Why is it that a single infantry can 'solo' a MBT in this game?

I think the sacrifice for coax is a concession to the invariable haters/opponents to tanks getting any kind of buff at all.

I agree, tanks should just have a coax.

No certifications for it at all. Ammo baseline. Reload baseline. Optics shared with primary maybe.

And for the mag, I'd just add it to the main gun... it'd still be useable and Magdrivers are used to engaging inf with their fixed turret anyways. Coax on secondary would nullify the Kobalt (not that it's ever used on the mag anyways, but point remains)

Vanguard would get the most benefit of coax for sure. Prowler would have an easier to use coax than magrider, but needs it less so their benefit would likely be similar.

Wouldn't mind if Lightning got CoAx too for that matter, but I feel like that'd have even more opposition to implementation.

I don't use C4 often anymore, and, this being my first character, I only expect it to have bad stats on pretty much everything.
Judging C4's effectiveness based on my most recent experiences with it. I haven't felt like I've earned the couple kills I've gotten, thus I do not consider it fun and still refuse to use it. I just really don't understand how someone can call it "hard."


I don't think C4 is OP, even though I'm probably one of the most cautious tankers out there, with both EOD HUD 3 and Proxy Radar. I rarely get killed by C4. On the other hand when I do use C4, I honestly don't understand how I'm not getting C4'd more often. I apologize for my original post sounding vague and sarcastic.

I think that people who call using C4 hard to use aren't very smart. C4 is not hard to use. Winning a normal gunfight can be hard, because you need to judge where enemies will appear, aim, keep track of your environment, health, ammo count, amount of hits you dealt to the enemy, possible hostile/friendly reinforcements during your short battle, your own movement, enemy movement and leading etc.

C4 is the same, but you cut out the health, ammo count and amount of hits on the enemy. Leading also becomes much easier, as an enemy vehicle that starts to move is an almost immediate no-go for placing C4, but since they usually just tunnel vision somewhere they are easy targets. everything else is basically point-and-click. It's like saying knifing is hard after you jumped on top of your enemy. getting there takes much more attention and dedication that a normal gunfight, but once you are there and found some unattentive tanker its easier than shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun, a tank mounted shotgun.


Now the biggest problem is the mentality of tankers. Most take it as a farm vehicle to get a load of kills from where I stand. You have a vehicle that determines most of the engagement range and position, you have tons of armor to deal with most threats and great firepower to deal with the rest (except for air units if they stay out of your elevation range). You can outrun any enemy with C4 if you only spot them, and probably kill them by waiting for their energy to run out afterwards. You can prevent C4 to instagib you by simply driving backwards or forwards, even if they do get 1 C4 on you, you will always be gone by the time the second lands... unless you didn't see them or you boxed yourself in.
And that last part is the problem. They don't see them, and they box themselves in. If you snipe and never look around you, do you complain about enemies flanking you and killing you? If you hover around an enemy base in an aircraft, do you complain if you get shot out of the air by a tank? (well yes many do, but should we give in to something that you could have seen coming from a mile away?)

Edit: MasterDemoman is the greatest player ever.

Your hypotheticals still do not justify the fact that it is possible to instantly kill a tank with C4 at just one press of the trigger, where it is possible that there is no warning of the infantryman to the tank until the point where the detonation of C4 occurs. The rumble of the tank can muffle the footstep of an infantryman or the sound of the light assault's jetpack. The placement of C4 makes absolutely no sound that can warn the tank. Sure the tank my have proximity radar, but there are many other tanks that use other equipment in place of proximity radar, such as vehicle stealth. In any case, it is possible for an infantryman to sneak towards a tank like an infantryman to sneak towards another infantryman. But unlike in the engagement of an infantryman on an infantryman, there is no sound of gun fire, no sound of a power knife, no warning from a wound, C4 can destroy a tank instantly without the tank having time to react.

