[Suggestion] Remove C4 from LA or buff tank HP

True, but dying to cheese is never fun, regardless of the setting. To me, drifting C4 is not anywhere near as cheesy as invisible C4 flashes.

Remember that this game is balanced around infantry. They got ESF, tanks and maxes nerfed. Anything that kills infantryside with no chance for fight back and win (no matter if its a vehicle) is heresy. The good thing is that they are running out of things to nerf so they are looking now to nerf infrantryside. Look at heavy infantry shields, time now it's needed to pick ammo for rocket launchers, infiltrator cloak, removal of decoy nade (was fun to use), the 0.75 thing, grenade launcher, shotguns, now it seems they want emp granade and the one of the few decent revolvers also nerfed. This is going to be fun to watch.

***duplicated****

I don't care about making another analogy, I literally only come here to tell people they're wrong. The Devs don't give a **** about this and thank ****, I can't imagine what this game would be like if the merry bunch of ******* they call a playerbase took the reins.

You're putting too much attachment on your unsuccessful tactics in the "armor game." Sure, farming bases in an armor ball worked for a while, but when all of a sudden people start using a tactic to counter that, everybody freaks out and demands that the tactic be nerfed because it's too effective against their particular play style.

There are so many things to do to counter ONE valk with LA's in it, but, instead, people pull the same armor from the same base and sow the same crops to be reaped by c4 over and over.

I have no sympathy for those who refuse to adapt their game because they're too stubborn to realize that they've been outwitted.

You're putting too much attachment on your unsuccessful tactics in the "infantry game". Sure, running to the point without using cover worked for awhile, but when all of a sudden people start using a tactic to counter that, everybody freaks out and demands that the tactic be nerfed because it's too effective against their particular play style.

The only difference is, infantry actually got away with it, multiple times.
The argument is terrible and can be used just as easily to defend HE tanks. Don't use it.

I do agree that someone who just pulls armour over and over just to die in the same way deserves it because they failed to adapt however. They have no business crying over it.

Are you too stupid to remember your own posts?

I replied.

So the point is MBT's cost more than light assaults with C4 in both nanites and time.

Yes, it is supposed to be easier for tanks if C4 is removed, at least against infantry, which is the point. The second step would be to increase the deadliness of tanks against each other in order to compensate. War Thunder and World of Tanks are prime examples on how tank on tank combat is in depth and complex.

I wasn't being specific enough. The tanks I were referring to are the modern day MBT. The fact that battle busses can go toe-to-toe with MBT's in this game is another issue of mine in which I will not go into detail in this thread. Understandably classifying Sunderer's as mechanized infantry shows that Planetside 2 is not a true combined arms game.

Then you and everyone like you please go play those games. This is NOT a vehicle simulator!

I want to see those reports.
Looking at the design of modern tank, it is practically impossible to blow off a turret. Even if the ammunition stowage in a Abrams were to explode, there are panels adjacent to the stowage designed to break apart and direct the energy of the explosion away from the tank. It might not fully protect the crew or the tank, but the amount of force remaining after the mitigation would most likely not be enough to blow of the turret of an Abrams. The only way to blow off a turret effectively would be placing explosives inside the tank.

Regarding the piercing armor, my question is what part of the armor? As far as I know, the explosives deployed could probably pierce the rear armor and merely damage the engine or blow off the treads. I would assume that there would be no penetration to the turret, front, top, or side.

What do you think?

I do. I just see this game as having potential, but is currently failing my expectations.

You didn't read it well enough. I gave an example why people wouldn't complain because they would react to the situation, you then try to counter this with "but there's less time between pulling an infantry than a tank!". So? That's wasn't the point of the example, because anyone should have been able to see that it was a ridiculous example because no one would walk a dozen times right into the open when there's a sniper killing them repeatedly, they would have adapted way before and used the cover. And by using that cover, you prevent the whole "noes it's the snipers fault instead of mine" discussion.

And as for the rest about the time returning to the battle, yes tanks have a longer mobilization time, tanks also have an easier time killing multiple infantry. Assuming the what, 30 second average survival time of infantry and 8 to 10 seconds time to revive they need very few kills to actually cause infantry to have a longer mobilization time than the tank. Also what's the average survival time of vehicles?

Than a single, sure! However if you actually defend yourself it can take that same LA much more mobilization time total before he finally finishes you off.
Also if you keep the standard of "pay more nanites=beat the other guy" then 10.000 HA shouldn't be able to beat one tank with rocketlaunchers would they? And shouldn't player skill matter? If one player doesn't even do basic things like "check around him" or "try and prevent a certain attack" then why should he have any chance of survival if that attack actually comes for him? "because he paid more nanites"? Well he is already immune to small-arms fire, has tons of speed, high-powered canons, a top gun and an average range that is longer than most infantry weapons (including infantry AV), add much higher speeds and mobility than infantry and you have a good tank. If you can't use that effectively, if you fail at basic tactics to defend yourself, then you deserve to die to CQC C4.

Yes, those games have incredibly complex systems that allow the depth of their games. WOT has a spotting mechanic that already takes 30% of the server capacity per game. That's simply not possible in PS2, also, WOT doesn't have infantry.
PS2 would not be helped by "increasing the deadliness against other tanks", it wouldn't be helped by removing C4 abilities to destroy full health tanks. Take JohnGalts first video, would those Prowlers be less capable of farming infantry if they were "deadlier against tanks"? The whole point of current game mechanics is that after the initial vehicle battle, the attackers move up to the enemy base and have an almost uncontested control of the vehicle area's.
In short: It's detrimental for the game to nerf infantry AV effectiveness against tanks. Upgrading current vehicle lethality against each other would mean a simple upgrade in damage, which wouldn't be good either. You won't segregate vehicles from infantry (which in itself would be detrimental again) but you will only give vehicles more free reign to farm infantry with AP weapons, giving even less reason to use AI loadouts.

Understandably you are full of it.
Mechanized infantry is the first combined arms combat of the modern age with tanks. When they figured out that tanks could move faster than it took infantry to move in and secure the area's they captured and running out of supplies due to being too easily cut off. So they started using mechanized infantry to move up with the tanks so that infantry could instantly take control of the area. Actually, that's almost exactly like how Sunderers work right? Vehicles move up, one side wins the vehicle battle and the Sunderers can deploy.

there are plenty of tankers with 12+kdr's. they don't seem to have a problem getting c4'ed. Why don't you instead of making excuses about why you are bad at tanking try to get better?

C-4 Shouldn't be thrown.

How about using your ******* shotgun on the vanguard?

It's called Google:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams

You're ******* kidding right? You're actually complaining about this from a 1/2 Tank perspective?

You are the ****lord ****ter king, all hail.

Give tanks the ability to fly up... LA op flyness with c4 fixed.

Sadly, my new computer with better specs than my old one crashes after about a half hour with degrading performance the entire time. I'd really actually love to roll around in my prowler again, but I can barely take the hitching and crashing. I also can't test anything till monday.

One thing i'd like to suggest is try putting top armor on your tank and dropping two c4 on it. I heard that that will actually stop your tank from dying from a pretty reliable source. it will also piss off faires, (warning: you won't have much health left)

Switching seats is a valid tactic if you single manning a tank, I've taken down 2 person vanguards in my magrider switching between the Saron and FPC.

1/2 MBT tip of the day: switch when the reload on the AP gun gets past half way, do the same with the secondary (preferably halberd) switch after the hal. reloads past halfway and you should have a fully loaded main gun ready to fire, rinse and repeat.