The Results of WoWs Test…

Meanwhile in World of Warships…



I don’t know, can’t help it. It was an underwhelming experience. Not too bad, but I just can’t see where all the hype and the positive feedback is coming from.

62 thoughts on “The Results of WoWs Test…

  1. When WG announced NO SUBS, I was pretty much put off on WoWS and there was about a 5 to 10% chance I would play it. After this weekend you have raised that number significantly. Sure there that group of Navel enthusiast out there who will nick pick about this or that but for a guy like me who’s only Naval experience is the History channel & Tom Clancy, this game has some very nice features. You’re still a long Long LONG way off from getting me out of tanks but this game is now back on my might give it a try list. Welcome to SAC’s 60% list WoWS

    • I did really really like WoWS. And it would be too much if there was any subs. (weekend tester)

      • I was a weekend tester, and while the NDA says I cant say much, I *can* say I played a lot and on all three days, which some may regard as suggestive of my opinion… :P

        Not sure why they’re saying 2 days or 48 hours so much though- it was at least 54 hours and maybe 55, not that I was complaining. :)

        Sorta happy theyre not doing another one till the 20th of january or so. It would pose a serious threat to my schedule for the WZ-111 missions… :P

    • The thing about subs as I see it is that they are still far better when played alone. They are too vulnerable, and unlike arties you can see them instantly when they attack, especially with 15 ships able to see them.

  2. All 3 chicks are nice, one in white seems nicest.

    Meanwhile in Armored Warfare beta is scheduled to Q1 2015.
    What a coincidence.

  3. Not sure how much we are allowed to talk about it or not so I won’t go into details , but I found it quite alright, Im curious how high tier ships + carriers change the pace of games tho. At the very least it will be playable for events giving gold / premium time compared to planes which are cringe worthy.

    • They make a big difference, especially carriers, in good way unlike arty. I can see this game becoming my primary one over WoT after it’s release, time will tell.

    • they also tested nice things that could be added to wot, like the smoke screens(smoke launchers) spot mechanics and multigun mechanism.

  4. ” but I just can’t see where all the hype and the positive feedback is coming from.”??

    It’s from all those Japano-philes, weeaboos and those self styled nerd fags (“otakus” as they call themselves). All they want are Japanese ships, just like how WoT have Germano-philes.

    • I dunno, the US is surrounded by water, as one of very few countries to be so, and I feel there will be a decent amount of interest from the people living there. Who wouldn’t want to try to grind out their state’s namesake ship and make it the pride of their fleet? A lot of people underestimate the intrigue that Americans have for big, metal floating gun platforms.

      • Last time I checked, USA was surrounded by water, Canada and Mexico.

        Great Britain and Japan are the only countries (that I can think of on the top of my head) that had major navies and are completely cut off by the sea.

    • Well its not just those.
      Naval history is an important part of western European history, and the French and Italian navies have a lot more actually built ships than in Tanks.

    • Jap ships sucked balls. Ill take US iowa class battleships or fletcher destroyers anyday.

    • Or perhaps they just liked what they saw? Isnt that possible also? Or does your prejudiced view not allow for that concept?

      I did seriously consider proposing to the tier 4 japanese cruiser though, so I may be wierd…

  5. imo ingame cruisers are absolutely pointless

    there weapons are inferior to battleships
    there armor and HP is inferior

    and what do they get for it? a bit more speed

    and anyone with a brain will hit you even if you are in the fastest destroyer

    • Cruisers: best class in the game currently.

      Huge guns with great rate of fire, range and accuracy. Great speed, and good AA platform.

      Game not even in closed beta and there is already whinners who don’t even played higher tier and no aircraft carrier …

      This community is so shitty. -_-

      • Yes, torpedoes. Some cruisers have torpedo launchers fitted. Also, destroyers have torpedo launchers fitted. While cruisers are not as maneuverable as destroyers, they could still score a torpedo hit on a battleship.

        • CL can’t punch BB armor with those gun,, that why the torpedoes exist,, and they can jam the DD too,, while the CA have a good and decent AA (and their gun aren’t half bad,, pretty decent i must say),, jack-of-all-trade ship

          • CLs were the class with more variants in WWII… you have japanese CLs that were more big DDs based in torpedos not in guns like western designs (very few japanese CLs with the classic 4 double turrets) but well for them work very well as leaders in DDs flotillas.

