Two C4 doesn't kill an MBT anymore?

Thinking this way why everyone don't spend 450 resources and get 20 kills? It would be the logic line right? but why this doesn't happen? hmmm.... strange don't you think?

And again and if it was as hard to use/ so expensive why it has such a high score? PPL wouldn't use it. Or at least don't use it to farm infantry.

And why it has a better Score than the Decimator? It's FREE. It's not a "one use" thing like C4. Yet C4 has more than 3x the score of decimator. and more 0,6 of K/D.

PS:C4 is easy acces. and the resource cost is laughable.
AND when you reach 0 Infantry resources you still play as infantry with all your certs.
When you reach 0 with vehicle resources you can't use your 15k+ of certs used in vehicles.

Actually it's not a strawman argument because that's what C4 does and we're talking about how C4 can blow up a tank He's talking about HE was in the past and now isn't. If he speaks up and says he wants C4 to not gib a tank from any direction like it currently does then I'll be in the wrong. Lets wait and see shall we?

Anyhow you're using your using a strawman argument because I was talking about about open field battles. Are there spawn rooms and window in the middle of nowhere between bases? Please show them to me. It's funny because the post you quoted me in I specifically said open field battles, and you're talking about shelling buildings and spawn rooms. Oh and the overhauls to bases were horrible and consisted of throwing walls up and destroying Esamir . But if you're an infantry primary player I can see how walls completely excluding vehicles from a battle would be seen as a positive.

Good. A single infantry shouldn't have ever been able to take down a single tank within a single second, no matter how bad the tanker is, ever. All the L2P arguments were therefore rendered null, this isn't about skill, it's about what things should and should not be.

I sincerely hope this bug stays, or is made official, but nobody likes randomness. I would rather them fix it and take away C4's ability to kill in two bricks.

According to those stats you so generously provided, people DO spend 450 resources and get 20 kills. Quite a number of them. Let's ignore the P2-120-R HEAT. The sample size is too small for it to be reliable. Instead, lets take a look at the P2-120 HE, shall we? It has a 21.8 K/D with 2.2 million kills. In terms of sheer kills, it's the 5th highest on the list. That is a lot. With a high K/D.

It has a high score because it's used to kill vehicles. Vehicles give a much larger payout when you kill them.

C4 costs 900 certs and 200 resources. Vehicles cost 0 certs and 450 resources. The resource cost of C4 sure as heck isn't laughable when you use the same pool of resources to pay for medkits, grenades, mines, claymores, stun grenades, concussive grenades, ect.

And, this is a thought, perhaps the reason you can't pull another vehicle when you've run out of resources is that, yes, that's the way it's -supposed- to work. You spend certs on a vehicle, pay 450, and get to go on 20 person kill streaks or more, if you're careful. When you die, if you don't have enough resources to pull another, you get to hop out and play infantry a while. Infantry is the base state of the game. That's where you start, that's where you end up.

0-R HEAT

Wait, before we get into all this, haven't I argued with you about C4 before? Likely in one of those other giant C4 threads that tend to crop up like weeds?

Well when the MLG pros dictate the direction of the game that's all you're going to get.

Here we are trying to cherry pick stats to see whos got the best ones and spend 10 pages trying to downplay stats against and play up stats for...

yawn

the bottom line is, tanks should not be instagibbed by one person, it perpetuates idiocy amongst infantry who think they can get that sweet solo kill and die 20 times (thus giving the tanker more k/d!) just to get that one, delicious moment for their youtube compilation no one will watch.

Instead teamwork should be promoted, and combined arms, where you get your own armor and blow the **** out of the armor farming!

So your argument to nerf tanks is to show a tank zerg?

What is your desired outcome here? Remove tanks from the game and have infantry just run to the next base, or all pile into cert-pinatas Sundies to drive there?

Come on, guys. Let's stop trying to simply stonewall your opposition and provide some actual solutions to what you feel is wrong with armor

please tell me were i ever said we should be nerfing tanks? my whole argument is that C4 has never been what is in the way of good tank play.

Oh, now I know I've seen Jachim in these threads before. Don't waste your breath.

you are on fire tonight! no i think he is implying that they both agree that they are idiots. as in stargazer sees Divinorium as an idiot and vice versa. but then again i know how to read.

Heh, this thread just got mightily pruned by stealth mods.

Then be productive and give suggestions.

What Tankers see is the flying fairy intagibbing their tank, what they don't see is the 10 other MBTs behind them.

Great power = Great responsibility
Not in PS2 where any irresponsible players can pull his Titanium Taxi Tuxedo (aka Armor)

Didn't read the thread but... things that die from one c4 should be droppable in 1 sec, things that need more shouldn't.

Solution: retain C4 damage but make it so you can't activate more then one at a time.

It seems like you want to make this a socialist game by spreading the skill around.

Survival of the fittest. Why should the good players be punished for horrible players? The answer is, they shouldn't.

Agh, sir, you misjudge me, and wait, you just made fun of FOX news and then called me a socialist. What are you, one of those dirty centrists?

First of all, I am a strong student of the Austrian school of economic thought, sir, never was there a more reasoned and adamant rejection of socialism in all the world!

