No C-4 for LA

You can't effectively shoot while moving, even with some stabilisation. That problem can be solved, if we have a separate driver and separate gunner, but we don't have that. So either you stop for 1-3 shots and then move to new position (and it is enough time to be c4d), or you constantly moving and have a very huge % of missed shots.

You can't effectively shoot while moving as infantry either, but you deal with it by sometimes moving, sometimes not. You know, depending on what's going on around you.

I'm not suggesting tanks need to keep their finger on W all day long. But when you're dying to C4 9/10 times you're not moving enough, period.

If you remove the C-4 from the LA class then what's the point of the LA? Might as well delete the class altogether. That's just my opinion though.

c4 can be eliminated from light assault if they give a much faster mobility jet pack to the la,s class.

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...-to-light-assault-class-third-variant.202022/

and make them choose between higher mobility or c4. id go with higher mobility.

C4 is only effect against vehicles if they are unaware, problem with PS2 is that vehicles are generally use to farm infantry, I myself personally have all my vehicles kitted as Anti armour and have avoided the HE rounds for squishy killing. I play more for the enjoyment of besting someone in combat than sitting on a hill farming ppl increase my K;D, I let the br 100 pilots ESF pilots and tank campers do that. In PS1 the Driver was a dedicated driver, that's all they had to focus on because Vehicle drivers had no main weapon. they paid more attention to their surrounds, getting good angles for their gunner and worked together.

I've been LA from the get go and admittedly without C4 on my person as my Anti Max/Armour I feel quite naked without it, extremely vulnerable. Planetside 2 is supposed have multiple counters to things, flexibility so 1 class isn't favoured because of its equipment like the Medic is for BF because everyone wants an LMG and couldn't give 2 toads about healing.
Id say MAYBE make so that Heavy tanks can only be 2 shotted with C4 if both placed on the back, C4 is almost impossible to place on fast moving vehicle. I can easier hit a moving target with nade at 15ft than i can time the placement of C4 on Tank that's moving and I'm jetpacking over it because he trying to run me over and ones its down that's it, wasted. Only real time i get killed with C4 even as rookie vehicle driver the only time I die by C4 is when i get tunnel vision or foolishly chase after a LA. You say LA is over powered with C4 all because we have jetpacks, Yet a medic having a better primary, ability to heal themselves and have C4 is fine?

ITT people crying because something can effectively counter their cert farming with armor.

first you are a dip**** without light assault infantry have an even harder time on vehicle combat it already takes like 4 heavies with rockets to take down just 1 enemy tank and really every other class with c4 wouldn't really have a way to fight against vehicles unless you galaxy drop on top of something if they did make c4 way more expensive they should make vehicles more harder to spawn

I think the c-4 is okay for light assault.
The only thing that the LA should not use are the shotguns

Problem is with the weapon, not the class. Shotguns are cheesy regardless of the class they're used on.

Do you know that C4 is easy to evade? Of course, you will have to leave your farming spots behind and get more rockets to the face, but the dev's never intended fair fights right?
C4 is a stalemate solution. It can take out nearly stationary targets, if you can get close enough. Getting close is difficult on moving targets or people who know how to support. It is easy on greedy people who drive into a base or other part where C4 is relatively easy to place. Relatively, as it still is an instance that should happen less than any other tank killing method. I can count the times I've been killed by C4 when in a tank. I cannot with any other weapon. It is only an annoyance to you, and you try to justify removing it. You probably believe in it too, but are misguided.

I love how everyone complaining about it just forgets proximity radar.

Farm vehicles, or farm infantry. If you try and do both at once you you deserve what's coming to you.

It can't destroy a Sundy that easily at all now, because of the shield, and if stupid noob MBT drivers can't maneuver away and kill the LA, and they don't have a top gunner (most seen situation in TR Prowlers) then they should learn to play proparly. Plus C4 is the only "tool" that the LA has, therefor, if you remove it the LA would be just and Infi with carbines and more health, so give it a REAL tool and then i would gladly hand over my C4 for lets say, a jammer of some sort that temporarly disables all vehicles. And with the new resource system you get 50 res in 1 min. and from zero to full in like 10 min. or so. And it is limited for the Enginee, HA. LA, CM.

A problem - as I view it - is how C4 has changed the game play style. Before players worried about K/D and would play to avoid death. Now that K/D seems to no longer mean much, especially to high ranked players the play style has changed to suicide runs. A game encouraging suicide as a play style - in my view - has some underlying issues.

Sure, the Sunderer equipped with the deploy shield can outlast a single Light Assault. That's not how the game is played though, multiple Light Assault are out there, along with all the other classes on foot throwing down tank mines and using their grenade bandolier of 4 grenades and the two guys in Max suits blasting away with wire-guided aim. I rarely if ever see more than one single deploy shield sunderer anywhere on the map. Typically it's a couple of repair sunderers and perhaps an ammo sunderer - neither of which has any resistance to any damage other than keeping the clegg from easy targeting view.