The amount of control a tank has in an engagement is determined mostly by the range of the engagement which is heavily influenced by the environment where there are many other factors that can be included. Because of this, it is possible for infantry to determine the range of the engagement as well as tanks. For example, like you mentioned earlier, a light assault could use cover to hide his movements against an enemy tank. Other factors can include technology, such as infantry boarding a sunderer, in which case they would be classified as motorized infantry, in order to close the gap between themselves and the tank. Another common example, is airborne infantry that drop from aircraft, such as a Valkyrie, and C4 bombing a tank. Tanks are not very powerful in Planetside 2 as it may have been conceived before. I have not even described the engineer's AV-turrets and Max suits yet.


Hossin looks cluttered because it is cluttered. Are you seriously arguing that Hossin is more suited to vehicular combat than the open fields of south-east Indar. Here are some photos.

This one is of south-east Indar.


This is a video of a galaxy flying around south-east indar.

This is a photo of Hossin.

This is a video from MattiAceGaming regarding flying and running around in Hossin.

Stop trying to create crazy explanations on the simple explosive called C4. Besides, if the nanites that are released already destroy the target by "eating" them, why do they need to explode? Why can't these nanites be delivered in a shell rather than a box? Surely the shell can be deconstructed along with everything around it. Just admit to yourself that there is a hole in the lore.


I would agree with in that it would be nice to have a more complex tank gameplay in Planetside 2. It would make sense that in a combined arms game that the tank gameplay would be just as complex as the infantry gameplay. It would be nice to have a similar tank gameplay system as in World of Tanks.

Just so you know, in reality, a tank cannon already acts as anti-infantry, anti-tank, and anti-air (given that the target is a low-flying helicopter). There is no anti-infantry variant because it is the HE shells that allows a tank cannon to be used effectively against infantry.

The games World of Tanks and Heroes and Generals are actually arcade games. I never said that Planetside 2 was a more arcadey game than these other games I have mentioned. I simply one stated that Planetside 2's tank gameplay was arcade style. Why don't you actually read my posts and do your research before you comment?

"Trying to keep some balance between infantry, tanks and air"?! The developers already mentioned that the readjustments to tank gameplay in regards to infantry anti-vehicle weapons and tank anti-infantry cannons are incomplete, and therefore currently unbalanced. They have completed readjusting the HE and HEAT cannons against infantry but not the infantry AV weapons against tanks.

Regarding the issue of C4, another possible option would be to only allow the player to detonate one C4 at a time that belongs to him. This would maintain the power of the explosive but remove the frustration of losing a tank instantly without warning. Then again, it is also possible that this would arise to two man light assault teams that would simultaneously detonate C4 belonging to two different players, in which case, the original frustration regarding C4 will arise again or might be the solution as it does require some amount of teamwork.

As mentioned before, you can instantly kill other infantry before they know they are under attack with a Carbine. I wanted to avoid saying it because people tend to go all crazy when I say the word, but you can do it even better with... a Shotgun. Which you might consider to have similar ranges to C4 as well. A shotgun can OHK you (even the auto-shotgun can with a good one at the head) before you have any warning, except that you can warn yourself by looking around and being prepared.
There is a way to justify C4 instakilling you. That is the range needed, the expenditure of resources, the amount of danger to you (which is significantly lower than it could due to Tankers not paying attention, at all) and the fact that any other infantry AV weapon does not have the power to really deal with vehicles before they escape and repair, unless you swarm them with several at a bad time for them or they make a bad decision after getting fired at.

And again, C4 fairying is only possible if the tank is unaware. If he is aware that there's a C4 fairy nearby, all he needs to do is drive, and not even far... If he refuses to do that even then (and many do) then you might as well park your tank against the enemy Spawnroom and complain about getting C4red.

It's possible for infantry to determine the range, at which point it's up to the tanks to choose if they accept that range. If players at an AMP station decide to only use the door facing the wall, the tank can choose to wiggle itself in between the buildings and wall to fire at them... Opening himself up for any attack from almost any direction. It's then the Tanks choice if he does that or not. If he does so, he should accept the consequences.

