Armored Warfare: World of Tanks formerly from Obsidian

[Infinitron]

Second Gen Tank Shenanigans In Armored Warfare

“It’s not so much that we’re competing directly. We want to take things forward a bit for the genre and do the second generation type of this game.”

I’m speaking to Matt Festa, senior designer on Obsidian’s tank-based strategic shooter Armored Warfare about the differences between his game and – just to pluck an example out of the air – World Of Tanks.

At first glance the two seem pretty similar. I mean there’s the whole “joining a team to fight using tanks” thing, but also in terms of the interface. I haven’t played much in the way of World of Tanks but on dropping into a match of Armored Warfare, the garage screen where you select your vehicle and so on felt very familiar. Once in-game the vehicles fulfill expected roles, for example front-line tanks like the Challenger 2 deal and absorb damage but are weak in terms of spotting and camouflage while artillery hang back and fling projectiles, dealing massive damage from afar.

Festa acknowledges the influence of Wargaming’s title but adds that there are points of difference between the games.

“We’re huge fans of World Of Tanks – a lot of us are players with thousands and thousands of matches so it’s definitely something we’ve referenced a lot. I think one of the main things which are going to set us apart is the PvE. It’s this mission-based mode which I think is going to be different from anything offered by the competition. These modes are going to be more about the AI and there’s going the be a lot of different types of objectives.”

In the PvE game I played, the primary objective was to take out three ammo depots which could be found randomly placed in bunkers across the map. A secondary bonus objective was to take out the SAM turrets dotted around which would take out an incoming aircraft after five minutes had elapsed.

The reasoning behind having a strong PvE component is to cater to players intimidated by the idea of jumping into PvP matches with players with more experience and expertise. According to Festa it can either offer a less daunting introduction to the mechanics and tactics which you can transfer to PvP or it can just be your entire game.

“The PvE should hopefully make it easier to ease in and if people don’t like PvP at all they have the option of playing the whole game and all the vehicles purely in PvE,” he says.

There’s also the matter of that Challenger 2 I mentioned earlier. It’s the British Army’s current main battle tank and thus an excellent demonstration of the fact that Armored Warfare features modern fighting vehicles and technology.

“Certainly the fact we’re doing modern vehicles is a big deal,” says Festa. “We’re focusing on adding new things – guided missiles is one example . Smoke grenades also adds an interesting dynamic. Players can create their own cover instead of just using map cover either if they’re in trouble or if there’s a strategic plan. We’re also playing with a lot of mechanics for modern equipment that will add digital elements into the game.”

Demand for smoke grenades is actually a recurring request on World Of Tanks message boards because of the extra strategic options smoke offers so it’s interesting that Armored Warfare will be taking that up. I’m picturing Counter-Strike at this point but with massive tanks rather than nimble bodies.

“Probably a third thing that’s a good example is we’re shooting for something a little more narrative-driven. It’s not going to be a story per se but certainly the dealers [from whom you buy vehicles and receive missions] are going to have backgrounds and the missions you’re getting and the context of those missions is going to be within the context of a world conflict that’s going on.”

From talking to Festa it sounds like Obsidian are marrying a number of the campaign aspects from the most recent Wargame titles – Red Dragon and European Escalation – with the PvP of World of Tanks and adding contemporary vehicles and combat technology.

“We’re hoping that some of these more co-operative and casual elements will attract additional players in the US and Europe. Wargaming in particular has had great success in Russia [Wargaming CEO Victor Kislyi told Graham "In February we took 1.1 million concurrent users in Russia alone. 1.1 million Russians were playing at the same time, which is actually 2% of Russia’s male population."] and they’re still kind of struggling with success in the United States and Europe so we’re also hoping that’s something we can specifically target – those audiences more directly.”

A large part of trying to target the North American and European audience will be keeping an eye on what works across all regions and what doesn’t.

