Why are land mines blowing up stationary vehicles?

Please tell me how you can grantee that your C4 will hit the infantry that just walked into point A. You know its not a dalton that has an aoe the size of a room.

Running out of what "arguments" son? A multi stack of logical fallacies? Just in case you have no idea what a logical fallacy is: Its very definition is that its NOT an argument.
I repeat myself. Go to wikipedia and look it up how many fallacies you tiggered with that single sentence.
After we can proceed with the discussion, but not till then, so the ball with you now. Lets see whether or not you will run out of the discussion by rejecting what i have asked.

ROFL. Now the idiot somehow thinks the existence of AI mines shows that C4 is not more versatile than AT mines...
He gets dumber by the minute.

And now you jump the boat and start commenting on conversations with others. Ixal, grow a pair of balls and/or a spine or quit posting.
I asked you something and now instead you are spamming ad hominem arguments as a monument to your nonexisting intellect. I am awaiting your answer on what i have asked so if you are that talkative i suggest you get to it before i report you in for trolling, derailing topics and intention to start flame wars.

Better idea. You read the replies to all to your post in this thread and realize that everyone says that you are wrong. Then you accept that you are, excuse the amount of trolling you have done and uninstall the game.

they need to make tank mines only blow up on moving vehicles,stationary vehicles should not set them off.
AT mines also need a delay to plant them of around 3 seconds or so to stop these kamikaze engineers from blowing up everything.
the way A mines are at the moment they are very exploitable.

Better idea. I will help you with what i have asked.
See "everyone says that you are wrong" is called a bandwagon fallacy due to the fact that it does not incorporates any arguments merely the authoritative idea that i should bend over to the ideas of the majority.

I would urge you to write something that can be actually taken as argument and not just fallacious horse **** slash trolling, but im slowly starting to ask myself whether thats possible for you at all. In regards of your suggestion I have a better idea: Chill out get off the forums, finish your school so you have at least a bit of idea about the coherency of the words leaving your mouth, then come back and let us continue our conversation.

I have no idea what you want from me since you yet have to form an argument or sentence that can be considered as an argument.
I tried to make you realize this by requesting to wheel through logical fallacies, but all you did was to piss yourself off cause your ego was hurt.
So no, i have no alternatives open for me. Either start making arguments, quit trolling/get off the forums or get reported.
Thats the three options you have. Personally. I would prefer the first one, but ofc its up to you.

What other arguments do you want?

That mines worked historically like they do in PS2 and are not only buried stealth area denial weapons?
That the game description of the AT mines matches their function?
That because of the lack of mines people carry mines are unusable the way you want them to be used?
That the tactic of Infantry destroying tanks at close range is obviously wanted by SOE as C4 does exactly this, too?
That AT Mines and C4 follow the weapon pattern in PS2 (1 General option = C4, 2 specialized options being AI or AT = respective mines)
That C4 is much more versatile than AT mines because it can be exploded everywhere on command and not just by shooting it or having a vehicle nearby?
That there are very effective counters to mines with the highest damage mitigation in the game for very low cost?

All that has been mentioned before and you dismissed it in your single minded crusade to make PS2 mines fit your very limited and false definition of how a mine has to behave.

Oh look its the whine de jour of poor players, again.

Just stop. Ixal is the same guy that in another thread tried to argue that the way to protect a Sunderer properly is to place it nowhere near the fighting. He also advocates Sunderer placements in spots that are both protected from vehicular attacks but don't give blind spots for infantry to easily approach and C4/AT Mine the Sunderer. You know, those spots that exist nowhere.

He's actually not a stupid guy, but he doesn't understand that AT mines, and to an extent C4 as well, are actually a balance problem at the moment.

Humm idk, enough for me to force you to respawn and let me way more than the 3 seconds I need to repair 1 mine damage.

2 tank mines are needed to kill any vech but a flash if they dont have mineguard, stationary or moving, you know how many blocks of c4 it takes to kill any vech? 2, sick of engies mining your deployed sundy? get mineguard and risk taking more damage from c4 and rockets, want reduced c4 or rocket damage then get comp armour, you know whats better, at the end of the day, i'll still drop your unguarded deployed sundy, with or without mines, i just like the look on your face when i do it

and the mines are Prox Mines, so of course deployed sundy's will set it off

Getting trolled by mines? There's a cert for that, it's called Mine Guard. Get it, you'll be surprised at the results.