In almost every case, tanks can decide to hang back at a distance that suits them, while still having the ability to fire at people. Less people, but still he'll be able to get some kills.

Hossin looks cluttered. That's because the trees take a lot of vertical space, and the leaves make it even more cluttered. The pictures of South-East Indar are all more central Indar, although many area's there have similar open spaces to fight in. There is much cover for infantry and tanks, and less completely uninterrupted driving spaces to fight in. But it's absolutely not cramped and allows for a large amount of movement and combat.

It eats the armor so that the explosion can actually penetrate and destroy the target, which could be why C4 does not deal with directional armor. That already sounds much more plausible with the current mechanics than 'C4 is C4'. I also already said why these nanites need to be delivered in a box: the nanites can't handle the acceleration.
The reason I create 'crazy' explanations is because you assume that C4 is just good old current-day C4 and claim that tank armor should be suited to that in the PS2 future. But we already see a million little discrepancies between even WWII combat and PS2 combat, even though WWII combat is closer to PS2 combat than current combat.

Yes, but if we had a tank canon that acted like modern-day tank canons, we would have missiles that can fly across the entire 'continent'. Even a TOW missile, which is a wire-guided missile (yes it's got 3000m of wire attached to it) can be fired from warpgate to warpgate. We would be looking at artillery in the Warpgate and some infiltrator fire-teams that spot if there's any movement, then order an artillery bombardment on it, if not just guide a missile. All movement outside of warpgates would be infiltrators, and the defenders have the advantage since any Sunderer that drives outside will be locked on and destroyed.
So I would rather stick with the PS2 mechanics and develop reasons as to why the mechanics do not follow this line of thought. For instance, why don't we have cruise missiles fired from warpgate to warpgate? This could be because a massive ECM warfare is going on above our heads which messes with almost any missile, even wire-guided one's. We can see the electronic warfare for ourselves when you walk into a base. In mere minutes you can plant a virus and hack the entire facility, every single piece of software, to work for you.

Maybe it's time to look up arcade games and what they are. PS2 does not use overly simplified physics compared to most games, or almost every game with tanks with them would be arcade instantly. World of Tanks has a pretty elaborate system and doesn't adhere to any of the arcade rules such as lightning ramp-up of your difficulty (in fact it gets easier when you learn it, then difficult when you enter a higher tier segment, then easier as you progress through segment etc)

But your point isn't about how arcadey it is, your point is the actual playstyle and mechanics, right? Well they don't overlap at all. World of Tanks has a much, much more elaborate tanking system, but lacks aircraft and infantry combat at the same time. Heroes and Generals does have infantry and aircraft, but different mechanics in controlling tanks, area's and much different goals etc. And I'm sure that in Heroes and Generals has some OHK mechanics. And looking at some of the new (maybe already older) armor updates, infantry can disable tanks with a single rocket, while completely impossible to be heard (the engine sounds are very loud) and almost impossible to be seen due to Urban Combat scenario's or simply trees. I think they have an easier time in Heroes and Generals by the looks of it than PS2 in taking out tanks.

They have mentioned that it's incomplete, but that doesn't mean we need to remove C4. We need to complete the balance update! This is like nerfing sniper weapons in one pass, them removing LMG's because they haven't been nerfed and were still operating on their old power levels which should have been changed long before.

Maybe you don't have time to react, but I think that balances nicely with the fact that there was a lot you could have done to prevent it. Encouraging movement, discouraging tunnel vision and making you force choices in tank build to prevent a "one build conquers all" will all support a bit more complex and more active gameplay. C4 is one of the things that helps realising this. The premise is clear. If you make a mistake, you will pay for it. If the mistake is tunnel vision/insufficient movement/not enough allies to cover approach angles, then there is a good chance you will get smacked by a C4, possibly without warning.