“A good example is monetisation,” says Festa. “Monetisation in Russia, a lot of the data shows [relates to] prestige and in China i think it’s pretty similar. Things that are bought for money – when the player has them it’s considered prestigious that they’ve spent money. Like, ‘This guy is pretty serious about the game.’ In the US people who pay money like that are called wallet warriors. It’s pejorative.”

The trick will be in working out what makes sense in both territories. “That’s been tricky and trying to isolate those kind of things to make a more global product is a big part of it. Obviously Wargaming and World Of Tanks have been pretty successful globally but we’re hoping we can change the trajectory of that and get more of the Western market .

Armored Warfare will be in closed beta early in 2015.

 

[Zdzisiu]

190cm and 93kg as a crewman in a tank? Did tanks get more spacious or what?

 

[Duraframe300]

 

[Duraframe300]

 

[Anthony Davis]

Those screenshots above of the Commander Panel and the Crew Panel are old. That's probably all I can say about it.

 

[Haba]

Where is muh beta invite

 

[eklektyk]

yeah
my calculator wants to play it to!!!11!!!111

 

[Duraframe300]

Those screenshots above of the Commander Panel and the Crew Panel are old. That's probably all I can say about it.

Is this refering to the video as well? It looks similiar there.

 

[SuicideBunny]

Where is muh beta invite

same place as mine, i'd wager.

 

[Duraframe300]

Anthony Davis As always, any comments?

 

[Anthony Davis]

Anthony Davis As always, any comments?

Yeah. This is accurate - again, I would say the footage from the film is from a build that is still older than the current because of the UI elements that have been updated - but everything said is true so far.

We do have smoke grenades
We do have ERA
We do have ATGMs
We do have anti-missle systems

We struggle and argue everyday on how to balance gameplay versus realism verus fun.

 

[GarfunkeL]

I know I'm realism > gameplay > fun but I also know that I'm probably like 0.01% niche and thus completely unprofitable. I guess if you need to compete with WoT, you must go the other way around.

 

[Haba]

I guess there is a reason why the last time I played a tank simulator was on an Amiga.

Anthony Davis imho the biggest problem with WoT is the matchmaking (or the players themselves...). What kind of thoughts have you been having around that? The same sort of "shortest possible waiting time in queue" -approach as WoT, or skill-wise balanced teams?

 

[JohnTheRevelator]

Imho biggest problem with WoT is damage model and HP bloat. Having to score something like 10 penetrating hits on a tank to wreck it is ridiculous and frankly only leads to boring peek-a-boo sessions and silly tank hugging contests. Feels rather unrewarding too. War Thunder isn't perfect but it was much more fun to blow up tanks with single well aimed APHE shot detonating ammunition.

 

[Luka-boy]

Yep, I prefer a damage model closer to War Thunder than World of Tanks too.

 

[Anthony Davis]

I can only share my personal opinions - I'm not doing systems design on AW, though I have been asked for and given opinions and shared my tanking knowledge.

For me, I would rank them like this:

gameplay
realism
fun


Because to me, gameplay + realism = fun. I am not a majority either.

If we were making a tank game that was 100% realistic, the M1A1 would never have the front slope and front hull penetrated... EVER. You practically need an anti-ship weapon to penetrate those parts of the tank.

To gamify realism is a challenging and iterative process - and we grind through it here every single day.

The bottom line though, the game is super fun. 15 vs 15, PVE, whatever, it is really fun.

 

[JohnTheRevelator]

The bottom line though, the game is super fun. 15 vs 15, PVE, whatever, it is really fun.

 

[Anthony Davis]

The bottom line though, the game is super fun. 15 vs 15, PVE, whatever, it is really fun.

Actually in my case, it's just, "Download my game, it's FREE!"

 

[Anthony Davis]

Those screenshots above of the Commander Panel and the Crew Panel are old. That's probably all I can say about it.

Is this refering to the video as well? It looks similiar there.

Sure. They have to use older builds when harvesting gameplay footage because the media and marketing people can't get the newest daily builds like *I* can... because I'm special.

