c4 vs fully certed MBT

Not true. You don't need to move out of range. To avoid almost every high altitude drifter C4 attack from instagibbing you, you only need to move between your shots in a way that's hard enough to predict that it's down to luck if both C4 bricks land on you. There's no way for a LA that's above your prox sensor range dropping a brick to know the exact position of your tank when the brick lands. It takes long enough for the brick to fall that if you start moving a bit after it's dropped, you're almost certainly going to avoid it.

The best window of opportunity for the LA is to drop the brick immediately upon seeing you stop for an attack. If you're taking a bit too long to get moving again, you might get hit with one brick, but the LA either already expended the second brick and missed with it (because you were already moving), or he still has the second brick but now you know you're being attacked and there's no way he'll hit the second brick if you know what you're doing.

Sure, in a Vanguard you might be confident doing that most of the time. As you said, if you see C4 falling you'll just activate the shield. But that doesn't apply when your shield is on cooldown or when you're in a Lightning or a different MBT. My point was intended as a general rule on how to counter drifters+C4 in any vehicle.

All I'm saying is that the average tanker should be able to aim accurately enough within the time frame that's needed to avoid high altitude C4 attacks.

Indeed, I completely agree.

I'm not saying what tanks should or shouldn't do. YOU asked what would be the role of tanks IF they didn't attack infantry. I simply told you what their role would be.

Do you have any evidence that tanks in PS2 were conceived to counter infantry specifically? Is that what the devs have said? Not that that matters either way though, what matters is fun gameplay.

You replied to my comment and lost the context. You don't get to just pick and choose words and make them into your own thought. My entire post was regarding the role of tanks as infantry killing devices. Then tanks play another role to kill tanks that kill infantry. If tanks do not kill infantry, then why have tanks that prevent tanks from killing infantry? To kill sunderers and protect other tanks that do not kill infantry? So when I pull a tank I have to go look for sunderers and other tanks that are protecting the sunderers, completely ignoring any infantry I see flanking my guys? I have to wander the hills looking for a vehicle that might be shooting other vehicles? lol.

Also, I did not apply my statement to the developers and planetside's conception of tanks. I'm saying that tanks were invented to combat infantry. To provide combat superiority in a battle and that is what they do in planetside. The model works great.

No one gets madder than me when a guy pulls a tank and kills me when I am engaged infantry/infantry. But at the same time I do not blame the game design. I blame the wussy at the control of the tank for pulling a tank. But even that is the wrong way to think. The tanker is doing his job. Effectively neutralizing infantry. Frustrating the enemy and forcing them to change tactics. The way to combat that is with air and armor support. People shouldn't ask for more effective ways for infantry to kill tanks. They have plenty of tools as is. A group of players inability to kill armor unless they coordinate strikes against the unit should be the design. That is unless the tanker is dumb enough to position himself poorly.

What kind of special person detonates them 1 at a time?....

Look, infantry have the same problems with moving while shooting that tanks do. If I stand still on a roof top for more than a few seconds I'm probably going to die, if not to a sniper then to an ESF, other LAs, a tank shell, or any number of other things. At the same time I can't fire at all while sprinting and can't fire accurately while moving. Does this dilemma sound familiar?

But hey, that's a major element of skill in this game. Knowing when to move, how to move, when to aim and for how long depending on what's going on around you. In fact it's the single biggest factor in doing well, even more important than aiming, and it's why new players get absolutely destroyed for so long when starting out.

So why do people act like this basic principle of FPS games doesn't apply to them just because they're sitting in a tank? Most of the AV in this game is designed to let you ignore it, that's why. It's been that way so long that tank drivers now expect to be able to ignore it in all cases. There's one single source of AV in the game that penalizes them for this luxury and now that's "totally ridiculous" and just has to be nerfed.

Here's another idea: either learn to be effective while moving your tank like all the rest of us have to do or use the damage soaking potential to play lazily and accept that you're going to be gibbed for it every now and then. Like I said before, no other source of AV in the game can be countered so easily. Incorporating this counter into your play style is the only hard part and that's something we all struggle with in our respective roles.