The same applies to aircraft and infantry. If you make a mistake with an ESF you die/have to bail (not the Lib and Gal, unless you make a really grievous mistake). If you make a mistake with infantry you are inadvertently killed in most cases. Whether it is instant or in a short time doesn't matter as much. It matters how great the mistake was.

Although I will not put an argument behind it, there is plenty of things that can kill you without warning.
- Snipers can kill infantryman without warning from great distances
- Shotguns can kill infantryman without warning from short distances
- Power knives can kill an infantryman without warning from short distances
- Tanks can drive over infantryman without warning from short distances
- Tanks can kill infantryman without warning from great distances (nearly every canon can shoot and kill with accuracy and a body shot)
- AT mines can kill tanks without warning from short distances
- Aircraft can fly over infantryman without warning from short distances
- Aircraft can shoot and kill infantryman from great distances without warning (Either kill them before the latency is over or instant, like with guided rockets or a Dalton)
- AI mines can kill infantryman without warning from short distances
- Mag and Van can kill ESF without warning from long distances (Prowler too if it does a double hit)
- Wrecks can kill without warning from short distances (damn you falling debris from aircraft!)
- Possibility to surprise another infantry guy with (nearly) any gun, gain only headshots and kill them before the latency is over, without warning!

Speaking of which, a year has just passed since the tank splash nerf and here we are with Infantryside still not fulfilling their end of the bargain.

Depends on your playstyle.

Hossin has an abundance of cover, making it well suited for flanking attacks and evasive maneuvers. You can fight against a larger force with a smaller one on Hossin. The trees and stuff can provide cover from air too, but that's situational.

There's definitely places on Hossin you do not take a tank, but that is also true of the canyons of south east Indar.

It's a delightful break from the largest tank zerg winning on the open fields of north Indar. Unless you like that kind of stuff...

Don't park your tank in stupid places.

First rule of this forum: If you get C4ed in the game, do not come here and cry to us. Go cry to your mother first!

Look at that old pretty green lighting and dark teal nights Hossin used to have before release. ;_;

Spoken like someone who has used C4 for over 25% of their kills and has spent 3% of their time playing in a tank.

Atleast change your avatar before you start defending tanks.

Why? C4 fairies are defending C4.

Yeah but you look like a ****** who farms infantry and than whines when he gets killed by one.

Its like comming to a courtroom with blood on your shirt

EDIT: I typed D-O-U-C-H-E

C4 is not the way to encourage movement, especially when the end result will be the destruction of the tank. After that, there is no tank to move. Of course, C4 can act as a deterrent for static gameplay, but there are an ample supply of other ways that can deter static gameplay without the instant destruction of a tank in this arcade game such as AV-turrets and other tanks. Sure there are ways to mitigate the chances of being destroyed by C4, but the problem mostly lies in the fact that that scenario of losing a tank to C4 is possible. The fact that C4 can destroy a tank instantly with a single detonation simply does not fit into this arcade style of gameplay.

This brings me to your examples of occurrences in which a player can one-shot kill another player in game. The majority of the examples occurs where the infantryman is the victim. However, these examples do not fully illustrate the situation with C4 destroying a MBT. The reason is because a MBT costs nanites, and the frustration of C4 comes to the loss of these nanites where the player will be unable to play in a tank until the restoration of these nanites by time. Infantry on the other hand have a respawn time that is negligible (10 seconds at most) compared to a MBT which requires 9 minutes to restore the 450 nanites required for a MBT.

A notable example that you mentioned was with the anti-tank mines, in which, I do believe that the anti-tank mines do need to be reworked. Though I do not want to go into this topic right now.

There is also your example regarding a MBT destroying an ESF in one shot given that it uses the AP cannon. There is the sound of the tank cannon firing, giving the pilot a warning and time to react since the shell takes time to reach its target. You have also mentioned long distance as in probably the distance at which the pilot cannot here the sound of the tank firing. The occurrence of a MBT actually hitting an ESF at such a range is so rare that nearly no one even bothers to complain about it.

