c4 vs fully certed MBT

No, they don't. Check the number of uniques on Oracle. And you didn't take into account secondaries, those can be used against infantry as well.

I can't vote this up enough. Make C4 a challenge to use.

I find it hilarious that this comes from a person with a MAX in his profile picture.

And this is somehow worse for tankers? The fact they don't have to worry about other sources of damage?

Like small arms, lolpods, MAXes, AV weapons (c4 and rockets included), roadkills, AI weaponry on vehicles or air and so on. Compare the TTK of all said weapons on an average infantryman and a tanker if you come up with ridiculous arguments like this one.

As long as the resource system is half-done and the vehicle gameplay is so different compared to PS1, there is no reason to nerf C4.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of C4 explosions killing me.

In all seriousness, consider the costs involved here. A MAX costs as much as an MBT. Which is quite a bit more than a brick of C4. I'm not sure why you're in the camp that thinks that a MAX shouldn't be a killing machine.

Things like tanks and MAXes should have a much longer TTK than your average infantryman. It's a bogus comparison.

I agree that MAXes should be big, scary, and powerful (people can argue whether or not this requires skill, I don't really have an investment in that discussion) but I think that the biggest problem with MAXes is that they can be revived. When I kill a MAX, I should feel elated that I took down a super heavy scary death machine, but instead I know that I really didn't do anything to the enemy push/defense because he'll be back up in just a few seconds.

You mean all this time I've been wasting my effort trying to stick C4 on the back of vehicles when anywhere will do? Yeah, clearly C4 should take account of directional armour.

infils give insta death

Recently revived MAXes are easy enough to kill within a few seconds by almost any class. They're extremely vulnerable unless an engineer is waiting for them to get back on their feet... and let's face it that doesn't happen very often unless you've organized one or two to remain glued to you.

And when the MAX goes down they usually flee or die in short order.

i think C4 should be weakened since you can just chuck it however, engineers can get a bigger C4 to plant so you plant this at a chokepoint and say an armor zerg or "convoy" if you like that term comes by and he can set it off destroying all vehicles near it and some in a decent radius away getting flipped or blown away, i think this would make for some nice tactical planning and ending the endless armor zergs

This is the right answer.

The ONLY thing I'd request is a an audible "Blip!" when enemies are detect by the proximity radar. That way you could use it without having to stare at it to make it useful. This could be toggled with a check box in the audio settings if people didn't want to hear it.

Maybe so, but I feel a MAX kill is still a 'soft accomplishment' all the same. If I were to change the way C4 works, I'd do this:

Make MAXes non-revivable (possibly make it so the infantry inside is revived, but not the suit)

Reduce C4 damage by such-and-such a percent so that 2 bricks bring MBTs to ~70%-80%, can still one-brick ESFs, Harassers, two-brick Lightnings, require two-bricks for MAXes, etc.

Give Light Assault (the primary user of C4 and the class that would lose an entire team utility and play style by nerfing C4 so much) a grenade launcher or rocket rifle tool ala HA's Rocket Launcher equivalents (AA/AI/AV variants). These grenade launchers would do less damage and have less range than HA launchers, and would be a generally less powerful but more mobile version of the HA tools as per the Light Assault creed.

That way LAs can still fulfill their 'flanking but weak HA' role but the fights are more fair and less frustrating for tankers due to Insta-gibbing.

IMO, the problem with C4 is that:

C4 forces you to stay away from any sort of cover over 2m high (cover that a LA can get on).

However, if you dont get into cover as a MBT currently, you will get shredded within seconds by AV maxes, AV turrets and other sorts of infantry AV unless your faction already has the advantage.

And like the last few threads about this subject, I still think adding a certable "C4guard" for MBT's and lightnings would be the way to go (or adding C4 reduction to the mineguard cert-line).

Well, that's kind of the point. There should be no "good" answers. You should always be taking your chances, no matter the role, no matter the vehicle.

Personally I think C4 balance is fine as-is. If someone manages to get into melee range of my tank without me noticing, it's fine for them to kill me imo.

However I'm not really against a separate armor type that only prevents C4 (x2) one-shots which would naturally come at the cost of whatever other choices you could make instead for that slot. (And honestly they should run some internal stats on the KPH and K/D of tanks with various slot choices, and improve the items which are underperforming.)

false equivalence, the range on C4 is 2m+splash or less in most instances (unless you count LA with drifters). a pistol that could do that would reach out much further. supply is also not "un-limited" since you can only carry X amount and must take time to go back to a term and get more/re spawn. any time you use C4 it eats into any of the other things you could be doing with your nanites (unlike the old system)

I agree, C4 could use a directional damage revamp, I just am not fully agreeing on how, its should be the hind quarter of the tank (including a very small strip across the rear top armor, everywhere else will have armor resistance) that results in a tank kill IMO. this would make drifter HA actual have to aim, and require infantry to actually get to the back of a tank. the underbelly should also count as a weak spot against driving over a detonated C4 trap (mine guard will negate)

[/quote]
Any C-4 next to a tank, should not have any splash damage at all.. if its not directly ON the tank, it should do no damage to the tank at all. However, if you put it on the road, a tank drives over it, you explode the C-4.. same 1500 damage per brick.

The perceived "imbalance" can easily be understood when you ask tankers what they are afraid of the most : C-4 ranks high
Ask what most infantry are afraid of : NOT tanks..

More accurate placement, some damage reduction, then C-4 could be balanced.[/quote]


infantry are plenty afraid of tanks, they just have walled off bases that make them less annoying, in an open field tanks can be brutal to infantry, just like at a base infantry can be brutal to tanks due to all the cover.

You counteract the drifter or LA that drops from Valks right. Wasnt farming infantry in my ap prowler with a walker on it. Look at my kill board, very few kills are infantry. For the most part i look for other mbts or sundies and lightnings. I just think its cheesy to drop in on someone in the middle of a tank fight and boom. But i guess forumside thinks its legit, oh well.

Yeah but the chances of getting C4'd when near cover are near 100%, with 5/6 classes being able to carry 2 bricks at least, and trying to engage infantry at longer range is especially pointless when they have any sort of cover and a medic nearby.

Currently, C4 makes me (and probably alot of other tankers) scared to do anything except for shelling from behind my own infantry line, with cover that is reachable within seconds in case that AV MAX starts shooting at me from 300m away. While most infantry AV either has a slow TTK (launchers) or allows for counterplay (AV turrets, AV mines), C4 totally ignores this rule unless you count not driving near 90% of the map as a "counter".

C4 is so OP that i dont even dare to drive within 50m of infantry unless it is open terrain with good enough cover nearby to defend myself versus long-range infantry AV. It makes the ground-vehicle game stale and dull.

TLDR: Even if C4 is balanced (hint, it is not), it is not fun to play against and destroys the ground vehicle game, because infantry is always the best counter to enemy vehicles.

I love how people feel that the targets they choose to engage should have an effect on what targets choose to engage them.

even then AV spec tanks are capable of killing infantry with very little issues if they dont have to deal with a lot of them at once (whole sale infantry slaughter is meant to be the AI tanks role) infantry without C4 (other then heavy) just get to smile at the tanker through his optics.

Not unlike infantry-side that thinks all bases should be walled-off and unreachable for ground and air vehicles so they can have infantry vs infantry, right? Because that would be madness

i agree, we need more bases with things for tanks to do, thats not what I am currently talking about.