[Suggestion] Remove C4 from LA or buff tank HP

Surprise! You can't do it all!

Or, you could just.. you know.. be aware of your surroundings.

Also, in that video he posted, did you notice that the tanks being C4'd just sat there? I mean, if I hear a massive explosion to my immediate left or right I take notice and ****.

No, they just sat there, anchored, and oblivious. Or, they got C4'd and then came right back to the same location. I bet every one of those drivers think C4 is OP.

I'll tell you what's OP: Stupidity. That's OP.

just a few ours ago, line of prowlers on the ridge shelling watersons, i take a flash and go pop one shoot a guy die, come back pop another, do it AGAIN

3 times i rode up and got off and tossed c4 and casually backed away BOOM

only the infil that was using them for cover noticed all the noise and lights (aurax c4) and their fellows vanishing off the minimap

but yeah, its c4s fault .. lol

EDIT: also, i know its not the point of this thread but if i didnt have c4 id have taken mines and maybe got two tanks at once, so i guess next after c4 got taken from LA youd want tank mines takes from engis, and so on and so on..

had ANy of those tanks had a spitfire out id have been screwed, no c4 boom, but PAPA VANU FORBID someone take preventative measures, let alone be situationaly aware.. just cry about whatever kills you till its removed

Operation Protective Edge
Absolutely 0 tanks damaged by over a dozen ATGM/RPG hits. Which is pretty impressive. Thank you Trophy.

Sure tanks can be disabled by RPGs or even destroyed, but that's incredibly rare. And even then those weapons aren't that dangerous. From 2003-2005 there were about 80 US M1 tanks that needed to be repaired or written off, but no tankers died to rocket fire in that period. The only way to pierce a tank would be to use several 155mm artillery shells or something as a bomb. Nothing that would be infantry-portable.

The total number of US tankers killed in the Iraq conflict while in their tank could probably be counted using your fingers, maybe even on one hand. Tanker losses are actually more common when they're outside of the tank, say to sniper fire or explosives.

But there is no realistic basis for any number of RPG shots to the front of the tank to present a serious danger to the tanks inside. And those were tanks without an APS.

Situation: There's drifters about and you are vigilant for them. You spot a few and kill them or cause them to change directions and look for a different targets.
Then: A few seconds of non-vigilance! The LA will magically appear right in a position to C4 you, jump up and destroy you!
Well ofcourse not, because a drifter LA needs more time than a standard jumpjet LA since they will usually be coming from a longer distance, the jumpjet LA will need incredibly close distances, tests from the top of a Tower (70m height) showed that a maxed normal jumpjet could reach around 40 or 50m distance... That's nothing! A normal jumpjet will always be visible and killable unless you parked up against whatever they are using to get to you.
So Drifters, they usually use a longer distance because they can and because it's safer than getting up close and personal before making the jump usually means lower cover and easier exposure to enemy troops that are moving around the area.
Drifters will also need to identify the right moment from longer ranges, and keep track of enemy whereabouts aside from the tank that might spot him on his way over.
However, most tanks are as oblivious as the one's in the video, I personally never go for a vigilant or moving tank because there's always an easier target around. Why waste time and possibly nanites on a target you won't be able to kill? So no drifter worth his salt will go for a vigilant tank, and the chance that an LA was just ready to move in as you "looked the wrong way for a few seconds" is negligible.

Well ofcourse I do! But I don't complain about getting bogged down and flanked by a tank from behind, nor do I complain that I got bogged down in a bad place and C4red. I recognize what I did wrong, know that this is PS2 and that getting in a bad position is just part of the game, and move on! Why would I complain about my enemies making use of me in a bad position? Again, you are saying yourself that you are in a bad position, it's not the C4, it's you.

