The map is about to became really small if we keep removing sniping spot.
What if we got rid of all phonebooth-knifefight-in-a-narrow-corridor-slop maps instead? ;-)
Well, that’s one way to do it; the other way is to lower hills and make em tall in areas where sniping is a risk-reward situation. Sure, you could snipe into our spawn, but we can retaliate, and the hills are all screwed up to the point that while you are being an arse, we can kill you. Or you can keep hiding and not get any kills. As the situation for some maps is simple: Sniper hill gives good protection, and you can shoot from said covered position, while we cannot retaliate at all.
I like playing snipers a lot - somehow all through my gaming history always liked ranged weapons and stealthy warfare. You’d more likely see me as a hunter or rogue than as a melee warrior…
Some maps are very good for sniping, others not. Maginot is quite a good one, but not the best.
However - and I think that’s often underestimated especially by players not very experienced in this gameplay - sniping gameplay is a very two-edged sword, and while it can be quite profitable, it also makes you predictable.
This here is a prime example: We know that spot exists, so knowing it, one can defend against it. When I play not in a sniper/ambush role, I always keep my eyes on exactly those points that I would use myself if I played a sniper.
After all: If you can see it, you can kill it. If you know where it is, you can try to spot it.
What also needs to be noted is that to get into such a position as described by OP, one has to travel far, which not only takes time but is dangerous because you can run into opposition any time. Then it boils once again down to how well a team defends against the threats of snipers/ambushers or - to use a term I personally don’t like a lot - spawn campers.
I agree, also get rid of ratslop. Take a look at the 10 or so maps the community generally considers good, do a DEEP analysis of them, and then make good maps. Wait it’s gaijin so that’s not happening
A problem I have with certain maps is how easy it is to have full sightline into the other teams spawn within just a few seconds of the match starting. Eastern Europe suffers this issue the most, to the point I often call it “Fields of Murder” from how one side of the map is just a death sentence if you take that route out of spawn.
Spaceport is almost a well designed map with the mix of everything that makes a good WT map… BUT there are egregious sightlines into spawn so it’s god awful
1 Like
That’s going completely around the problem. It’s not people sniping; it’s people sniping so far back in positions we cannot flank or respond to. That picture I posted is a hill. We cannot shoot him, but he can shoot us. This is simply because the hill has a slightly tall hill, a medium hill, and a small one. So he can rest his cannon on all three, covering his tank basically from everything, including ATGM’s.
The only thing that could kill him would be bombs, rockets, or aerial strafes. But the fact that there is only one solution to this issue on said map means there is no viable solution on the ground.
France number one!
France has over 1000 different types of cheese, you wouldn’t destroy that would you? While British food is bad and Germans only have sausages (you can’t convince me otherwise)
1 Like
France also has Napolean, and good girls, i only agree with you
1 Like
How is CAS the only solution? The red team has to travel twice as far to get to that hill. Take it first.
(Admittedly never tried it myself to take that hill, as I usually when spawwning in the South travel more North West. Will have to try though next time I’m there…)
Lol, what request.
Cause multiple of us scouted him, dropped artillery, and all attempted to rush the position. However, every round we fired hit the wall or overshot. While we were picked off 1 by 1. I know cause this post was being made when I was in the match, and I was the one who scouted it.
Did anyone bother to take that hill for the team before he got there?
Of course if the team only tries to react after he gets into position instead of proactively prevent he can do so, there’s not much to do.
(Btw, what vehicle was he using?)
To be clear, you want the southern team to waste time, effort and an entire player to take a hill that is only useful if someone does a super flank and tries to spawncamp?
It’s all well and good to say that if someone was ready to intercept the spawncamper, this wouldn’t be a problem. But on the reasonable proportion of games where there are no spawncampers (Or at least none taking that exact position), should someone on the southern team just content themselves with sitting around for the entire game, achieving nothing?
You might say “Well, if the flank is uncontested, they can just push up and take a position around C3”. In which case, your proposed solution to spawncamping is just incentivising more spawn camping.
1 Like
All of us, if my memory serves me correctly, an Object 120… You expect glass cannons to be used in said situation. I was the only one who got close enough- loosely.
Well, that’s always the question: On one hand a player getting there may waste his time, on the other hand leaving that flank unprotected will endanger spawning vehicles. It’s always a gamble, yes.
Playing an ambusher/sniper, or also a SPAA is really always a gamble and matter of patience: It’s a support role, and you support your team by eliminating enemies at long distances before they can become a threat, or deny them access to areas where they can cause harm. You may have matches where you’re very busy and effective, others where you go out mostly empty handed. That’s a big difference to the medium and heavy tank gameplay that favors more direct, immediate action, fast contact gameplay.
