Jump to content


The problem with lights is not wheeled vehicles....


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

tajj7 #1 Posted 14 August 2019 - 10:58 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27778 battles
  • 15,642
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

*
POPULAR

........it goes way back before that. 

 

(not going to have the WV v Light discussion, IMO it largely comes down to a player issue playing lights 'like they always have' and not adapting their tactics to this new challenge. I will recognise though that WVs have challenged Lights in the active spotter role and that I think it would be a good idea to re-classify WVs into their own class so they are mirror matches as their are obvious inherent advantages and disadvantages to having either a light or WV on your team).

 

I think fundamentally WG don't like lights or really want them to be that good (unless its a premium lol), or probably more correctly a lot of WOT players that WG likes to pander to, don't like the potential that lights can have against them. As in good players using their mobility, view range and camo to outplay and kill their badly played heavy tanks.

 

The problems with lights can probably be tracked largely to two particular patches 9.18, the light tank rebalance and introduction of tier 10 lights (IIRC this was 9.18) and 1.0 the new HD maps IMO. 

 

The problem with the light tank rebalance was IMO not that they extended the lines to tier 10 and made lights able to be top tier, I know some people have issues with this but I actually quit like that bit and I think tier 10 lights can be competitive, the issue is how they went about that rebalance.

 

IMO the main issues that cause problems to lights are -

 

(largely referring to tier 8-10 lights here, as I think lights at lower tiers though they suffer from some of these issues are stronger than their higher tier counterparts)

 

1. Corridor/City maps

 

A large proportion of maps in this game effectively fit into this 'style', I would estimate around 15-16 of the random battles maps are effective like this. In these maps all the fighting revolves close range brawling fights, where flanking is very limited, view range is not needed, camo is not needed, all of which of course means lights with their low HP, low alpha, low pen guns and no armour just don't have much going for them on these maps. To have a good game as a light on these maps you need a bad enemy and your heavies/armoured TDs to do their jobs so you can play support. 

 

2. The more open maps massively favour campers

 

This is due to OP camping spots that most maps now have and the 1.0 Bushes giving too much camo. Consistently these maps feature 'camper ledges' that can only be approached across open ground where the campers have concealment, hard cover, and elevation.  More often than not as well they have the map border protecting their backs making flanking near impossible. Think the Erlenberg corner camping spots for example, or the spots on Cliff at A5/K5, the ledges on Mines, the base line spots on Steppes, the spots behind the bases on Glacier, the base line spots on Studianski, corner spots on Pilsen etc. I could go on, since 1.0 and the new maps we have had since, almost every map now features areas like this. 

 

Everything in these spots favours the camper, not the attackers and therefore not the spotter, it makes the job of lights very hard. 

 

Coupled with the OP 1.0 HD bushes that can literally hide anything (see the previous experiment shown on this forum by Cro and Piraat where a 75% crew, no equipment Fv4005 outspotted a fully view range/camoed Bat Chat because of the bushes), lights now struggle to do their jobs because they have to basically suicide scout to spot these positions getting to proxy spot ranges.

 

It is why WVs do better because they have more chance of surviving those suicide runs and actually spotting these OP camping spots by getting under their guns and lighting them up for their team. WVs have IMO broken camps on maps where lights would have died and the campers would have probably won. 

 

(we can also add Swedish TDs to this problem as well, a class of vehicles designed to camp hard at the back, with insane base camo and due to their siege mode nearly every single one is using binos and camo net. Which means you a line of vehicles that lights simply won't outspot and even when they do, the tier 9 and 10 they can't even pen, plus they have amazing gun handling and high velocity rounds to easily shoot lights on the move. If anything is a hard counter to lights it's Swedish TDs) 

 

3. Their HP pools are too low for their tiers compared to the alpha/DPM

 

At tier 5-7 lights have similar HP to mediums a tier below, if not slight higher, for example tier 7 lights (a tier were lights are actually decent) have about 850-900 health. Most tier 6 mediums have 750 - 800 health. 