I constantly slow down, I am constantly standing still and lobbing shots at enemies. People are constantly using tanks with some insight: They place themselves in such a way that enemy tanks have a tough time flanking them, if they get flanked from a ridge once they will pick another spot that is protected from that ridge the next time or place themselves in such a way that they can get into cover from that flanking position quickly.
But when it comes to C4 fairies? They are complete and utter bricks. I just recognize the paths an LA is likely to take from the nearest spawns and act accordingly. I make sure that any LA moving towards me will probably move in my FOV at some point. And that's it! Presto! No C4 fairies on me! Besides that I often don't sit around and lob shells at enemies. I lob a few shells, maybe go back in for repairs, see how my enemy reacts and then reposition. Movement, that's important. Surprise your enemy, prevent them from moving in to repair, don't sit still as a brick and lob shells, we've got turrets for that. The tanking game is pretty static even though the one's moving about are much more proficient in tank killing.

As I said above: If you run into stalematey stuff you are doing it wrong. The moment you run into a stalemate, move that tank. Get into a new position! Even if it means driving around through 3 bases to get into a different position, do that! It means the world between a tank that is just giving the enemy repair XP and is a huge target for C4 fairies as you put it, and a tank that isn't a C4 fairy target and actually destroys stuff (or gets hidiously destroyed by running into too many enemies who spot you, but hey at least you tried).
Also, even if you do stick with the stalematey stuff a C4 fairy shouldn't have a chance of blowing you up. You aren't the only one in that group, and teamplay is important. You already do look around from time to time, if your mates do it as well, especially when going back for repairs, make it almost impossible for a C4 fairy to get close without being spotted. And a spotted C4 fairy is a dead C4 fairy... If the target reacts that is.

Exactly! You soiled your pants, I wouldn't have broken a sweat. Backing up already works like a charm, but if necessary you just start moving forwards again and the LA will both be surprised and have time to place at maximum 1 C4 on you (and I normally drive slow, loooong Vanguards), crisis resolved! C4 fairy: -1 (he used C4 and didn't kill you) You: +2 (you survived and got a C4 fairy kill and some repair XP!)

Now you won't always be capable of driving forwards and tanking a shot because you were in a fight, but that's just the advantage of the attackers having better combined arms, you will still be able to dodge the C4 fairy's C4 by backing up, and I would expect that you are in a group when it happens so you should expect teamplay from your friends as well and have them kill that C4 fairy for you. In fact, why don't you be a good boy and help your team out with a Kobalt of something on top to keep them off of your tank column if C4 fairies really are that dangerous?

Why stop?
Just think of it like this: There's a sniper overlooking a small field. There are two routes: the fast one through the field with lots of exposure to the sniper, and one slower through lots of cover.
Now someone runs 50 times through the open field, dies almost every time because of the sniper. He gets told that there is cover right there that he can use, but he just says "no it's the snipers fault, snipers need nerfing".
I am criticizing the player skill because it's the players complete lack of change to a threat thats the problem, not the C4. People made it a problem themselves! They adequately react to being flanked by tanks and quickly learn not to park a tank right up to a spawnroom or busy infantry-paths, but they don't react at all to a C4 attack even after the golden tactics that prevent 90% of the C4 attacks are made clear to them.

But there is a lack of mention of AT mines, both on the forums and in game. I'm not diverting the conversation, I'm pointing to the bright and obvious subjectivity of the problem where they complain about one thing but not the worse problem that is very similar to what they are complaining about.

Current iteration: Not a problem if you just do one of the things suggested
Changes to C4, including some that adress the perceived problem ("I can't do anything about it because OHK"): Completely ignored.

Because it's balanced out with resource cost, time required and the counters that already are available to all tank users.
And because the LA has almost nothing else.
Oh and talk about diverting the conversation, you suddenly change the subject from "C4 is terrible for tankers, needs nerfing" to "the LA class shouldn't have it". Of course I recognise it as part of the whole discussion but apparently we are doing this kind of stuff to derail the discussion rather than improve it.

Because all classes need to have an AV role available. Because "light" work can be some of the toughest of any game, also because the Engineer carries half a dozen mines and half a dozen more tools with him without problems, I see no reason to give the LA the ability to carry 2 C4 both because of all the balance already in place and because it gives the LA it's AV role.