Just be glad that engineers in PS2 blow compared to engineers in PS1. Those tank zergs you always see rolling into bases with near impunity? They wouldn't get within 400 yards of a PS1 base, there'd be so many mines everywhere.

shh, your not supposed to tell people about this, or actually defending a vehicle. its supposed to be parked and left alone, with 5-20 people milling around outside so us suicidal engies can blow it up for 5-6k XP a pop.

Just because you can't find those spots doesn't mean they exist. Just stop insisting on parking right on the frontline.
A Prime one is south of the Cown below the bridge. The only way the Engi can get to the sunderer is either going way around the Crown giving you plenty of time to spot and kill him or going down the exact path your forces use to go get up. Deviate left or right from the path and it is a uncontrolled slide to death because of physics. Thanks to the bridge direct fire on the Sunderer is also impossible.
And there are many more such spots ,unless you search for the mythical "I can park my Sunderer here and it becomes invulnerable without anyone needing to guard it" Spot. That one really does not exist. Every location is a tradeoff which you compensate with equipment. But as you are not willing to equip mineguard and are also not willing to park in spots which offer more mine protection or place defenses then of course mines will cause you trouble.

Which, the bridge to the southeast? I love it when people park Sunderers there. Not only does it troll the hell out of their team by blocking virtually every other actually useful Sunderer placement, it also forces their infantry to attack through a very narrow channel that leads to a perpetual motion cert farm for the defenders.

Then, there's the little problem of the Sunderer being wide open to vehicles from the *south* down there, which is the other side of that coin.

With Sunderers, you have three options:

• Place it somewhere useful
• Protect it from C4/AT Mines
• Protect it from other vehicles

Pick two. You can't do all three. In the case of the second one you can't even reliably accomplish that anyway currently, between drop pods, the Flash, and ESF hops there are too many routes for infantry to get to a vehicle in a protected or semi-protected fashion. I'm sure you're just going to claim that your Mystical Planetside 2 Mastery lets you do it all the time, to which I will again say: pics or it didn't happen.

You've never understood that the argument isn't about removing mines. It's only peripherally about making mines require a vehicle to run them over. It's about balance. Want to know what destroys balance?

Having something in game that is incredibly lethal, easy to use and has only one reliable method to counteract it, when using that method involves exclusion of multiple other defensive and utility options. That's the issue. That's always been the issue. The requests to change mines to require active vehicle contact are fixing a symptom. They're not a bad fix, but they're not a good one either.

The smart fix is to do what I suggested a while back in another thread - change C4 to use the mine damage algorithm against vehicles, move Mine Guard to the Performance category, and impose a vehicle speed/agility penalty when equipped in exchange for the protection. You know, kinda like actual tanks don't require you to strip off their reactive armor to armor them against undercarriage impact - they just move slower and have less clearance. And kinda like C4 doesn't do a bloody thing against modern armor unless the vehicle runs over a satchel charge or it's planted on the undercarriage - effectively acting as a mine.

That leaves mines and C4 valuable, and avoids the near-certainty that in the close future Mine Guard will effectively become the only viable option for the Defense slot on vehicles due to cert inflation. Moving it to Performance means that the other Performance options remain viable - they change movement characteristics, and in many scenarios the speed and agility of your vehicle is a much bigger factor than worrying about mines. That really doesn't hold true for the Defense slot.

We've already hit that threshold with infantry and Flak Armor. The sheer number of OHK explosives in the game effectively mandates usage of Flak Armor to survive in heavy fights. I'd rather not see the same thing happen with vehicles, and we're pretty close to that point already.

Only problem I have with AT mines is...

Deploying them indoors and using them to bypass the shields on spawns or having them hidden around corners and shooting them to get kills as troops pass through an archway.

AT mines shouldn't be deploy-able indoors period. Shooting them should destroy them without setting them off.

1. Use mineguard over blockade armor because mines are more of a threat to you.
2. Intercept the Engineer.

Two methods, so not OP according to you.
Your problem is the insistence on using blockade armor even though it doesn't do much for a AMS Sunderer and and at the same time the refusal of mitigating your lack of equipped mine defense through placement and tactics (defenders).

I've made it very clear that my problem is not just wanting to use Blockade Armor. Stop firing off straw man arguments and actually engage in a discussion for once. I know it will tax your tiny little brain, but give it a try.

No, this is your problem. You do not accept mineguard as counter to mines because of some personal reasons while at the same time you do not protect yourself against mines in other ways.
Btw: When you want to compare Sunderer armor to Flak armor, do that with Blockade armor not with Mineguard.