[Suggestion] Remove C4 from LA or buff tank HP

Having a buddy with a skyguard can't hurt I might add.

Whether or not they actually give mineguard the resistance to C4 which they reaaaallly should have done ages ago. I won't use it. Same with prox radar, not on my prowler, not on my mag or my vanguard. You've got a problem with drifters? 5 DBC says they can't travel at 67kph.

I don't think mineguard should apply to C-4. Mines are, in most cases, unavoidable.

If you got C-4'd, you screwed up.

The only cases where tank mines are completely unavoidable is when the server mucks up or you happen to driving like the Duke Boys.

(Yeah, I know the server is always mucked up ...)

I was wrong about capabilities of the explosives employed, since I was thinking more in terms of the explosives only requiring one person to set up. In this case, the insurgents used more than 250 kg of explosives, which included several 155 mm shells. That is possibly at least 600 pounds of explosives! The insurgents probably used an entire squad to set this nasty trap up. With this amount of fire power, it's understandably that the Abrams wouldn't be able to hold up.

Unfortunately, in Planetside 2, the amount of deployable explosives needed to destroy a MBT can be carry by one infantryman, who will still have the best mobility among all infantryman. C4 should be nerfed so that I will take two light assaults with C4 to destroy a tank or have it so that light assaults will receive a penalty when equipping C4, such as a significant decrease in mobility.

And don't you think it's possible that hundreds of years into the future, hand-held explosives like our "C-4" could have the potency of 600 pounds of modern day explosives???

The whole realism argument goes both ways.

Not going to happen. Dream on you shi$ter!!!

I had this problem when I had accidentally mistaken some power specs and my PSU was inadequate (as in it was an inch below the specs I thought I needed). Everything worked fine up until the moment I started taxing the video card to the max (which at the time was only with GTA IV several years ago).
Does your PC work OK if you don't do anything taxing? Do you get artifacts and/or slowed down gameplay the longer you play and need to shut it down to regain the speed?

I think this isn't true, but I'll try.
Tried it out in a Vanguard in VR, no dice. The C4 placed on the exact top of a top-armour Vanguard destroyed it completely.
So back to the good idea's: Simply let Mine Guard protect against C4 explosions as well for all non-Sunderer Vehicles, add a nice cosmetic change to vehicles with it and it's perfect. It makes the Mine Guard ability more useful and still gives enough sacrifice to be worth it.

It does, so you using that argument is ultimately pointless.

Odd Oh well, he did it in a maggie no idea if that makes a difference. Once again, I don't use anything outside of what improves tank killing. Still, driving fast and being able to shoot while going fast is a very important skill that can't be understated. I'll contact my buddy who told me about the C4 thing and see if theres any specifics.

If by shut down you mean the game then yes. I play multiple other games on this laptop like MWO with zero issues.

Keep in mind that this is a universe where I can project an entire tank out of virtually nothing. Or have an infinite source of rockets in my handy dandy magic ammo box. Or magic turret fabricator.

So if you wonder why they make such a big explosion: Nanites.

Side thought: this is also a universe where high tech soldiers kill each other with candy guns. These people have been fighting so long they've simply gone bat$hit crazy.

I'm not saying it can't be done - what I'm saying is that you're running a 1/2 tank and get killed by C4 - what do you expect to happen?

ANYTHING can kill a 1/2 tank.

Sure, but then they would have also eventually produced an armor that can mitigate the potency of that much explosives having been rendered highly portable.

And, even if they had produced another RDX mixture of even greater yield than the last, they wouldn't have named it "C-4." There's a reason why it's a numbered series.

Maybe for a time. But in the end offense always wins. Nothing man can create cannot be also destroyed by man.

Ever had student loans?

If you're talking about a tank versus a tank, or a man versus a man, then possibly.

But when you're talking about a man versus a tank, that is hardly sure. In fact, your statement goes against the last 100 years of tank-infantry balance.

From the moment tanks became a practical battlefield implement since WWI, tank improvements have been far outstripping the improvements in tools that infantry can use against those tanks. I mean in WWI you could load up your standard infantry rifle with 7.92 AP and have a decent chance of blowing straight through tank armour.

Obviously that's not the case anymore.

From WWI until now, infantry AT weapons have gotten heavier and heavier. Meanwhile tanks get all sorts of new tools which render those infantry weapons much, much less effective. Today we're about at the limit of what infantry can use against tanks... recent engagements featuring modern tanks (like in Israel/Lebanon) show how useless infantry-carried rockets and ATGMs can be.