The basis of combined arms is that everything can help with progressing towards a goal, either directly or indirectly. Combined arms can be achieved by having different unit types fill in a gap that others lack, such as tanks lacking good vision to defend against infantry flank attacks in urban area's can be filled up with infantry that covers the tank. Or you can make all units viable, just specialise each with specific roles.
For instance: Sunderers are logistics vehicles, they transport and spawn infantry and can also bring in AOE repairs and vehicle ammo. They have mainly armour to protect themselves and some light top guns to ward off attackers (somewhat overdone with Furies which can kill a tank due to the big healthy Sunderer it's mounted on). Infantry AV is variable in power, the more power the shorter the range, so Sunderers would best be placed right out in the open with only some smooth rolling hills as cover for snipers, right? Wrong! Tanks are powerful and can use ranged powerful projectiles and DPS to take out Sunderers that are in the open. Sunderers in cover can still be destroyed by tanks but it often requries the tank to expose itself, but the damage is already done: the Sunderers are now well within range of infantry AV. A mixture of infantry and tanks works best to take them out.

Now the game does need a boost to vehicles in their effect on bases. Vehicle-based capture points, hitpoint sinks that vehicles need to destroy to give other units an advantage, more influence on battles inside bases rather than the walled-off infantry pits we have now in many cases. Of course, those walled-off bases weren't there before, they were put there... Because vehicles had too much influence, just 2 tanks could dominate an entire battle of 48+ battles! Which shows already how messed up the balancing changes were: Rather than make infantry AV that was capable of dealing with such threats, they reduced the entire ability for tanks to directly influence a battle.

i love that aparently tankers biggest concern is a nieche class like the light assault.

Try flying an esf for a day, where every heavy could be the guy taking 1/3 of your hp away without having to sneak up on you or anything.
And every engi (lol nowadays not even needed to rep the turrets) can hop in an aa turret and maul you, all while you are beeing dalton shelled by several Liberators, since those suckers seem to be the only viable air unit right now.

@TankerLARage: I wish i had your problems

where did you get that it's literally the biggest concern? Aren't the threads allowed to be dedicated to narrow, specific issues now? The list is long but I am sure you are not interested in it either way, because your perceived troubles are obviously more special.

remove c4
remove tank mines
remove sniper rifles
remove tanks
remove esf rockets
remove anything that can OHK, so these goddamn babies cant cry anymore about it. make everything take 20 shots to kill, 15 in the head, and then i guess everything will be based on skill? and when these TRASH players still get wrecked for being blind deaf and dumb theyll be left blubbering with no weapon to point the finger at..

what will it be then? what will you TERRIBLE players whine about at that point? How will you attempt to convince us that it was in fact NOT your TERRIBLE playing, your lack of preparedness, situational awareness, and coordination with your team that got you killed?

do you children even sub? do you even support this game you so badly want to ruin?
i pay money, a lot of money, to this game because i love it, and we dont need unintelligent people like you calling for nerfs and even OUTRIGHT REMOVAL of content from the game.

you suck.,. its not c4s fault, its you. stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us

Damn, such a pro at denying LA cheese, yet has a problem with static AT mines in front of his eyes. Mind boggles.
Unless the AT mines don't render, I have exactly zero problem with them and I don't even run implants. They are on the same plane I operate on. They are not going to act like a homing missile which is roughly what C4ing LAs are. The places where the mines are planted tend to have certain characteristics, which are obvious if you think about it so it's doubly your own fault. Also you need to only check once to be sure that they are not there, while LAs require eternal vigilance made doubly hard by artificial restrictions on camera angles. You cannot look above you and that's that.

You seem to not understand the issue that perception of the problem is half the problem. "I did drive onto these mines like an idiot" where all the agency is on your side vs "somebody pulled a fast one on me" where you just die seemingly randomly. I don't care that libs don't instagib me every 10 minutes, but i ******* hate their guts whenever they do it.
Perception is intimately related to enjoyment derived from the game. Perception of rampant BS means rage quits and shrinking playerbase.

citation needed. There is way too much AV as it is, especially at long range. I understand the principle of mutuality, but when you get blasted from lazor accurate toys or lockons while in the other direction it's all about pure luck of landing a hit on a pixel (and that's assuming that peasant gets rendered in the first place) then that's BS.
Back to LAs and C4. I think that LAs are BS, but i tolerate them except drifters because of their effective range (no, their speed is only marginally relevant given the limitations on camera angles). In my opinion they are breaking the "social contract" of PS2, given the already plentiful ranged options, not to mention the threat of a2g.
Give LAs sound comparable to the infil cloak that I can hear miles away over any but the most intense cluster-***** and we'll talk about awareness. No other death from the sky is dead silent.