 

At tier 9 and 10 however, they have HP pools more like mediums TWO tiers below, tier 10 lights have 1400-1600 HP, there are many tier 8 meds with that HP, for example the AMX 13-105 has just 1400 hit points, but like a Pantera tier 8 medium also has 1400 hi points. 

 

So to be in line with the lower tier tanks, they should have more like 1700-1800 HP, as most tier 9 meds have about 1650 - 1800 hit points. This would make them a little more forgiving and survivable. 

 

4. They were nerfed after sandbox before release

 

With the big light tank rebalance patch of 9.18 (IIRC) most higher tier lights had higher view range and lots of other higher stats (like DPM) on Sandbox and were decent. I remember this as a Sandbox tester, we heavily tested these tanks gave our feedback and got them in a good place to go live. 

 

Then they did ONE public test, with all the mess that is the test server that is not a good place for realistic data, everyone playing lights (like 8 a side, so of course lots of easy to pen, yoloing targets), spamming premium ammo etc. and  got heavily nerfed. Like the Rhm. Panzerwagon had 440m base view range on Sandbox and had more like 2.5-2.6k DPM with 390 alpha IIRC. The rebalanced M41 Bulldog had 2.8k DPM on Sandbox, it now has like 2.1k.

 

And remember, those sandbox balanced values would have been for the meta at the time of 9.18, that is like nearly two years ago, with the power creep, the HD map changes/bushes I am not even sure they would be competitive even with those buffed stats, but they would be a lot better than they are now.

 

5. WG's stupid decision to give them bad accuracy and bad pen drop off

 

Again this was another part of the 9.18 rebalance. WG made it so they can't hit and pen things at range reliably. So they basically can't do their job and use their strengths to do damage. 

 

How many other classes in game can't use their strengths to do damage? It would be like giving a tank with good turret armour 2 degrees of gun depression so it can't use that turret armour ever.  Lights have camo, mobility and view range, but also no health or armour. Those attributes suggest the best idea is to stay at medium to long ranges, flank people, spot people and fire from there.  Lights already have low alpha and low pen relative to their tiers, so they are not a massive threat to tanks at long range like say a TD is or even most mediums are, so crippling them further is just plain stupidity.

 

People will of course say WG don't want lights firing from camo at long range, but that reason makes no sense. Firstly why shouldn't lights be able to do this as it's using their strengths?. It's not like loads of heavies in game can easily snipe and are very effective at it. 

 

Secondly if heavy players can't handle some low alpha, low pen gun shooting at them from range, they are not very good at using armour and haven't positioned themselves well, plus its supposed to be their weakness, lower view range and camo, so they are supposed to be vulnerable at range to stealthier vehicles. 

 

And finally we have tanks in the game that can do it way better like Leos and Strvs with higher pen, accuracy, alpha, DPM etc who will punish people at range way more than any light could. Hell with OP bushes almost every tank can fire safely from camo at long range, and with their bigger alpha and penetration they will do it far more effectively, even when they are more suited to close range fighting. 

 

We have the absurd situation where the IS7, the massively armoured, invincible turret, high HP heavy tank is able fire 490 alpha shots, with 250 AP pen that has little pen drop off, across the map with 0.38 accuracy.

 

But the tier 10 Russian light, has 300 alpha, with 230mm of pen with terrible pen drop off, but 0.44 accuracy.

 

Even though the IS7 can also brawl and the T-100 lt is not very good close range due to low hp, low alpha and little armour.

 

Not exactly rocket science to work out why the light tanks are struggling when super armoured tier 10 heaviums can snipe better than them. 

Thus making the IS7, the HEAVY TANK, a better SNIPER than a LIGHT tank.  :facepalm:

 

So what can be done?

 

Maps are no easy fix, we just have to hope they start making better ones and make older ones better. 

(though I wonder whether a global change to standard camo bushes were giving could be made so bushes gave camo more in line with what they used to).

 

But I think simple light tank buffs could be done, especially to tiers 8-10 (obviously adjusting to power level, so like Manticore or Rhm getting higher buffs than say T-100 lt for example), but generally I would go with -

 

1. 10-15% hit points buffs across the board to tier 8-10 lights.