I wouldn't want to remove C4 from the Light Assault, it is one of there main stays for doing damage. I would however consider SOE's own statement from the August 5th Patch notes,

They've reduced some lethality by adding the deploy shield option to the Sunderer, that doesn't help the Lightning tank or any MBT that has to choose from mine guard, side armor, top armor, front armor - none of which cover the weakest target point the back end clegg.

C4 right now is - in my view - being abused; The number of classes, the number of players utilizing it far exceeds balance. Vehicles, in particular all tanks had huge output reductions from the Aug 5th patch. Most of those focused on reducing vehicles ability to counter infantry... add to that the changes on the maps we've all seen in the past year: the high walls of Esamir, the spawn room changes, barriers all over the bases and dirt mounds around base edges to push vehicles away - they do push vehicles away and make it perfect for infantry to jump over drop their load, then respawn rinse and repeat.

Part of the frustration with C4 isn't really about C4 at all. It's about vehicle play and how it's becoming stale. C4 just exemplifies a frustration, that vehicle players want to participate but are being shut out by changes designed to keep infantry alive while not giving something back to vehicle players.

I could see adding more resistance to every vehicle's rear end specifically against C4 and no other weapon or tool but that - to me- would just be a work around and not take on underlying issues of game design which has been presented in various roadmaps over the years but have never quite been implemented. The Resource Revamp never quite made it to fruition. They consolidated resources into one stack to use for any infantry or vehicle loadout, but they're still too easily obtained. Energy Resources, the A.N.T. vehicles to move energy (resources) around the map, battle islands, interlinks that need taking to actually lock a warpgate aren't present. So we're playing to a piece of the overall game and without all the pieces weapons and the vehicles tend to always be out of balance and right now C4 is one of those weapon tools that has a powerful niche and might not if the other roadmap items made it into the game. Right now, fights are pretty stationary, with the roadmap feature implemented, things on the map would be constantly moving and C4 wouldn't find as many stationary targets.

Well, that's how I view it.

I don't know what game you exactly playing but what do you think farming is? Camping with what ever weapon you feel best with to avoid being killed so you can obtain a high KD. BR100 still do it hump loads and they sure as hack dont need certs.
you cannot effectively suicide run with a C4 because 1 you cant stock pile it any more and it come right out of resources giving you quite a limited expensive amount. 2 the Deploy Delay between firing has you capable of being killed 3 times over in that time. I would as a C4 user A LOT on vehicles and MAX's than i i suicide more with Grenades and G Bandoleer than C4.
The time it takes to throw a C4 you only way to deploy it on a moving vehicle is to be almost in front of it. Having to place it on moving vehicles while trying not to get run over is easier on Prowlers and Vang's since they only move back and forth but Mags are a pain.

C4 is not about being C4 in real life as you want it, its primary goal is AV and Anti Max, so would that mean we should take away all infantry damage from rockets since they are used quite a bit by HA's
The underlying fact is ppl don't want counters to their play style, I can guarantee that there are more ppl who use Heavy Tanks for pure Infantry farming than anti tank busting, So when 1 class gets the ability to counter that option with much more expensive option than the Farmers Tank you want them to nerf that so they can farm more?
Just curious how many medics and engies you have seen run up a cliff side to farming vehicles to C4 them?

I will say im not blind as to the needs of the untalented Vehicle pilots as im sure the more veteran players who wait to get a gunner who is 360 aware wont be that bothered but. increased C4 protection on front and sides could bay be applicable automatically

What change to shotguns would you suggest? Because I don't see any change that wouldn't just delete their role entirely or make carbines and other weapons just plain better than them.

No C4 for LA would make MAXes too strong in infantry/base fights, so no.

just had an interesting encounter, had a max run directly at me from 20-25ft I could deploy C4 and detonate it before he ran passed it. I wouldn't mind a reduction in C4 dmg if they put under-barrel nades back to the effectiveness they were before with a slight bit more Max dmg and vehicles dmg but also add a cost to buying them like normal nades

Shotguns need to be weaker in CQC, and stronger at range. I'd say buckshot shotguns should have about ~20m of effective range instead of 5m they have now. Basically, make them more accurate, and make damage degradation less strong, and make ADSing a real thing, but take some of the raw damage output from them as a cost.

They should still be better for CQC than other weapons. Currently, shotgun TTK within 5m is ~0.26 seconds, depending on a shotgun. Most automatic weapons have 0.5s TTK. So make shotguns' TTK around 0.4-0.45.

So what would the benefit of a shotgun be then? .1 shorter TTK? I feel like that would just cause more balance issues just because we would have just another SMG-range weapon that would either be more effective than it's other equal range counterparts or less. How it is now is arguably frustrating, but at least they have a well defined role.

It's a huge difference. For example, difference between merc and GD-7F is 0.07. (0.5 vs 0.43).

And shotguns have a whole different way of dealing damage, they do it all at once, instead of over time. If target is wounded, 1 shot could be enough to kill it. Or you can play peek-a-boo.

Cheese is not a role, it's cheese.

Currently, the only thing shotguns can do is 2-shot any enemy within 5m for the most part disregarding skill. It can be used effectively against any enemy, so this may seem like a role to you. I call it bad game design.