 

[omega21]

the M1A1 would never have the front slope and front hull penetrated... EVER. You practically need an anti-ship weapon to penetrate those parts of the tank.

:kwafuckyeah: :ehue:

Nothing to do with the game, I'm not an expert on the numbers of RHA vs penetrators but I genuinely doubt this.

 

[GarfunkeL]

As far as I remember, the disabled Abrams' in '91 were original M1s, not up-armoured M1A1s. The few Abrams' disabled in the 2003 Iraq War and its aftermath were all done from underneath with IEDs or from top/rears with RPGs.

To my knowledge, the front slope of the turret or the front hull of an "modern", ie 21st century, Abrams has never been penetrated.

EDIT: with the caveat of course that it has only seen limited combat - the Iraq armour fought only a handful of skirmishes with American forces in 2003 and the Occupation mostly saw ambushes with IEDs and RPGs. So how it would fare against modern ATGMs and penetrators under combat conditions remains somewhat unproven.

 

[eklektyk]

so when the lucky few will get into that beta? any idea when it might start ?
i subjected myslef to registration and aplication into beta and am wondering how many and when will be able to have some fun with modern toys
[altho am kinda worried about my calculator ability to process all that nice and shiny toys ... ]

 

[Duraframe300]

so when the lucky few will get into that beta? any idea when it might start ?
i subjected myslef to registration and aplication into beta and am wondering how many and when will be able to have some fun with modern toys
[altho am kinda worried about my calculator ability to process all that nice and shiny toys ... ]

My guess is sometime in February/March

 

[Azrael the cat]

As far as I remember, the disabled Abrams' in '91 were original M1s, not up-armoured M1A1s. The few Abrams' disabled in the 2003 Iraq War and its aftermath were all done from underneath with IEDs or from top/rears with RPGs.

To my knowledge, the front slope of the turret or the front hull of an "modern", ie 21st century, Abrams has never been penetrated.

EDIT: with the caveat of course that it has only seen limited combat - the Iraq armour fought only a handful of skirmishes with American forces in 2003 and the Occupation mostly saw ambushes with IEDs and RPGs. So how it would fare against modern ATGMs and penetrators under combat conditions remains somewhat unproven.

Plus in a war against another serious power, you're probably not going to be the only ones with planes in the sky.

 

[Anthony Davis]

As far as I remember, the disabled Abrams' in '91 were original M1s, not up-armoured M1A1s. The few Abrams' disabled in the 2003 Iraq War and its aftermath were all done from underneath with IEDs or from top/rears with RPGs.

To my knowledge, the front slope of the turret or the front hull of an "modern", ie 21st century, Abrams has never been penetrated.

EDIT: with the caveat of course that it has only seen limited combat - the Iraq armour fought only a handful of skirmishes with American forces in 2003 and the Occupation mostly saw ambushes with IEDs and RPGs. So how it would fare against modern ATGMs and penetrators under combat conditions remains somewhat unproven.

That is correct and it has NOT seen limited combat. It's been in service (one variant or another) for 40 years. It has been in sustained combat in Iraq and Afghanistan for ~10 years now. It saw a great deal of action in desert storm I including (edit) ONE of the LARGEST tank on tank battle in history, which happened during desert storm I. During that battle, 4 m1a1's were disabled. Of those four, two of them were back in the fight before it was over. No crew members were killed during that fight.

EDIT: I'm talking about this battle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Medina_Ridge
I edited above, I meant to say one of and I missed it.

EDIT #2:
There was also this battle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting


The RHA equivalent of the armor on the M1a2/a3 has been estimated at over 900mm, this puts it in the realm of ship armor equivalents. Even the Soviets, during the cold war, estimated it at ~500mm. After desert storm I their estimate went up to over 800mm. Remember, I am only talking about the front hull and turret, the glacis. It is just as vulnerable as any other tank on the rear and to some extent, the sides.


Yes, I was an m1a1 armor crewman during desert storm I.