The only reason why the infantry-tank balance in PS2 is so is because infantry are given artificially inflated weapons against tanks, and tanks have been reduced to interwar (between WWI and WWII) status.

ITS NANITES PEOPLE

so not Only does my sparkle baby produce an explosion/implosion but also tiny robots eat your tiny robot soul

For the longest time, the walls of Constantinople were considered unbreachable. They were an engineering marvel. Then an advancement in technology happened, the great capital of the Byzantines from then onward was known as Istanbul.

The offense tends to triumph over the defense. In a war such as this one with well funded adversaries its extremely likely that the factions would make available small packages to defeat armor. Once again this is the universe where I can pick up an infinite amount of rockets from a tiny box that is the same size as said box.

And the last time tanks made a damn difference in a real war, WAS WWII. Will you guys get a clue please? The idea that in hundreds of years "MBT's" will still even be a thing is a joke in the first place.

Tank warfare is becoming completely obsolete in case you didn't realize this. The United States has the most powerful military, spends the most on it's military than anyone else on the planet, and uses it's military more than anyone else. And the last time we designed an MBT was 1972!!!

Anyway the reason why infantry-tank balance is the way it is, is because it's more important to have fun and balanced gameplay than for you to have your MBT simulator!

Sure. We have offensive technology that can overcome tanks today. I'm not saying that modern tanks are invincible. They can be killed off by airstrikes, by attack helicopters, by artillery, or by other tanks.

But infantry? Infantry are fast-fading as the most lethal threats to modern tanks equipped with defensive technologies. We see this in pretty much every modern engagement.

In the development of war, it is true that the offence tends to triumph over the defence. However, it is equally true that there are certain units, weapons, and technologies that become obsolete. The clubman. The ballista. The horse cavalry. The sword. And the friggin crossbow. Despite advances in technology, these units or weapons never again become that relevant in warfare.

Infantry falls in this group. The battlefield is no longer dominated by infantry, and really hasn't been since the introduction of effective artillery and machineguns. Like the club and ballista, infantry are seeing their role becoming less and less significant in warfare.

PS2 fights this by introducing ridiculous models that totally disrupt the sci-fi setting of it. Hand grenades that are more lethal than 120mm HE shells. C4 explosive packages that can destroy MBTs from a frontal arc.

In PS2, infantry are inflated. And tanks are deflated. Tanks have really never been at such a disadvantage to infantry since the very early introduction of tanks.

By that logic, the last time we designed an infantry rifle was 1956.

Of course, if I said that I would be as incorrect as you are. Both US rifles and tanks were constantly updated over time. Only an ignoramus like yourself would think that all M1 tanks were alike.

M1 (1979)- 105mm gun
M1A1 (1985)- 120mm gun, various upgrades
M1A2 (1986)- Improved sights and FCS, various upgrades
M1A2 SEPv1 (2000's)- Electronic, armour, engine upgrades
M1A2 TUSK (2000's)- Urban survivability kit
M1A2 SEPv2 (2005)- Improved communications
M1A3 (2020)

And of course that's just the US... what other countries have rolled out new tanks recently?



T-14 Armata (2015)



K2 (2013)



Altay (2012)



Type 99A (2011)



Type 10 (2010)

So yeah... if tanks are irrelevant, why are pretty much all the major militaries in the world pumping out newer models?

Okay you're an idiot.

Do we still use fighter planes designed in the 1970's? Ummm no.

I understand that the M1A tank has been updated and refreshed over the years. That's not the point. And spamming this thread with huge stupid pics is SO obnoxious and pointless.

You keep repeating this as if it's a revelation. Nobody cares except you vehicle shi%ters. The rest of us understand that this isn't World of Tanks, and infantry play in a shooter needs to be paramount or your game will fail!

More BS. Tank numbers have plummeted across the board. Once Germany was host to 4,000 tanks and Britain and France over 1,000 each. Now the tank lines are a quarter of those numbers. And in 2013 the United States pulled EVERY MBT out of Europe! Not a single one remains in service there.

What you fail to realize is that tanks support infantry, not the other way around. Which is why the countries with the most tanks in service, also have large standing armies. China, North Korea, and Russia in the top 3 of most tanks in service currently.

Are you an idiot? The last time we designed a rifle was NOT 1956. Not only is your analogy wrong and horrible, it's not even based on my "logic" at all.

Tanks are so important that the country who spends money on the military like it's growing on trees, is fielding an MBT design that first went live in 1980. Probably before you were born. Get it?