            CAs… well here for me the best WWII CAs were japanese and german specially japanese even when they had worst armor compared with USA CAs BUT they use torpedos and using them were simple superior to USA CAs

            One thing about CAs is that they were a WWII class, in WWI the CAs was totally diferent… they were the obsolete Armored Cruisers with no room in BB fights or VS faster classes like CLs and DDs but in WWII CA redesigned as a buffed CL worked very well and well, they were the best carrier scorts because have the speed to follow them and provide a good AAA cover, not like dedicated CLAA class but at least they can engage heavier classes.

            BBs in WWII were a little useless even when compared with WWI BBs increase a lot speed (in WWI they move at 20-21 and in WWII they move around 30… in WWII BBs pass WWI BCs in speed usually).

            CAs for me are going to be the medium class from WOT, letal when attack in groups or as ninja killers not using guns maybe VS BBs but using torpedos… navies with good torpedo options for their CAs are going to rule over a lot of classes BUT armored CAs based in guns can counter them.

  6. it was ok,for sure another opportunity to play something else than WOT.
    and much better than WOWP.
    i am looking forward to the next beta weekend.

  7. Initial impression was much better than failplanes however first few tiers are not enough to make full judgement.
    Far from WoT substitute but it could be playable as secondary game considering it will share same account.

  8. Same as Frank.

    Anyway someone should find out the numbers of WoWP closed beta and compare them to the 47k people who participated in WoWS.

  9. I rather enjoyed WoWS (weekend tester). I felt the game play was quite good. No hiccups in performance. Even now WoWS is better optimized, graphically, than WoT. I got 20-30 more fps than I do with WoT.

    I would like to see more variety in maps, but it is still early and I’m sure that will come with time.

  10. I made it into the weekend test as well, and I was quite impressed with it. The main thing is there are no other online games that are like this. Similar yes, but not like this. It has (for better or worse) WG backing it, with deep pockets. If it comes out even close to WoT it will be a hit.
    Different games appeal to different people, and this game will not appeal to all, but it will to some, just like tanks do.

  11. Yeah very dull gameplay compared to tanks. Sniping from a ridge? Pulling off a flanking move around that building? Dakka-dakka-dakka on arty with your Luchs? Pointing your strongest armour at the enemy? Sidescraping?

    WoWS has none of that complexity. The models looked great, but the gameplay was a yawn-fest. Maybe if I’d tried the destroyers and the torpedo system a bit more I might have found some excitement, but nothing thrills like WoT tbh.

  12. Silentstalker, stick to tanks. With your complaints about the game, you sound as if you have ADD and constantly need frenzied action. World of Warships is already a very good game and will only get better. I thoroughly enjoyed playing it last weekend. Those who appreciate things naval understand, as will many others when they try it.

  13. A long time ago I stumbled upon a game called NavyField. I played the beta test of that, and it was very enjoyable. When that game went live however, it was pretty much a pay-to-advance and pay-to-win scheme. I quit playing then.

    After a while, I found out there was a NavyField 2, pretty much same game, bit better graphics, less pay-to-win. Mucked about with that a bit, but there were some fundamental changes to game modes that I didn’t like. I quit playing then.

    Now there’s WoWS, I played weekend test and enjoyed myself thoroughly. Plays similar to old NavyField but no top-down view, so you feel like you’re more in the action. I don’t consider WG’s premium stuff pay-to-win, and I think I’ll be playing this a LOT.

  14. “but I just can’t see where all the hype and the positive feedback is coming from.”

    Well, it’s been a long time since the last decent 3D purely naval game (I mean with no submarines). The last one I played was Fighting Steel, and that was a 1999 game. I could play it until about 2008, but then it just stopped working with modern graphic cards.

    I couldn’t play WoWs Alfa, but I’ve been watching videos in Youtube, and I like what I saw. Can’t wait to try it myself.

  15. SS. Since you already admitted that you are not familiar with naval things, you should either stay focus on stronk tonks or read more about naval battles to appreciate it. ships are harder to get compared to tanks when you don’t know them well.

  16. Looking forward to the next testing event! It was a nice experience and had some lovely unique features that I cannot divulge with here sadly.

  17. Its such a good game even in this early stage. I had so much fun playing it this weekend, more than in wot. In cant wait to closed beta :D