 

2. 25-30% DPM buffs across the board to tier 8-10 lights.

 

3. 20 - 30m, maybe even 40m buffs to light tank view ranges, to counter the power of HD bushes and the base camping spots and give them a clearer advantage over other classes. 

 

4. Remove the penetration drop off penalty that light tanks have, put it more in line with tier 10 mediums levels.

 

5. Increase light tank accuracy, lights should be amongst the most accurate tanks in the game, so not 0.4 accuracy but more like 0.28 - 0.35 sort of levels. 

 

6. Make lights and WVs separate classes for the MM. 

 

7. Particularly bad light tanks might need even more (looking at the new British line and German line, like British lights actually getting the high alpha WG said they were supposed to have so like Manticore with like 450-500 alpha for example) 

 

That should help lights be a lot more effective in the current meta.

 

Of course none of that will happen, as I think it goes back to my original point that 'Steve' the IS7 driver can't handle light tanks being good and thus WG clearly won;t make them good, as the new British light tank line shows.

 

Just compare the power level of the new British lights, to the power level of the likes of the 430U or Bobject when first released to see where WGs priorities are. 

 

 


Edited by tajj7, 14 August 2019 - 11:12 AM.


bstb3 #2 Posted 14 August 2019 - 11:20 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 40862 battles
  • 271
  • [VBRJ] VBRJ
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

Certainly agree with the majority of your points, especially around the buffs being relevant to the current state of the vehicle. Giving a T100 high VR and DPM buff would be nuts imo, but certainly the RHM could use it - in fact I'd do away with the armoured LT approach completely, but that cat is out of the bag.  If we push them too hard to be like mediums then that might lose them their uniqueness - they should have distinct advantages / disadvantages over Mediums, which (personally) ought to be camo, VR and less DPM / armor as a result.

 

I would add too that if buffing the VR then limiting the number of LT's / WV's in a battle would also help to keep them more relevant / valuable. But too many of those in one battle could kill gameplay (especially with 3 Arty) since everyone else would be afraid to move - 2 Max LT & WV combined (definitely should be different classes for MM) would be sensible imo in this buffed state.



tajj7 #3 Posted 14 August 2019 - 11:30 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27778 battles
  • 15,642
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View Postbstb3, on 14 August 2019 - 10:20 AM, said:

Certainly agree with the majority of your points, especially around the buffs being relevant to the current state of the vehicle. Giving a T100 high VR and DPM buff would be nuts imo, but certainly the RHM could use it - in fact I'd do away with the armoured LT approach completely, but that cat is out of the bag.  If we push them too hard to be like mediums then that might lose them their uniqueness - they should have distinct advantages / disadvantages over Mediums, which (personally) ought to be camo, VR and less DPM / armor as a result.

 

I would add too that if buffing the VR then limiting the number of LT's / WV's in a battle would also help to keep them more relevant / valuable. But too many of those in one battle could kill gameplay (especially with 3 Arty) since everyone else would be afraid to move - 2 Max LT & WV combined (definitely should be different classes for MM) would be sensible imo in this buffed state.

 

T-100 lt is a the best tier 10 light (f you ignore EBR 105) but it's not a good tier 10 tank -

 

Posted Image

 

Of course it won't need as much buffing as the others, but it still needs buffing to be competitive. 

 

Just compare it to an Obj. 140, which is not the strongest tank itself these days, and aside a bit more speed and bit more camo its very bad and the Obj.140 can probably spot 90% as well as a T-100 lt can whilst being massively more powerful in most other situations. 

 

I personally don't trust WG to do 'uniqueness', just look at the British lights, or the Swedish TDs, hence the more generic buffs suggestions, I don't think you can get away with them not being like mini-mediums, but I mean most of them IRL were basically that, medium tanks with less armour and firepower but more speed and smaller size. 

 

I have always liked the idea of special consumables/special skills like WOWs and I think you could give lights more uniqueness that way, by giving them more special skills relevant to their role like say smoke or spotter planes from Frontline. 

 

But like I said the cynic in me thinks WG would muck that up and it would require a lot longer period of testing/development than more simple buffs that are basically just tweaking numbers. 