And then you look at competitive server smashes and see that the min-maxed game is all about air, max crashes and point holds... So what ground vehicles other than sunderer are for exactly? Ground vehicles = cost ineffective sacrifice of mobility given the agile redeploy meta.

@vaphell

apparently you dont understand that 90 percent of the time i, and most other skilled LAs, could get to your tank and pop it, WITH AN ENGINEER AND MINES

many many many times ive run up on tanks/sundys/harrasser/and even a gal, RUN up on them tossed 3 mines and a sticky

youre done. hell if you parked too close to your buddy ill put them inbtween you and get you both.

so..

remove mines next? i mean you Say theyre ok now, but im still gonna get you if you take my c4, youre still not going to see it coming, and thatl STILL be YOUR fault

so why aren't you doing it? If the option to skip the obstacles was not a major advantage, there would be almost no reason to use LAs. Also, given that I mainly have a problem with drifters extending to a ridiculous distance from any high ground i'd like to see that equivalency to legging it with pizzas in hand. Yes, in a simple case you can leg it around a rock or two or fly above them with standard jpacks to produce a similar outcome but drifters allow to stay off the ground plane for multiple seconds and traverse dozens if not hundreds of meters, avoiding chokes and eyes. And when it comes to repeatability, how often you can do that as an engineer on foot as opposed to things like slingshot, hover, c4, die/redeploy, slingshot, hover, c4.... ?

I am fine-ish with being blown up when hugging a cliff or a building that is being "infested" by the enemy but not when 100m+ away from the nearest one.

I did many things many many times during thousands of hours of play, I wouldn't automatically claim they are exceptionally reliable/efficient though. In other words it's not a particularly strong argument.

Why would I say they are ok now but not later? Do you think I haven't died to them enough while auraxing flashes, lightnings and almost auraxing vanguards to form an opinion about them? Also I am not too concerned about AT mines being used as ghetto C4 against me (I don't think I recall even one such case)

i remember the days where suicide engineering was my favourite way of disposing sunderers ... back when fights at the crown were still a thing and sunderers feared mines.

It's lovly to see how you guys complain about a unit that has to sneak up to you, then drop 2 c4 AND trigger it, without you or any of your other tank buddies spotting them.

But it's understandable ... when you see each and every infantry unit as just another kill and even in high numbers don't have to fear them (hell the friendly behind you that might block your retreat behind a rock is a bigger danger to tankers than any infantry unit) you tend to get upset when one actually manages to kill you.

So you proved that first-rate MBT's by a highly advanced army-Israel- can withstand Russian RPG rounds built back during the Cold-War fielded by a bunch of Hamas goat-hearders....congrats.

And our Government has made how many of our soldiers who died in tanks highly classified. So you're either George Bush himself, or you are just making this up. The fact that it IS classified tends to point to the number being a lot higher than you think. But again, this is conjecture, we just don't know.

Also as a reminder: gameplay > realism.

I did this a few times last two times I was playing. It's harder to manage in some ways than c4 is, but in others it works just as well.

Also amusing.

Are there any instances in which using C-4 is not the best solution?

Yes. Any instance when the vehicle crew has a clue.

But, if our hypothetical bomber had gotten to that point, that means the C-4 was the chosen implement anyway.

How about you find me some footage where a Abrams, Leopard 2, or any modern MBT getting destroyed by a RPG or mine? Most likely, you will just find at most are mobility kills. Fun fact, MBTs run over mines on purpose in order to clear them. Also, the only reason the US lost any Abram tanks are due to friendly fire from another tank. That is how it should be in this game; the main counter to a tank is another tank. Of course there's aircraft too, but that's another matter.

You have no knowledge of the War in Iraq or Afghanistan do you?

If anyone here actually did have knowledge of war matters, it should be lore-wise obsolete by the year 28XX and has nothing to do with game balance anyway