same things they left in just as much abundance, except this time covered in a thin veneer of "realism".

1. War Thunder features some form of spotting mechanics in all game modes, where tanks will physically disappear from the player's view. World of Tanks uses a similar, server-governed system to prevent cheating, a system which is often considered very frustrating to new or unaware players and forms the basis for most complaints of "unfair" gameplay or "hacking". At one point in War Thunder I had an enemy tank drive behind a rock only a few tens of metres away and it disappeared until I drove fully around the rock - at first I thought this was only in the 'arcade' mode but it later happened again in a 'simulator battle'.

2. See paragraph regarding critical damage. Critical hits and kills feel very arbitrary in War Thunder, while in World of Tanks the RNG plays a much lesser role.

3. All light and medium tanks in War Thunder can unlock the ability to call down an accurate artillery barrage at any point of the map that can be seen line-of-sight from a point about fifteen or twenty metres above their tank's turret, with a cooldown time of about a minute. The artillery has a fairly small splash radius per shell but a direct hit is capable of destroying a tank in one hit. Dispersion is random, so a player's chance of being destroyed by artillery is essentially luck more than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While most War Thunder matches result in players hiding in bushes and exchanging fire at extreme ranges or rushing to their deaths, the same events usually take longer to transpire in WoT. Players tend to be more aggressive, and will actively move into crucial positions even if it puts them at risk of being hit. In fact, the most oft-complained about things in the game are those which punish that aggressive play, such as high-alpha tank destroyers, autoloaders, and artillery.

 

I love Ross, but he is so obviously full of shit with this type of stuff. Play with him, and he will literally scream non-stop that WoT players are not being aggressive enough, and that they're hiding too much. He also wrote that after playing something like five matches in the first go of beta.

 

I prefer War Thunder because it's just less of a slog. The grind is much less of a pain. I don't start from scratch with a tank that requires 20 wins to get the tracks, 20 wins to get the turret, 30 wins for the next gun, and 40 wins for the top gun, then another hundred for the next tank. They have the booster system if you want some extra boons with or without premium. You're also not given the finger purely over a loss. You can do more damage than anyone on either teams in WoT, and get big bird for your trouble, but I've rarely felt cheated after a good performance during a loss in WT.

 

If I set up my gun just right and hit a guy where his ammo rack is, then I just destroyed that tank. In WoT, suddenly my 17 pdr. is only 1/15 shots needed to kill a tank. I can (and have been able to) kill tanks ranked well above me with a single-placed shot.  There's still a reward for being a good player without running into the issues of hard numbers. Maybe it's from hanging with hardcore CW spergs in WoT, but I am so freaking sick of numbers and counting. I just want to shoot a tank in the ammo rack or knock out his two drivers, and be done with it. I just find a system centering around the disabling parts of a tank to kill it or make it less effective to be more rewarding and open to different tactics. It also negates a lot of the balance issues that WoT has.

 

I don't touch Arcade battles, especially for ground. RB is good for planes, because it requires strategy and knowledge of what planes can do, and people can use different tactics based on if their planes are good for turning/energy/whatever. Ground just got better in RB because they recently took away markers. This lets you capitalize on offensive and defensive tactics, as you're not being lit up for the whole map to see while sneaking around to the enemy's side.

 

I do have complaints with WT. Extinguishers should not be an unlockable module. They should stop using win rate so much for balance decisions. They need to cut their Wehraboo fanbase (it's worse now than WoT's ever was). They need air starts for some planes in some events.

 

This is just from someone who prefers one game over another. I feel like with less free time lately, War Thunder has been the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have been playing WT more of late - when I play anything, that is. Usually RB ground and air.

 

I'm still a bit ambivalent about the planes, because damage is just so random - add in certain aircraft getting to feel the touch of the dev's favour and you start getting pretty grumpy about the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys missed the entire point of his comparison and are just fixating on some of the minor flaws, not realizing I said in context, he made this in may of last year.

 

Alot of the issues he points out are still very relevant.

 

Not trying to be rude or insulting, but it just doesn't feel like you guys are actually looking at that from an objective point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to be rude or insulting, but it just doesn't feel like you guys are actually looking at that from an objective point of view.

Heads up, I will be a happy fool during a debate until someone says the word "objectively" like it's some kind of trump card. I've known Ross for about 3 years now, and I've argued this same thing over and over again with him.

 

A lot of those things about how the tanks look better are his opinion. That's fine. The tank turning thing can be negated with manual control or by investing in driver skills. Him saying WT player base is more cowardly is hypocritical after the hours I've spent playing WoT with him and listening to him literally scream the entire time about how cowardly WoT players are. The issue of not knowing how to kill a tank was a very big problem acknowledged by the devs and resulted in kill cams and the "X Ray" key that give a better idea how the damage system works.