 

I think an argument could be made for limiting all tank types in battle to be honest, too many TDs in a game is problematic IMO, as can too heavies as maps are just not big enough with not enough spots for several similar vehicle types to be operating a the same area. 

 



iztok #4 Posted 14 August 2019 - 11:33 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 35215 battles
  • 2,656
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

> But I think simple light tank buffs could be done,

No! This would make Steve the IS-7 driver (and likely 50% of all players) extremely unhappy, so they would stop paying. THIS CAN NOT HAPEN!!!!111ONEONE

 

/SARCASM  :(


Edited by iztok, 14 August 2019 - 11:36 AM.


Mr_Burrows #5 Posted 14 August 2019 - 11:41 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 47801 battles
  • 2,142
  • [D-NUT] D-NUT
  • Member since:
    02-17-2012
Agree. 

SaintMaddenus #6 Posted 14 August 2019 - 11:55 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 37419 battles
  • 2,373
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-04-2011

"It is why WVs do better because they have more chance of surviving those suicide runs and actually spotting these OP camping spots by getting under their guns and lighting them up for their team. WVs have IMO broken camps on maps where lights would have died and the campers would have probably won. "

They have had more effect in preventing camping than arty is supposed to.  They have almost eliminated passive scouting too.   Lots of complaints about both arty and these WV as they have elements that are not tank like (from "steve's" perspective) 

I play more like a "steve" probably, so I have issues with some of these (because I'd lose harder ;) )  but I think your WV MM proposal is a good idea, they are too dissimilar from the regular lights to be "light"


 

Good post though and useful for my knowledge of lights strengths and weaknesses in general.


 


 



eldrak #7 Posted 14 August 2019 - 12:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 50764 battles
  • 1,319
  • [GR-W] GR-W
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

Many good points here Tajj7.

 

The only one of these suggested changes I wouldn't want implemented straight away is the view range buff. I'd want slightly more conservative buffs and would rather see a rework of bush camo as you mentioned. Bushes and double bushes are slightly too strong.



vasilinhorulezz #8 Posted 14 August 2019 - 12:56 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26450 battles
  • 1,841
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014
Just buff DPM, gun handling, view range.

fwhaatpiraat #9 Posted 14 August 2019 - 12:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 56539 battles
  • 1,438
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013
Light tanks have to be bad because 1) Steve can't them, you need skill for it. 2) you don't need gold ammo to shoot them.

Obviously WG could make them pseudo-medium tanks or go crazy and make them so fast they are really hard to hit, just like the WVs. Let's say the players' opinion of WVs is divided, so please no. I honestly think - sadly, since I love playing light tanks a lot - that it is a case of 'deal with it'. Look, people don't like to see their OP tanks getting nerfed. Also people don't like to play with tanks that have weaknesses; they must be reasonably fast, reasonably well-armoured and have a good gun. Light tanks don't fit in there most of the time. Since they only work in open maps, and medium tanks are almost as good in spotting, often. I'll just have to accept that my 13-105 gets annihilated by w-mode 907s. Chieftains, 279s and many other vehicles just laugh at light tanks. It is what is.

8126Jakobsson #10 Posted 14 August 2019 - 01:03 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 77193 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

Accuracy is a big one to me. Doesn't make much sense gameplay wise to make LT's so derpy in general (unless they are actually derping, ofc).

As for the maps? Yeah you don't really want to have the strongest hold positions with bushes and hard covers in the far back. Put them further ahead toward/in the middle to fight over. That way you are rewarding the successful aggressors instead of punishing attempts to advance. 



