Armored Warfare Dev diary: Armor & Countermeasures
New Dev diary video of Armored Warfare just went live, this time they speak about the different types of armor and how they will implement it in the game:
So happy that the new stage of their alpha testing is up, been finding myself wishing to play the game between tests. Will be playing it in a couple hours once the servers go live!
Overall the first 3.5 minutes of the video are kinda redundant but the rest clears up some Q's i had on how the modern armour will work. Vid does show me though how much work the textures and effects still need though. Interesting though but still rather similar to wot...
Seeing the polygon numbers and resolution, AW is a bit better than WoT. Not by much. It's the environment however that's the real difference, not the tank models themselves.
No... WoT looks better at max settings than AW... AW might have the tech to look better but currently it does not. The tanks look so low res and bland. They alse don't move dinamically.
1. AW is not even close to being a finished game, usually graphic updates are added later on as in the case of WOT ( which looked like shite up until a couple of months ago. )
2. The track effects are probably just a graphical glitch, which is to be expected from a game which is under HEAVY development ( report it and it will be fixed). WOT has a couple of glitches as well; (Spinning tanks, ghost shells) which impact game-play much more. Storm even stated in the above Q&A that they are not even thinking of fixing these in the near future.
3. "realistic" tank handling isn't even in WOT. If you want realism go play WT.
4. please elaborate what kind of depth you are looking for. The dynamic reactive Armour in AW looks similar to what WG was thinking of doing with HAVOK up until they scrapped the idea. (different interactive layers is kinda the actual definition of depth)
1. I was just making an observation and sharing my opinion based on those observations.
2. To me there's a difference between dynamic and realistic tank movement. WT for example has realistic tank movement (kinda), but it isn't very dynamic. WoT has hopelessly unrealistic handling, but it seems dynamic.
With depth, I meant the graphics. In AW the tanks seem less as part of the environment and the textures lack depth (I'm sure you get what I mean... I can't really explain it :)). As you said AW is unfinished but I don't think it's sensible to half arse things just to have to get back to them and rework them later... But I'm no game dev so who am I to judge...?
PS: I'm no WG propaganda goon but I sure wouldn't mind being on WG's payroll for posting comments on the Internet :)
The difference in graphical fidelity from the Armored Warfare alpha compared to World of Tanks is like comparing original Doom to Crysis 3 ;)
Everything in Armored Warfare looks better from the far higher polygon models of the vehicles to textures, lighting, weather effects such as rain/snow. Was playing the other day and the rain would actually create little globes of water on the sight as you were aiming in on the enmies. The graphics is beyond anything wargaming could ever achieve with the bigworld engine on world of tanks.
That is not to way the game is better but the graphics is far beyond what you will ever see in world of tanks.
"The difference in graphical fidelity from the Armored Warfare alpha compared to World of Tanks is like comparing original Doom to Crysis 3 ;)"
So... less the build in trailers and the one in alpha is EXTREMELY different, that is a lie. Sorry. There is a difference, but it is not big. And it aint on the tanks.
(Crysis 3 also is a SHIT game, DOOM is a CLASSIC of a gaming and is good even 20 years later... A good game with Crysis 3 level graphics is Metro Redux. Use that.)
" The graphics is beyond anything wargaming could ever achieve with the bigworld engine on world of tanks."
STALKER achieved things no other games have... on an engine from 2000. It is about talent at this point.
AW is just in alpha stage and graphics look good enough to release the game for me. As a wows alpha tester; i can easily say that ship graphics was like mud at the beginning but now its in reasonable shape.
From vids on utube, WOTs looks better than AW. WT is clearly last, its horrible. i have not played WT or AW. I am now in the beta for WOWS and its fantastic, very, very fun.
I would say the HD tanks in WOT holds up ok compared to Armored Warfare but that is less than 10% of the vehicles what you have to compare is the 90% that are SD models made 5-7 years ago and they look like piss. The WOT SD models are of such low quality the gun barrels are not even round ;)
Crysis 3 was obviously mentioned because of the graphics and not the gameplay..
In all honesty when playing Armored Warfare you have better texture resolution, better weather effect (as in it actually has weather effect something WOT does not even have), better light effect. Everything about Armored Warfare looks better as well it should for a game that is much more recent and using a much better graphical engine
Looking at highly compressed youtube videos to compare graphics is obviously pointless you have to play both games for extended time to have a clue what you are talking about.