Second of all, you may frame the issue however you wish, but raising the survivability of tanks does not increase OR decrease the skill ceiling in any way for tankers, it only drops out the bottom a teeny bit, for smart tankers more rarely get hit by C4, if anything this will make them more complacent and less vigilant.

Third of all, I would reject your notion of "good players", this is not an issue of skill, this is about what should and should not be. I am not denying the fact that good players are often treated harshly by balance changes, but the apparent ease with which Light Assaults could previously destroy a tank was frankly quite astounding. While the difficulty of executing the task is variable, the task itself is incredibly simple: put two C4 on a tank and press a button. Those that could carry it out can be called better players than those that don't know how to use cover or don't know how to sprint or don't know how to use their jetpack, but it is to be taken on the margin seeing the simple nature of its execution.

Okay, hypothetical for you, what if there was an armor-piercing sniper rifle that was extremely hard to aim and did little damage at range but magnificent damage up close, but with a reload canceling mechanic the Rate of Fire could be magnified a hundred times. Now, this technique is of a moderate difficulty to execute, and the people who do it properly can kill a tank in about half a second if they hit every shot and perform perfectly. Now, I know seeming fair is an essentially subjective thing, but I bet I would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks this is fair. C4 seems to get a pass because its intended role, you know, to kill armor, and rightly so, however, I do not believe anything, no matter what, be it C4, the most easymode thing in the game, or the most hardmode thing in the game, should kill a tank in under a second. Besides under the tank (tank mines!), the tank has to do a specific act to get over something rather than omitting an act of observation and sniping folks out of the sky, therefore the failure is placed solely on them, whereas with a C4 LA, it is incredibly variable and hardly preventable with simple observation, those LAs are sneaky sons of guns after all!

If you sit still while underneath a structure, you deserve to get killed. It really is that simple. Maybe you'll learn next time but instead of learning, you want to game to cater to your lack of awareness.

Mineguard.

Prox radar.

So either you equip mineguard and proximity radar or you just shouldn't drive tanks.

If you do not equip those items, then that's your problem, don't make it ours.

I assumed it was a bug with explosive weapons as the decimator does less then half damage to ESF's now.

C4 should only really maintain its current level of damage when stuck to the back of a tank, as other have stated its ability to simply gib a tank by grazing it is a bit of an issue, and encourages light assault rushing. by doing this you maintain C4s ability to be a viable anti tank tool, but make it so that it is now a bit more situational, requiring a bit more effort from LAs then simply fly over someone and hit the button. you would have to actually have a way to get to the back of the tank. it would still work as well for punishing bad/camping/tunnel visioned tankers, as well as still being viable for hitting tankers from elevated positions, but not outright killing them unless more then one person is applying C4 (say 4ish stick on the roof to kill a MBT)

the initial shock of going from full to half health when C4ed by a single person from above should encourage new tankers not to hang out next to so much infantry cover, and the ability to place on the back and gib will punish them for camping and not moving, while still rewarding LAs that have the ability to use cover and flank.

As I said, you can frame the issue however you want, however. . . I can just as easily say without reproach that if you try to 1 shot a tank then you deserve to fail miserably. For this example, I am not taking Tank Mines in the active, but they are a hopeful deployment that has less expectation, that key distinction places the tank in the active role of their own destruction. For this perspective I will refuse to put the tank in active participation of their own destruction where C4 is concerned lest they drive over it where it is pre-placed. There is less skill where placing a tank mine is involved, placing them properly, however, is another story. C4 has less of a skill range due to its explicit form of placement, it makes complacency and ease in Light Assaults. Yes, C4 makes tanks more aware, they have to be, but it makes LAs less aware, whereas they have been incredibly aggressive.

Such wordplay does not an argument make, but rather let us consider which is more noble and which more despicable, one shotting tanks or forgiving positioning? Lauding the lone Light Assault or lauding the Lone Tank? Further, it is the most noble to find a solution that pleases both sides, and for the longest time it was in the Light Assault's general favor, none can deny, how about now we work to solve the entire issue? Personally, I do want to punish people with bad positioning, don't get me wrong. If you're in a bad position there should be risks, a risk vs reward balance, the rewards are already apparent due to other reasons of positioning advantage. However, I think that for the longest time the risk was far greater due to the Light Assault and his C4, far greater than it ought to be.

With your dichotomy, of Mineguard vs Prox radar (vs all the others), a tank is most often choosing between getting one shot from their own stupidity, and one shot from a risk vs reward game of being next to structures, wherein the C4 wielder has an inordinately large advantage. Basically I'm saying LA C4 was too easy before this glorious bug. Not only that, but we are completely ignoring the open field tanks that still get rocked by drifter C4. Prox radar meanwhile does not contribute enough to warrant a pass on the Light Assault's ability to--with RELATIVE ease--destroy a tank.

Sir, I also don't drive tanks, I'm a Heavy Assault, I am outside this discussion, do not lump me into your neat compartmentalization! Besides, there can be impartial folks on the inside, can there not be? And since you didn't quote the rest of my post, I am going to assume you agree with me on those points in some way or another?