Nitro_Tank #11 Posted 14 August 2019 - 01:06 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6549 battles
  • 148
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011
Yes

unclexray #12 Posted 14 August 2019 - 01:36 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 53219 battles
  • 108
  • [UN1TE] UN1TE
  • Member since:
    05-01-2013

there is a bigger problem in this game.

clip tanks mr wg disney invented al variations of it   to  let the kids play again because they want  clip tank so they can do 100 dam

even little kids ca make the game win and do 300 dam to win as they come in action fore 100% in the last sec of the game to clip you away

nxt i gues will be the stb clipper  the obj 430 clipper the wz111 clipper the rhm borsig clipper etc   

 

what in the heel can i do in this games with my super peshing my t54 mod etc    they are not fit in the game annymore

its one of my big reasons to pay nothing more buy nothing more and play fr


Edited by unclexray, 14 August 2019 - 01:38 PM.


tajj7 #13 Posted 14 August 2019 - 01:48 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27778 battles
  • 15,642
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View Posteldrak, on 14 August 2019 - 11:44 AM, said:

Many good points here Tajj7.

 

The only one of these suggested changes I wouldn't want implemented straight away is the view range buff. I'd want slightly more conservative buffs and would rather see a rework of bush camo as you mentioned. Bushes and double bushes are slightly too strong.

 

The view ranges were largely like that on Sandbox, and they were fine then (or at least us sandboxers thought so) and I think in the current meta they wouldn't be much issue.

 

It's only 30m higher for example than Sheridan/Rhm.M60/Fatton have now, considering we now have meds with around 18-20% base camo without any skills, I don't think it would be OP.

 

The bushes would be preferable, but I wonder if that is way more work. 

 

View Postfwhaatpiraat, on 14 August 2019 - 11:58 AM, said:

Light tanks have to be bad because 1) Steve can't them, you need skill for it. 2) you don't need gold ammo to shoot them.

Obviously WG could make them pseudo-medium tanks or go crazy and make them so fast they are really hard to hit, just like the WVs. Let's say the players' opinion of WVs is divided, so please no. I honestly think - sadly, since I love playing light tanks a lot - that it is a case of 'deal with it'. Look, people don't like to see their OP tanks getting nerfed. Also people don't like to play with tanks that have weaknesses; they must be reasonably fast, reasonably well-armoured and have a good gun. Light tanks don't fit in there most of the time. Since they only work in open maps, and medium tanks are almost as good in spotting, often. I'll just have to accept that my 13-105 gets annihilated by w-mode 907s. Chieftains, 279s and many other vehicles just laugh at light tanks. It is what is.

 

Yeh there seems to be a general expectation now that tanks should do everything, have armour, have alpha, have gun handling, have view range, have good gun handling.

 

Which is an expectation I think created by the likes of 279e, Cheiftain, 907, 430U, and changes to the heaviums to make them faster with better gun handling.

 

Whilst I am not a great fan of such defined roles that WG tried on a previous sandbox, I think tanks need more weaknesses. 

 

I played the 60tp yesterday and wondered why I didn't like the tank, and I thought like 2-3 years ago if probably would have been thought of as OP tank, I mean decently mobile super heavy with 750 alpha, good turret armour and good gun depression?  but now, because it's relatively slow, has a derpy gun and has genuine weakspots it's not much than average. 

 

In the world of power creep we have an environment where lights just don't really fit.

 

Which actually makes me think of another suggestion.

 

We need to do things like make heaviums slower, make heavies have more derpy guns and slower traverse rates, make mediums, particularly armoured ones have less camo, stuff like that would put  lights back being more competitive.

 

Again makes me think of WVs, its like they have been made super fast so they can cancel out that power creep, they can circle heavies more easily like they have slow turret/track traverse, are harder to hit for big guns, so effectively make gun handling worse more like it should be for big guns, can rush camping spots to cancel out camo power creep. 



lnfernaI #14 Posted 14 August 2019 - 02:00 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33236 battles
  • 4,487
  • [ICYA] ICYA
  • Member since:
    09-15-2012

We are already all doomed, the game is doomed to be catered to the noob master race.

One more update of such a [edited] magnitude might just be the finishing blow.



SaintMaddenus #15 Posted 14 August 2019 - 02:11 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 37419 battles
  • 2,373
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-04-2011

"We need to do things like make heaviums slower, make heavies have more derpy guns and slower traverse rates, make mediums, particularly armoured ones have less camo, stuff like that would put  lights back being more competitive."

yes but with premium ammo and +2 MM heavies become totally useless vs anything.