"Crysis 3 was obviously mentioned because of the graphics and not the gameplay.."
I replaced it with a better game with just as good graphics.
"better light effect. Everything about Armored Warfare looks better as well it should for a game that is much more recent and using a much better graphical engine"
True. For now. It is always a question of money and goals. WG has a lot more money then Obisidian. If they were to higher some talented tech-priests at last... they would do wonders with the newest version of BigWorld.
"Looking at highly compressed youtube videos to compare graphics is obviously pointless you have to play both games for extended time to have a clue what you are talking about."
@Krister Did you even read and acknowledge all the things I wrote? Because if you would have you wouldn't have commented...
As I said, I wrote these things based on my observations and on my opinion. To me, WoT currently looks better. It also looks better on YT. Not only the graphics seem better to me but also the dynamicness of movement. Please re read my above comments for clarification since you clearly didn't read what I wrote....
@ApeWatchingTV I was not commenting on what you wrote but what Alexander was talking about. I will agree with you that the movement of tanks is off in early alpha tests but that nothing to do with graphics but is a motion physics thing. The full motion physics are probably not implemented or working the way the should in AW. Wargaming is still working on the correct motion physics in their game and that is what 5-6 year old game now ?
From a pure techincal perspective as it comes to graphics AW is far beyond World of Tanks as it obviously should be considering they are using a modern graphical engine and Wargaming is using bigworld engine something that was intended for simple mmo games.
Let me state again I am not saying the game is better I am saying the graphics are better as it bloody well should be.
I'm sure Wargaming if they switched to a modern graphical engine the talented artits they have could create wonders as we can already see on the detailed world of warhips ship models but they are highly constrained by having a mostly russian based (slightly older computer player base) and using bigworld engine an engine so bad it is still single core cpu based ;)
Hehe I guess we won't be able to agree on which game looks better since video game graphics are like art. Everyone has a different taste.
I kinda have a problem with taking things personal :P and in this case it wasn't even directed at me *facepalm*.
While WoT's engine is old, it's still kinda impressive what is being done with it. Any game really nowadays involves an amazing amount of coding and stuff. I don't think though that it makes sense for WG to rework WoT for a new engine taking years to do and also diverting resources away from content creation and other things.
Also, did you now WG originally intended to make a game with orks, elves, goblins and stuff and later changed their mind. They were then stuck with the engine as they had already acquired the rights for big world and a different engine wasn't in budget.
I think AW has passed the point of over-thinking their game.
They are introducing to much variation in ammo characteristics, vehicle roles/capabilities, armor packages etc. Just as with WoT, I don't think the vast majority of their target audience is going to take the time to study all of the games mechanics.
WoT is about as complex as I want in game that I play for relaxation. I've play realistic flight simulators that had 20 plus pages just to cover the operation of the flight computer. Let alone the rest of the systems. Looks like AW is heading in the same direction.
Now check Call of Duty. Look at how many types of airstrikes, weapon stats, types of weapon, perks, etc...there are.
It's not a very subtle game, but it is about as mainstream as it's going to get, and it's not overly complex for the average player.
WoT is much, much simpler than CoD. You can cry "weakspots an angling!!!" all you want, but it always boils down to the same weakspots and angling is always the same when you figure out there are only really 4 types of armored tanks (pike/egg nose or not, good side armor or not).
Juste because you want a braindead game doesn't mean others cna't enjoy a slightly more complex game. And even then, it's not really that hard.
Yeah, it has a lot more types of skills and perks than WoT. Sure the core concept it much simpler (point gun at man, pew pew).
Until proof of the contrary, WoT doesn't have active perks, a flurry of active skills. WoT has 4 types of ammo total, CoD has 4 different types of grenades, nevermind all the other pieces of equipment. Honestly, you're down playing its complexity. It feels dumb and intuative because it's made to do that. Ultimately, it's much more complex than WoT, yes.
Maybe you should think about it rather then jump to personnal attacks.
Put a new WoT player in a Tier X battle and they wont last one minute. Same can't be said of CoD. It is MUCH more difficult to be to be a competent WoT driver than a CoD shooter.