Anybody can choose "if they accept that range" regardless if they are infantry or tanks. Infantry can refuse to accept that range by either hiding in more advantageous terrain such as that you alluded to, or take the initiative by using cover to cover their advance or motorized vehicles that are more mobile than a tank to reduce the range at which the tank accepted to engage at.

If the nanites can't handle the acceleration, how come they can be dropped from 100 meters in the air and work perfectly fine? Surely the deacceleration as it hits the ground will be enough to disable the C4, according to your hypothesis. What about the deacceleration of the drop pod, surely that will disable the light assault's C4. If C4 can survive such stress due to technology in a box, why not simply reshape the box so that it can be part of a shell? So again, stop with you crazy explanations, just admit to yourself that there is a hole in the lore.

Demigan, you do realize Planetside 2 has weapons that act like modern-day weapons. Planetside 2 has LMGs that have 100 round box magazines, assault rifles with 30 round magazines, and etc., all of which kill other people. Of course there is a limit on how far this analogy can go, and you obviously passed that limit.

Besides, it wasn't me who suggested that tanks should be able to switch ammunition between HE, HEAT, and AP like in reality in order to weaken infantry, it was you.

Demigan said: ↑

“Dual cores? First the nanites are released and start eating, seeing that they can build an entire tank in a second the eating of part of it shouldn't be a problem, then a concentrated explosive goes off. As I said, we can only speculate, but in the end it's the game's fun factor that counts. Balance can keep it fun for all parties... Now I'm all for trying to improve the game so that both you and me are happy, but so far I've seen only solutions that completely annihilate not just my fun, but screw up the balance such as it is even further and give too much power to vehicles. I would rather weaken infantry by giving tanks Co-axial guns, new AI weapon types and the ability to change your ammo type between normal HE/HEAT/AP ammo and AI variants for each. Add ways for all classes to mess with vehicles, from disabling weapon sights by shooting them to damaging or slowing down functions of the tank by hitting specific weakspots or doing specific tasks near a tank, and both the infantry and tankers have a more lethal and dangerous game to play, where actually instantly killing them isn't necessary the goal for infantry if it's an (almost) free option.”

I, as does everyone else, do know that the games that I have previously mentioned are different than Planetside 2, otherwise they will all just be under one title.

Just for your own information, infantry can't disable tanks with a single rocket in one hit, it actually takes two. Unlike in Planetside 2, a player can spawn in a tank as many times as he or she wants until the squad runs out of spawns, and at that point, the player has the option to join another game where there are more tank spawns. Unlike in Planetside 2 where tanks are more expensive than C4, it takes approximately 10 times more credits to refill a RPG than it is to repair a tank after each battle.

The mechanics for controlling tanks in Heroes and Generals are similar to that of Planetside 2, where WASD is used to drive the tank, mouse aim is used to control the turret, left click is used to fire the main cannon, and scroll is used to toggle different views including third-person. The only difference are the damage mechanics, which take into account of armor, and the fact that the tank can switch shells and activate a co-axial machine gun using the number keys.

But enough with explaining the mechanics of other games that are similar to Planetside 2 to some extent. The reason I mentioned these games is to illustrate how Planetside 2 can take in such mechanics from other games to make tank gameplay more complex and more immerse.

I never mentioned anything about removing C4, only changing it. You are simply taking things to the extreme again. And we are going to have that balance update with the re-release of Planetside 2 in September.

Demigan, again, do your research and actually read my posts so that this forum can have more thoughtful discussion from you rather than more posts from me correcting your ignorant mistakes.

Hahaha. Except if you're looking at my most recent killboard, I mostly go after tanks and sunderers. I mean, I run into streams of mindless infantry who run out of the spawnroom, directly into tank fire, so of course I will shoot them, but I mostly go after vehicles.
Is MCMan your main character name, BTW?