My point in this whole discussion here: WT’s maps have already been made smaller quite severely, a lot of possibilities for using ambush-style vehicles have been removed, and thus removing a lot of opportunities for tactical use of the landscape. In my personal view this “dumbing down” of maps makes WT less interesting, making it less worthwhile to play for quite a large group of vehicles. When “paper-scissors-rock” becomes just “rock-rock-rock”, the result can’t be more interesting than the more tactical diverse - and challenging - map design.
Also, it seems to me (but I said before: I haven’t tried it out yet) that said hill in H3 looks like a good spot also for Blue, not only to keep it away from Red, but to control a substantial part of the lower left quarter of the map.
Absolutely! Pushing to control C3 would be very worthwhile for controlling the battlefield and win the match! That’s the objective, no? As is preventing the enemy to be able to do the same, right?
Hm, that surprises me, actually. The “Taran” has poor vertical guidance of only -5°, which makes it a challenge to use it in such a hull down / behind crest style of fight without having to expose yourself and making yourself extremely vulnerable. It also has quite mediocre optics for a long distance sniper.
Look at it from a game theory perspective.
If a player goes to that position, and an enemy shows up:
They can (probably) kill them. They will then have next to no influence on the rest of the game, unless someone else turns up, also (probably) giving them a kill. So, best case scenario, a couple of kills.
If a player goes to that position, and no-one turns up:
They get nothing. Zip, zero, nada, nothing. They just get to sit on a ridge and watch as their team wins/loses without them.
Because despite what you seem to believe, that hill in H3 is a dead position. All it does is cover the low ground to the south of the city, and could give you shots on people using the ridge at E4. So it’s only going to give you map control over an area that the enemy will only be in if they decide to ignore the objective and spawncamp. And it’ll only get shots on enemies in a useful position once your team has already been overrun and are largely forced back into their own spawn.
Meanwhile, if they don’t take that position, and no-one turns up:
They get to play the game. They can expect to receive as many kills as they would normally get, and possibly win the game for their team by their contributions. This is both the most lucrative, and most fun, option.
And if they don’t take the position, and an enemy does:
They get ganked coming out of spawn. Possibly along with a few of their team. This is the worst outcome.
So, with all that said, what are we left with in terms of incentives:
Taking that position with the intent on holding it means giving up all possibility of having a profitable or enjoyable game. All that you can get is the consolation prize of ganking the ganker. This means that taking the position is an entirely selfless act that sees no reward or recompense.
Therefore, obviously, most people don’t do it, and will be annoyed if they feel they have to do it.
The only alternative is for people who want to take that line so that they can spawncamp the enemies, which merely spreads the toxic feeling of losing a tank for literally nothing around, and leaves team balance on hoping that there’s an approximately equal number of people who’d want to do it.
Technically speaking, yes. However, tell me how it’s good gameplay to suddenly start taking fire inside your own spawn because no-one on your team decided to camp an otherwise worthless position?
To be clear, C3 is just as powerful as H3. Both can lock down all exits from spawn, meaning there’s no risk of the sniper being flanked, both allow firing from solid cover with a wide ridgeline to peak from and as such both can’t really be countered unless the camper makes a mistake, someone on the team realises the position and pushes there from somewhere outside of spawn, or CAS is used.
These are not balanced positions just because each team gets one. Neither should exist in this version of the map.
I should clarify why I keep saying “this version of the map”. It’s because the full three cap version has a cap point in the far western portion of the city, therefore both teams are directly incentivised to at least pay attention to that flank. Even if you aren’t actively guarding it, you will have a good idea of if it’s a threat based on if the objective is capped and by whom.
Plus, each team has two spawns, which at least complicates the spawncamping a little bit by forcing the camper to split their fire.
And my point is that you could easily alter this variation of the map to all but eliminate the problem without turning it into a corridor fest. All you have to do is cut out the map out at the 3-4 line.
You could still use the lowground around the city to flank your opponent’s main sniping positions. However, these flankers would have to push around a useful and therefore often manned position (The bunker complex in E4 and the ridgeline at D4/5) to get any useful shots onto the spawn.
So while they could still potentially gank players, aware players would likely be alerted by combat happening around those populated areas, and use some of the routes available to sneak up on the spawncamper (Using the shadow of the mountain in A/B4, and using the ridgeline to the east of the southern spawn).
Yes, such positions are difficult to handle. Yes, tactical choices can be a win or a loss, and affect personal and team outcome tremendously - but that’s exactly what makes it interesting! Warfare isn’t easy, personal decisions matter.
For me the idea to cut at the 3-4 line and thus remove about 1/3 of map area one can use is not a good option, for the reasons I mentioned before: It removes interesting options to play the map - for both sides.
And where to stop? Next remove the hill at B4? Then lower the C5-C6 crest, flatten F6-F7?
Well, in the end it’s really a question of personal taste, but making a map “easier” to play by taking away tactical possibilities will always be something I speak out against…
1 Like