Look at the numbers of people who rage quit WoT before their 200th battle. They cite 'invisible tanks', no armor, ammo wont pen, etc.
These are the complaints of point-n-shoot players who didn't learn the games mechanics. Didn't learn the mechanics of camo, sighting, armor angling, flanking etc.
I play chess online. It is a tiny market. I personally think AW is going to have a similar share.
You guys were talking about two different things: Game feature complexity : CoD is more complex (complex in many different actions which has different mechanics). However, WoT also has rich subtle varieties in form of gazillion different tanks to play.
In case of Game Rule Mechancis, however, WoT is more complex, due to serverside calculation and vision system. Complex =/= Good, though.
I for one, can't wait for this game to come out. I have sunk waaaaaayyyy to much into WoT, and want something new that actually allows player to utilize their tanks armor.. WoT is nothing more then premium ammo slinging anymore, and makes all tanks armor irrelevant.. I'll take the time to study the mechanics, unlike 95% of the WoT community..
but regardless, there will be about 95% of the AW community that doesn't study the mechanics either. it looks like the people who take the time to learn, will actually be rewarded, and be able to play a game, and utilize their skill.. not have everything predetermined by WG and their garbage MM system, and a RNG system that allows total shitlords to pen whatever they shoot, no matter where they shoot at.
Couldn't agree more. The whole problem is the gold slinging. I even dread taking out my IS7 now because a Leopard is sitting behind throwing gold at me while I am trying to shield my team from a freaking E100. Not to mention the repairs are insanely expensive and I have to grind all the branches just so I can get the types of tanks that really suit my playstyle. Just don't have that kiddy time on my hands and this game is one large grindfest. I feel like I have reached my WOT saturation point. I had a 53% win rate but now I am so bored and sick of it that it feels like my skill set is dipping slowly.
I agree, WOTs has good MM and i like RNG. Theres to many brainless noobs esp on NA Server, but i like when they on enemy team!, lol. I do think WG needs pen nerf soon and esp TDs and alpha nerf.
The video looks very good, as you would expect. I am a WoT player who enjoys that game quite a bit. I tried WT and it fell flat for me. I look forward to giving AW a spin but I'm not going to assume much about it until I can actually try it out. At the very least some competition for WoT might be good for us tank players.
but isnt it nice u will be able to play a variety of different online games? WOT, AW and WT just for tanks, WoWS and dreadnaught just for the warship feeling and perhaps a battlefield with more pronouncing the metal and dont forget Mechwarrior and Hawken.
Aplied two years ago for Alpha and still no invite. Friends aplied two weeks ago and got in lol...
ReplyDeleteOh damn Loni! Cant promise anything but will try to get keys as soon as possible.
DeleteMe too.
DeleteApplied as soon as it was announced. Have 3 different PCs. A beta tester for WoT, alpha tester for WoWP and WoWS and Survarium (through contest :P)...
Annoyed, a person I know is in and he applied 3 weeks ago...
Try to apply again with a different email, not wanting to flood their system but it is probably picking newer entries.
Delete"been finding myself wishing to play the game between tests. "
Delete=>
"been finding myself wishing to play the game"
Fixed that for you <.<
"Try to apply again with a different email, not wanting to flood their system but it is probably picking newer entries."
DeleteDoes this mean a NEW account :( ?
Also applied when news first broke 2 years ago and received jack sh*t so far in terms of invite.
DeleteLonigus, didn't you just write on the forums that you DID receive an invite? :)
Delete@Frank Davis
DeleteI need to make a new account with a new email to attempt again?
I think we need to compose an other account and flood WT.
DeleteJesus, call this the AW alpha test channel.
DeleteI did recieve it like few hours after I wrote this :D
DeletePS: on a different newer mail (same like I have on the forum)
Delete"Armour in Armored Warfare is all about protacting your vehicle and taking as little damage as possible" - AW Dev, 2015
ReplyDeletePossible the most redundant and banal sentence i've heard all year... Nothing but bloat and filler *facepalm*
Overall the first 3.5 minutes of the video are kinda redundant but the rest clears up some Q's i had on how the modern armour will work.
DeleteVid does show me though how much work the textures and effects still need though. Interesting though but still rather similar to wot...