That question is nonsensical. If tanks don't kill infantry, then they focus on their other roles which I listed.

Killing enemy sunderers and protecting your own team's sunderers from enemy tanks are probably the most effective ways for a tanker to contribute to base capture. By far.

1. Did you even read the list I provided of things AP tanks can do? You as a tanker would counter tanks who could do the exact same things as you could do. Enemy tanks wouldn't only be protecting sunderers.
2. Why would you completely ignore infantry? If there are no vehicles to attack, you could still attack infantry with your anti-tank weapons.
3. Yes, if tanks didn't have a primary AI role, then that would be reserved for light vehicles and battle Sunderers (dual bulldogs or kobalts).

Don't BS me. Everyone knows that anti-armor MBT's are very common and very often played by experienced tankers or other people whose main playstyle is tanking. There's nothing lolworthy about pulling a tank specifically for the purpose of destroying vehicles - quite the opposite, I think that's the most fun thing about MBT gameplay in PS2. I almost always pull an AP tank myself, and I've auraxed AP lightning and it was hell of a lot of fun. I find that vehicle fights that don't revolve around tanks shelling infantry with HE and PPA are quite dynamic and fun.

Uhuh. As I said, what matters is fun gameplay, not why tanks were invented.

The kind that attacks moving vehicle and
(a) only gets the chance to hit the tank with one brick
(b) lands the first brick on the ground instead of the tank's hull, and can't therefore afford to spend time throwing a second brick before detonating

Missed the first brick, okay. So you only have 1 brick left anyways?

Ok then you agree that tanks should kill infantry. Which is the point I wanted to make. The only thing which doesn't make sense is your implication that tanks have to prioritize vehicles. Infantry have the ability to destroy your vehicle and kill your friends. You need to have a vehicle that suppresses infantry.

The enjoyment you receive from gameplay is purely subjective so I don't really understand the reason for that comment. I am trying to explain why tanks exist. Planes exist to fly. Lets have planes that can't fly. They just hover 5 feet off the ground. Because I think that would be fun.

Meh, fine with the resource right now I'll give you this.

Glancing up once in awhile is not a tactic, it's something you attempt to develop a reflex for. Yes, I understand getting double teamed, teamwork is always OP. In terms of sheer punishment for a lapse defense nothing makes a group take more punishment than C-4. C-4 does way more damage at the point of attack than anything else in the game. C-4 also is more difficult to detect than say two NC MAXs coming at your group. Basically the potential payoff for using C-4 is higher than any other weapon in the game.

So you are going to complain about 2 C-4 bricks decomposing 1 minute after you death after saying 450 resource cost of a MAX is negligible? My MAX can be rezzed and your C-4 can be detonated I'd call that a push, my MBT cannot be rezzed, nor my Sunderer. Secondly, I regularly run HA with grenade bando, I throw AV grenades like candy that's 180 resources for 4, two bricks can kill a tank for 150? I need all four and 2 shots from a rocket launcher to kill a MBT ..this just seems very skewed in favor of C-4. I understand you must get closer but as an LA this can be relatively easy.

Still of all classes the LA has the highest probability of making it, second without a sniper rifle it is very, very hard to kill someone at 300m with a tank. Tanks need LOS to make their shots, I'd wager that 90% of tanks are within 100m if you are thinking of C-4 ing them. Additionally an LA can drop from a Valk or Gal and come in over the tank very precisely with drifters (I've done this) . Taks do not come equipped with a window looking up.

You really can't call C-4 expensive and say my MBT with 10000 certs and 450 resources or my 8000 cert MAX at 450 resource is negligible. I invested more into the guns, features and abilities of both weapon systems and had them nerfed repeatedly when C-4 is a far more flexible and grave threat. It seems to me that C-4 is too powerful when compared to the investment of time/cert/resources of a MBT or a MAX.