 

Re-reading this, it comes off as me being mad and short. Sorry if that's the case. I kind of just slammed this together, so if I come off as a jerk, it's entirely unintended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, so WT has copied WoT and split apart the T95 and T28, and not given the T28 the outer tracks. Only difference is the WT T28 is a premium

Yeah. Always thought that was pretty dumb. The only reason I could ever see doing that is that right after Devers asked for more more armor, they did the T95 name switch. I don't think they were ever tied to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just personal experience, but I've had more fun since almost inception with WTGF than with WoT. Maybe my good memories of WoT are fading and it's coloring my perceptions, but in the end I've found that while WoT is a good, almost MOBA game, WTGF, especially now that everything is combined arms, is the better product for me. One of the best things in WT is there is no need for "balance" to the obsessive degree it's needed in WoT, as I've run T1 gimmick builds (your lineup is considered a build and you can have multiple of them) into T4 matches - an M22 Locust is terrifyingly relevant even in late game due to being the smallest tank ingame with a still decent gun and high speed. Planes are fantastic equalizers, the module damage mechanics are better overall for reducing frustration while adding a different layer compared to WoT. The only time I've not had fun is when I've slipped back into WoT mode and been more concerned with hard grinding out a tank. Better players and better play is rewarded at a higher rate, and the closing of a close game is usually tense because only the best/luckiest are still fighting. I love the complete lack of enemy spotting, both for having to hunt them down and for the invisibility it grants me (see M22 Locust above).

 

If they added armored cars and infantry I'm not sure I'd play anything else. Caveat though, I only play realistic because arcade is ugh...special...and simulator is borked (and I have no joystick and would be an active hinderance to my team).

 

I dislike the expense associated with the crew, but not the model itself. I kind of dislike the huge loss in energy transfer when rotating compared to WoT, the lack of agility can be damning sometimes. I somewhat dislike getting instagibbed early on when making a bad move, but I've adjusted my builds to compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had hundreds - if not thousands - of these games where I do incredible amounts of damage and spot the entire enemy team, while your team crumbles about you, the reason you're getting such a great score isn't because you are necessarily the best player ever (although you are good Ulric) it's just that there's no one else on the team to compete with you in farming damage. If you kill 8, 9, 10 enemies in the match its because the rest of your team is terrible and unable to put a cursor on a red tank, wait for the circle to get small and press the mouse button. 

 

Having watched replays that guys post on General Discussion, a lot of times (not all) the guys who are doing great damage are the ones who lost the game because they camped to begin the match, aren't supporting a team's push, aren't using their tank's armor and hit points to absorb damage, are off on the wrong part of the map or whatever. 

 

With all that, I've come to the conclusion having played 98-99 percent of my games solo-pub, you are guaranteed to lose at least 1/3 of your matches. It's kind of like baseball. The issue is, one doesn't know which 1/3 of those matches they will lose so you have to play them all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Efficient damage farmers try to throw the game and miss basically, it's like Hitchhiker's guide on flight. Basically you throw the team under the bus to get damage and a chance for a hard carry which is great for stats, and then you try to hard carry.

 

Playing for WN8 is not playing to win.

 

And honestly the importance of stats uber alles totally ruined tanks for me. I just can't care that much about actually playing well every pub game, and it sounds like Faust's feeling is rooted in similar feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had hundreds - if not thousands - of these games where I do incredible amounts of damage and spot the entire enemy team, while your team crumbles about you, the reason you're getting such a great score isn't because you are necessarily the best player ever (although you are good Ulric) it's just that there's no one else on the team to compete with you in farming damage. If you kill 8, 9, 10 enemies in the match its because the rest of your team is terrible and unable to put a cursor on a red tank, wait for the circle to get small and press the mouse button. 

 

Having watched replays that guys post on General Discussion, a lot of times (not all) the guys who are doing great damage are the ones who lost the game because they camped to begin the match, aren't supporting a team's push, aren't using their tank's armor and hit points to absorb damage, are off on the wrong part of the map or whatever. 

 

With all that, I've come to the conclusion having played 98-99 percent of my games solo-pub, you are guaranteed to lose at least 1/3 of your matches. It's kind of like baseball. The issue is, one doesn't know which 1/3 of those matches they will lose so you have to play them all the same.

 

 

Well, that is the easiest way to farm damage and WN8, but ultimately that gets you nothing. I'm sure casual observers would accuse me of doing the same thing, because I tend to play rather reserved. But, there is a difference between playing reserved, and waiting for your team to die off so you can farm. The longer you survive, the more chances you have to win. So you have to find a good balance and understanding of when to be bold and punch peoples faces in, and when to shoot n' scoot.

 

Your last statement is why I stopped looking at XVM stats in matches. I didn't want some kind of stat prediction subconsciously effecting my gameplay. I wanted to make sure that I was playing every match to win, and not throwing a match away because the predicted win chance was too low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×