While the textures might not be at a crysis 3 level, they are still much better than the one on WoT's HD models. :)
Delete"While the textures might not be at a crysis 3 level, they are still much better than the one on WoT's HD models. :)"
DeleteNope :)
About equal.
Also, lol Crysis 3... use Metro as an example. At least it is a good game...
Seeing the polygon numbers and resolution, AW is a bit better than WoT. Not by much. It's the environment however that's the real difference, not the tank models themselves.
DeleteWhat are the polygon models and resolution in AW. Cause it does not look THAT impressive on screenshots.
DeleteNo... WoT looks better at max settings than AW... AW might have the tech to look better but currently it does not. The tanks look so low res and bland. They alse don't move dinamically.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlso, track movement doesn't seem to be in sync with the actual movement of the tank.
DeleteIn my oppinion the AW graphics lack depth
You must be a WG agent from the sound of things.
Delete1. AW is not even close to being a finished game, usually graphic updates are added later on as in the case of WOT ( which looked like shite up until a couple of months ago. )
2. The track effects are probably just a graphical glitch, which is to be expected from a game which is under HEAVY development ( report it and it will be fixed). WOT has a couple of glitches as well; (Spinning tanks, ghost shells) which impact game-play much more. Storm even stated in the above Q&A that they are not even thinking of fixing these in the near future.
3. "realistic" tank handling isn't even in WOT. If you want realism go play WT.
4. please elaborate what kind of depth you are looking for. The dynamic reactive Armour in AW looks similar to what WG was thinking of doing with HAVOK up until they scrapped the idea. (different interactive layers is kinda the actual definition of depth)
1. I was just making an observation and sharing my opinion based on those observations.
Delete2. To me there's a difference between dynamic and realistic tank movement. WT for example has realistic tank movement (kinda), but it isn't very dynamic. WoT has hopelessly unrealistic handling, but it seems dynamic.
With depth, I meant the graphics. In AW the tanks seem less as part of the environment and the textures lack depth (I'm sure you get what I mean... I can't really explain it :)). As you said AW is unfinished but I don't think it's sensible to half arse things just to have to get back to them and rework them later... But I'm no game dev so who am I to judge...?
PS: I'm no WG propaganda goon but I sure wouldn't mind being on WG's payroll for posting comments on the Internet :)
The difference in graphical fidelity from the Armored Warfare alpha compared to World of Tanks is like comparing original Doom to Crysis 3 ;)
DeleteEverything in Armored Warfare looks better from the far higher polygon models of the vehicles to textures, lighting, weather effects such as rain/snow. Was playing the other day and the rain would actually create little globes of water on the sight as you were aiming in on the enmies. The graphics is beyond anything wargaming could ever achieve with the bigworld engine on world of tanks.
That is not to way the game is better but the graphics is far beyond what you will ever see in world of tanks.
"The difference in graphical fidelity from the Armored Warfare alpha compared to World of Tanks is like comparing original Doom to Crysis 3 ;)"
DeleteSo... less the build in trailers and the one in alpha is EXTREMELY different, that is a lie.
Sorry. There is a difference, but it is not big. And it aint on the tanks.
(Crysis 3 also is a SHIT game, DOOM is a CLASSIC of a gaming and is good even 20 years later...
A good game with Crysis 3 level graphics is Metro Redux. Use that.)
" The graphics is beyond anything wargaming could ever achieve with the bigworld engine on world of tanks."
STALKER achieved things no other games have... on an engine from 2000. It is about talent at this point.
AW is just in alpha stage and graphics look good enough to release the game for me. As a wows alpha tester; i can easily say that ship graphics was like mud at the beginning but now its in reasonable shape.
DeleteFrom vids on utube, WOTs looks better than AW. WT is clearly last, its horrible. i have not played WT or AW. I am now in the beta for WOWS and its fantastic, very, very fun.
DeleteI would say the HD tanks in WOT holds up ok compared to Armored Warfare but that is less than 10% of the vehicles what you have to compare is the 90% that are SD models made 5-7 years ago and they look like piss. The WOT SD models are of such low quality the gun barrels are not even round ;)
DeleteCrysis 3 was obviously mentioned because of the graphics and not the gameplay..