I already told you: I'm not saying what tanks should or shouldn't do. I'm just discussing what they would do if they didn't have AI specialized weapons. You seem to be stuck thinking that I'm making some claims about what the game should be like which is not the case.

I know that you're trying to explain why tanks exist, I already told you that's irrelevant in my opinion. Why do I need to repeat things to you? What matters for the game is fun gameplay, and any decisions on behalf of developers about what roles vehicles have should be based around that, and only around that. If having hovercraft instead of aircraft actually was more fun, then that it would be completely justified to have hovercraft instead of aircraft. Arguments in favor or against a feature of gameplay just don't need to involve things like "why do tanks exist". Who cares?

Yes, if you miss one brick, you only have one left. What's your point ?

I agree... I would rather have heavy rocket launchers doing +50% dmg they do now to tanks.. instead of C4 fairies as they exist now. At least they have to aim.

THAT IT SHOULDN'T DO 80% OF YOUR HEALTH.

Armor is specifically meant to be in open areas to defend sundys.
They aren't meant to farm, and anyone driving heavy armor into enemy structures crawling with C-4 LA's deserves to get blasted for being so close that the enemy could literally pee down on your vehicle.


C-4 is a point-blank defensive weapon.
If it's removed, there would be no way for infantry to keep back armor without organized strikes (which happen virtually never).

As well, armor would demand you pull armor, which is NOT the point of this game.
The game is meant to be combine arms.
Everything is supposed to be able to kill everything, with each specific thing having it's own dominant domain.

Infantry dominate close quarters and in between structures, ground armor dominates flat open land, and air is split between ESF's and libs (each countering each other depending on the individual circumstances).

The only broken part is how easy it is for ESF's to kill infantry on their own turf.

Nerf teamwork. Got it.

And how do you get from "you miss one brick and have one brick left" to "it should do less damage"? What's the argument?

EDIT: Missing one brick still means it does damage: the point was you detonate it before the tank moves away. You were implying you should always detonate both at the same time, I showed you that's not the case when the first brick lands next to the tank and the tank is going to move away before you can land the second brick.

Know what's funny?

For the first time... practically ever... I was HE farming in a prowler last weekend.

Got C4'd twice. I never get C4'd! haha

I actually laughed (My KDR for the 2 deaths was still fine lol )

Didn't help I was locked down I bet

Dat RoF

First off, nothing in the game is meant to farm. Besides it is a legitimate tactic to hunker down and fight a battle of attrition, which most people believe is "farming".

I disagree about C4 being a defensive weapon. How come people witness light assaults chasing tanks or dropping from air transports with C4 in hand? This is not some coincidence. If C4 is removed, there are many ways for infantry to fight tanks, such as anit-tank mines, rocket launchers, portable AV-turrets, anti-tank grenades, and MAX suits (yes, MAXes are considered infantry in this game). The removal of C4 would mean infantry would need to use more proper ways to kill tanks instead of the broken, cheap C4 way (C4 is really cheap, only 700 certs two unlock 2 blocks of C4 and 150 nanites to use).

How do you know what is and is not the point of the game? You are not the developers themselves. What we can safely assume is that Planetside 2 models modern day warfare, which is combined arms, with envisioned technology. The weapon technology with the exception of most Vanu weapons, is all old-school. Today, we have VTOLS, MBTs, light tanks, body armor (which translates into shields), and same classes of weapons. Because Planetside 2 is currently similar to modern warfare, we can assume the basic fundamentals of modern warfare should apply to this game. One of those fundamentals is that the best weapon against a tank is another tank, which was first advocated by Jacob L. Devers whose doctrines are still used today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pulling armor to defeat armor. Infantry should just be there to stop enemy infantry from getting closer to use rockets and various of other anti-tank weapons on friendly tanks.

About the ESFs, why shouldn't the ESF be able to do some ground attack? All fighters today can do ground attack, so why not the fighters of the future?

So basically what you are saying is, your fairy moves didn't work and you should still be able to kill the person if you run face first at him.