 

the difference between a T9 heavy and a t7 is huge, 8 & 6 etc.    if I am a low tier heavy I can't brawl with the T9's so I have to go to the light side to get to penetrate anything.   So as it is a low tier heavy has to play vs lights.   100% out spotted and penetrated by the lights every shot.  Even as it stands a heavy can be pew pewed to death before seeing anything.  I know that this is playing it "wrong" but I can't stand camping, i'm over aggressive (as my stats will show) .  This isn't really a class issue, it's a matchmaking issue.   If they fix the lights they need to prevent heavies 2 tiers lower from seeing them.


 



tajj7 #16 Posted 14 August 2019 - 02:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27778 battles
  • 15,642
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostSaintMaddenus, on 14 August 2019 - 01:11 PM, said:

the difference between a T9 heavy and a t7 is huge, 8 & 6 etc.    if I am a low tier heavy I can't brawl with the T9's so I have to go to the light side to get to penetrate anything.   So as it is a low tier heavy has to play vs lights.   100% out spotted and penetrated by the lights every shot.  Even as it stands a heavy can be pew pewed to death before seeing anything.  I know that this is playing it "wrong" but I can't stand camping, i'm over aggressive (as my stats will show) .  This isn't really a class issue, it's a matchmaking issue.   If they fix the lights they need to prevent heavies 2 tiers lower from seeing them.

 

Yeh good point, most tier 7s heavies don't have much armour and if they do they go slow (O-Ni).

 

A tier 7 'heavium' is the IS, which is decently mobile, has a derpy gun, has ok armour and goes about 35kph. It also has bad view range. 

 

The comparable tank on tier 10 is the IS7, goes 60kph, has decent agility, good gun handling, and very good armour. It has 400m view range.

 

It's not hard to see why tier 7 lights have less trouble than their tier 10 counterparts, when they face heavies with genuine weaknesses. Lower tier heavies trade for their armour and big guns, and those weaknesses can be exploited by light tanks if played well (and vice versa), but at tier 10 you have heavies, armoured meds and armoured TDs that don't trade as much for their armour and big guns. So there are less obvious weaknesses for lights to exploit. 



ChristOfTheAbyss #17 Posted 14 August 2019 - 02:26 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 251 battles
  • 55
  • Member since:
    07-22-2019

Sandbox is a hoax that makes it look like WG listens to feedback.

 

The ignoring of all of the testing we did on Sandbox made me ignore any future sandbox completely. Whats the point to give feedback and test vehicles when they are thrown in to the bin before live servers.

 

Lights were near perfect then, I were happy and looking for them a lot. The balancing would have been one of the best patches the game has seen, but in true WG way, they wanted to make it garbage.



Thornvalley #18 Posted 14 August 2019 - 02:36 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 41217 battles
  • 176
  • Member since:
    01-27-2015

Nice write-up!

 

I wouldn't mind if all TX lights are buffed back to sandbox status. Especially VR buffs are important. In fact they could also be given medium like dpm with lower alpha and worse accuracy. This would give the light "perma-tracking abilities" that would increase the reward for getting close to opponents.



SaintMaddenus #19 Posted 14 August 2019 - 02:53 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 37419 battles
  • 2,373
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-04-2011
My problem is I'm just not good enough to play at T10 at a level that can maintain credits, so these are issues that I don't have too much experience with, my one T10 is the American E05.  I've been told its more medium than heavy so I try play that way.  But looks like I should have done IS route :)

Mimos_A #20 Posted 14 August 2019 - 03:08 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29141 battles
  • 2,330
  • [SPESH] SPESH
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

Good post. Lights used to be my favourite class to play, but more and more, the risk/reward has been way off when pressing battle in a light. Too many maps restrict your role to hanging around until hopefully some gap you might be able to exploit appears. In which case you will still lose most of your hp to some back-of-the-map camping spot you will never be able to dig out without getting shot. It's too often you end up on maps and matchups where when going through your options, the best one is: hope the enemy is dumb enough to let me get away with this...

 

Also, too many teammates like this:

make the whole spotting thing unbearable. And before you ask, no wheelies were present in this match. And this is not a one-time occurrence either...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users