In all honesty when playing Armored Warfare you have better texture resolution, better weather effect (as in it actually has weather effect something WOT does not even have), better light effect. Everything about Armored Warfare looks better as well it should for a game that is much more recent and using a much better graphical engine
Looking at highly compressed youtube videos to compare graphics is obviously pointless you have to play both games for extended time to have a clue what you are talking about.
"is less than 10% of the vehicles"
DeleteAnd AW currently HAS 10% of the vehicles of WoT.
"Crysis 3 was obviously mentioned because of the graphics and not the gameplay.."
I replaced it with a better game with just as good graphics.
"better light effect. Everything about Armored Warfare looks better as well it should for a game that is much more recent and using a much better graphical engine"
True. For now. It is always a question of money and goals. WG has a lot more money then Obisidian.
If they were to higher some talented tech-priests at last... they would do wonders with the newest version of BigWorld.
"Looking at highly compressed youtube videos to compare graphics is obviously pointless you have to play both games for extended time to have a clue what you are talking about."
I heard that defense on the Witcher 3 :P
@Krister Did you even read and acknowledge all the things I wrote? Because if you would have you wouldn't have commented...
DeleteAs I said, I wrote these things based on my observations and on my opinion. To me, WoT currently looks better. It also looks better on YT. Not only the graphics seem better to me but also the dynamicness of movement. Please re read my above comments for clarification since you clearly didn't read what I wrote....
@ApeWatchingTV I was not commenting on what you wrote but what Alexander was talking about. I will agree with you that the movement of tanks is off in early alpha tests but that nothing to do with graphics but is a motion physics thing. The full motion physics are probably not implemented or working the way the should in AW. Wargaming is still working on the correct motion physics in their game and that is what 5-6 year old game now ?
DeleteFrom a pure techincal perspective as it comes to graphics AW is far beyond World of Tanks as it obviously should be considering they are using a modern graphical engine and Wargaming is using bigworld engine something that was intended for simple mmo games.
Let me state again I am not saying the game is better I am saying the graphics are better as it bloody well should be.
I'm sure Wargaming if they switched to a modern graphical engine the talented artits they have could create wonders as we can already see on the detailed world of warhips ship models but they are highly constrained by having a mostly russian based (slightly older computer player base) and using bigworld engine an engine so bad it is still single core cpu based ;)
Hehe I guess we won't be able to agree on which game looks better since video game graphics are like art. Everyone has a different taste.
DeleteI kinda have a problem with taking things personal :P and in this case it wasn't even directed at me *facepalm*.
While WoT's engine is old, it's still kinda impressive what is being done with it. Any game really nowadays involves an amazing amount of coding and stuff. I don't think though that it makes sense for WG to rework WoT for a new engine taking years to do and also diverting resources away from content creation and other things.
Also, did you now WG originally intended to make a game with orks, elves, goblins and stuff and later changed their mind. They were then stuck with the engine as they had already acquired the rights for big world and a different engine wasn't in budget.
Debating on whether I want to test AW tonight or go to the WG meet and greet near me.
ReplyDeleteI think AW has passed the point of over-thinking their game.
ReplyDeleteThey are introducing to much variation in ammo characteristics, vehicle roles/capabilities, armor packages etc. Just as with WoT, I don't think the vast majority of their target audience is going to take the time to study all of the games mechanics.
WoT is about as complex as I want in game that I play for relaxation. I've play realistic flight simulators that had 20 plus pages just to cover the operation of the flight computer. Let alone the rest of the systems. Looks like AW is heading in the same direction.
Now check Call of Duty.
DeleteLook at how many types of airstrikes, weapon stats, types of weapon, perks, etc...there are.
It's not a very subtle game, but it is about as mainstream as it's going to get, and it's not overly complex for the average player.
WoT is much, much simpler than CoD. You can cry "weakspots an angling!!!" all you want, but it always boils down to the same weakspots and angling is always the same when you figure out there are only really 4 types of armored tanks (pike/egg nose or not, good side armor or not).
Juste because you want a braindead game doesn't mean others cna't enjoy a slightly more complex game. And even then, it's not really that hard.
WOT simpler then CoD?
DeleteAre you high? Honestly, are you high?
Next you will say that CoD is more complex then CS GO or Unreal Tournament... damn...
Yeah, it has a lot more types of skills and perks than WoT.
DeleteSure the core concept it much simpler (point gun at man, pew pew).
Until proof of the contrary, WoT doesn't have active perks, a flurry of active skills. WoT has 4 types of ammo total, CoD has 4 different types of grenades, nevermind all the other pieces of equipment.
Honestly, you're down playing its complexity. It feels dumb and intuative because it's made to do that. Ultimately, it's much more complex than WoT, yes.
Maybe you should think about it rather then jump to personnal attacks.
@ Alexander Yordanov, we get it, you're a soviet who's defending his commie-made shitty games. you don't have to yell every time about it.
Delete@Kaatraan jam
DeleteReasonable bait mate. You CAN do better though. It is obvious from the tone that was suggested that you dont believe it. Work more on your technique.
Put a new WoT player in a Tier X battle and they wont last one minute. Same can't be said of CoD. It is MUCH more difficult to be to be a competent WoT driver than a CoD shooter.
DeleteLook at the numbers of people who rage quit WoT before their 200th battle. They cite 'invisible tanks', no armor, ammo wont pen, etc.
These are the complaints of point-n-shoot players who didn't learn the games mechanics. Didn't learn the mechanics of camo, sighting, armor angling, flanking etc.
I play chess online. It is a tiny market. I personally think AW is going to have a similar share.
I agree, the ave IQ of a gamer is VERY low and AW seems to complicated for them. I had a noob shooting HE at me in a WZ132 recently.
DeleteYou guys were talking about two different things:
DeleteGame feature complexity : CoD is more complex (complex in many different actions which has different mechanics). However, WoT also has rich subtle varieties in form of gazillion different tanks to play.
In case of Game Rule Mechancis, however, WoT is more complex, due to serverside calculation and vision system. Complex =/= Good, though.
Very nice Mark, next time I will use HE for u too (in my 183 or T49) just to see u whining.
DeleteI for one, can't wait for this game to come out. I have sunk waaaaaayyyy to much into WoT, and want something new that actually allows player to utilize their tanks armor.. WoT is nothing more then premium ammo slinging anymore, and makes all tanks armor irrelevant.. I'll take the time to study the mechanics, unlike 95% of the WoT community..
ReplyDeletebut regardless, there will be about 95% of the AW community that doesn't study the mechanics either. it looks like the people who take the time to learn, will actually be rewarded, and be able to play a game, and utilize their skill.. not have everything predetermined by WG and their garbage MM system, and a RNG system that allows total shitlords to pen whatever they shoot, no matter where they shoot at.
but...but...WoT has such a perfect MM and great RNG implementation. you must be a hater. sarcasm ended. lalala...
Delete@Kaatraan jam
DeleteYou should definitely go back to your perfect American Call of Duty :)
Best implementation of 1998 tech I have ever seen! And the 12-year olds add a lot of ... hmm atmosphere :)
Couldn't agree more. The whole problem is the gold slinging. I even dread taking out my IS7 now because a Leopard is sitting behind throwing gold at me while I am trying to shield my team from a freaking E100. Not to mention the repairs are insanely expensive and I have to grind all the branches just so I can get the types of tanks that really suit my playstyle. Just don't have that kiddy time on my hands and this game is one large grindfest. I feel like I have reached my WOT saturation point. I had a 53% win rate but now I am so bored and sick of it that it feels like my skill set is dipping slowly.
DeleteI agree, WOTs has good MM and i like RNG. Theres to many brainless noobs esp on NA Server, but i like when they on enemy team!, lol. I do think WG needs pen nerf soon and esp TDs and alpha nerf.
DeleteThe video looks very good, as you would expect. I am a WoT player who enjoys that game quite a bit. I tried WT and it fell flat for me. I look forward to giving AW a spin but I'm not going to assume much about it until I can actually try it out. At the very least some competition for WoT might be good for us tank players.
ReplyDeleteAnother WG fanboy. This blog is infested with them!
Delete@Mark West
DeleteGee... I wonder why?
but isnt it nice u will be able to play a variety of different online games? WOT, AW and WT just for tanks, WoWS and dreadnaught just for the warship feeling and perhaps a battlefield with more pronouncing the metal and dont forget Mechwarrior and Hawken.
Delete