Hello all, I'm Selrahc4040, also known as Jarreau when in-game. I'm a dedicated light assault, having dedicated 340 hours of playtime to it on my main character. I've played since release, and had a lot of fun being a magical, gun-toting fairy. Like me, you've probably seen a lot of the "C4 OP pl0x nerf" threads circulating recently, and, like me, have dismissed the idea, and in some cases, argued against it. I'm not here to say it's OP, but I would like to discuss whether or not it's abused in its current state, which I believe it is. Let me share what prompted me to post this. Last night, I decided to give another faction a go, and quickly drafted up a new NC character under the moniker of "Whittakher." I decided to branch even farther out of my comfort zone and embrace a new class, the engineer. Setting Emerald as my server, I hopped into a fight against the Vanu in the field between Howling pass and NS Abandoned Offices. I took up position in the Northern tower of Howling pass for roughly 20 minutes, attempting to prevent the attacking VS from advancing along the ledge beneath it, and began supporting a Falcon MAX and a group of Medics, Heavies, and Infil's. Over the course of those twenty minutes, we killed something along the lines of 10-15 light assaults, of which many tried C4. I attributed this to the MAX being a natural explosive magnet. Later on, after a group of lightnings destroyed the Vanu's forward sundy, I moved with the front-line, hopping from rock to rock, resupplying infantry at each stop. The MAXes were left behind, but we were invariably hit with at least one brick of C4 at each rock, dropped from the top by an enemy Light Assault. I was exceedingly lucky in that I avoided each of these attempts, but it opened my eyes. Being killed like that way seems incredibly cheesy. There's no way to retaliate, what with you being firmly pinned behind the rock by enemy fire, and unable to move back from the edge of it lest you get picked off by a stray HE round. Under normal circumstances I would congratulate the LA on his ability to find such a place to harass enemies while remaining (mostly) unthreatened, but it felt... wrong. Especially with the frequency at which it occurred. I understand that the area where we fought is the only true area of its kind in the game, but if we're seeing C4 used against infantry this frequently, something should be changed. After all, it's supposed to be a shaped explosive charge for punching through armored hulls, not a user-operated AP mine. I know it's bad form to post a complaint without presenting a way to fix it, so I'll be re-suggesting an idea I've seen on other, similar threads. Require C4 to be "set." Wherein a Light Assault (And any other class, for that matter) would have to remain stationary to place and arm the charge. This removes its ability to be used as an infantry hit-and-run weapon, while (mildly) maintaining its effectiveness versus vehicles. You would also still be able to set up bait-traps for unsuspecting MAXes, where you place C4 at the edge of a doorway, then tempt a MAX through it. Thoughts?
Let me start by saying I run medkits full time now on my LA. Why are we going to nerf it even more? Hasn't the flying COF and the like been enough? Is C4 a bit cheese on LA? Sure. C4 has already been ninja nerfed, the splash damage is nowhere near what it used to be. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's barely more effective than a grenade a lot of the time. I don't think it needs a change without LA getting something in return after a few nerfs too many to the class and C4.
I would suggest splitting C4 up into two different weapons. An Anti-Infantry charge, much like C4 now, but with drastically reduced damage to vehicles and maxes. And an Anti-vehicle Thermite charge, that does considerably more damage than current C4, but does it over time in a brightly burning fire, sticking to the vehicle or max it's stuck on. That way LAs would need to dedicate their loadouts to either good AI C4 or good AV Thermite.
I like this idea, but if they are going to do that, may as well give us the engineer mines... I am a new player, please correct me if i have overlooked something
Would tankers be able to counter it? Potentially make fire suppression actually suppress fire? The difference would be that we can stick ours to things, not to mention detonating them of our own volition.
I think tankers could counter it because it would burn over time. So, if left unattended, it could flatten your tank or sundy, but an engineer should be able to out repair the burn unless a couple LAs stack 2 or 3 of them. At least that's how I'd imagine it.
First off, C4 has been nerfed in to oblivion. It use to be able to destroy a sunderer, then it use to be able to destroy a tank with one stick, now it can destroy a tank that does not have fire suppression, and lets you put 2 c4 directly on him. 2 Sticks kills one Max (as long as he is not running Flak armor like every other MAX). So i have a choice. I can use it on a sunderer, and get 0 points, i could try for a tank, but if he reverses, or if i only get 1 stick on him, or he uses fire suppression i get 0 points.... I could toss it on a MAX and i have a better chance of getting points, or i could drop it in a group of infantry and defently get points. Because of the nerfs, and the change to large clumped up fighting, people are going to use their 100 resources in trying to get multikills rather then what it was designed for (AV) simply because it does not kill vehicles that well anymore. Using it like a trap, is like using proxy mines. They have giant glowing beacons on them so everyone knows to avoid them. Yes you can put them on the inner side of a door, and wait for them to enter, but 9 out of 10 times they get destroyed by friends, or an enemy that entered the wrong way.... or HE tanks, or libs, etc. It is used as a bigger grenade right now because it litterly has no other viable uses. Sure it's possibile to take out a tank, or what not, but that takes skill + luck. Tossing a brick over a wall does not and is almost a gaurented kill
A lot of your information seems outdated or incorrect. C4 is only 75 resources. Two C4 instagib a tank, fire suppression can only be used if you're still alive. Unless a MAX is running flak (Which quite a few do), it should only take one C4 to kill them. Of course you're not going to be able to solo a sundy. Get a buddy. I understand C4 is hard to use, I have 291 kills with it myself. But it's not impossible. If you're unable to take out a MAX, vehicle, or sundy (provided you have a mate), you should reevaluate how you're playing.
"Abusing" would imply that it is being used in a way it wasn't meant to be used. Your scenario described one of the many ways to use C4. A synonym for "Abusing" is "Exploiting." Nobody is exploiting C4. If your scenario was about people below the ground who were throwing C4 above the surface, than you could say they were abusing C4, since it's method of use was not what the game intended. And Nowhere is it officially stated that C4 is only meant to kill armored vehicles. Watch, next people are going to suggest that engineer's tank mines should be within line-of-sight for an enemy vehicle to detonate them
"Exploiting", definition three, as defined by Google. (Great source, I know): "Using in an unfair or selfish way." "Abuse", definition 1.1, as defined by Google: "Make excessive and habitual use." The main points I was focusing on here were "Excessive and habitual" and "Unfair." When I say "Abusing," I mean they are using it in an unfair and unfun way that (in my eyes) is a detriment to the playability of the game. I'm not saying C4 needs to be nerfed, but something needs to be done about its constant use for something that, as far as I can derive, it was never intended for. Now, in theory, (And the real world) C4 can be rather easily used as an anti-infantry explosive. However, it must be shaped in certain patterns to do so. To be used against armored vehicles, alternatively, it must be shaped in a conical fashion to direct the shockwave through the armor plating, thus damaging the equipment inside. How can something be equally effective versus infantry and armor, unless our tanks are made of tissue paper?
Funny, here's the TOP results Google gave me, copy/pasted a·buse verb əˈbyo͞oz/ 1.use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse. ex·ploit verb ikˈsploit/ 1.make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource). I guess "exploit" isn't always a negative term. Okay... nobody is abusing C4, like you suggested Just because you're not having fun doesn't mean the enemy is cheating or abusing anything. You can still play the game just fine That's exactly what you're saying. You want it to be less effective/worth the cost so people will use it less often. That's called a nerf. Nothing has to be done, there is no problem here. People use whatever is the most effective and cost-worthy. I know for certain that it is meant to be used as a weapon against the enemy. Whether the current enemy is a vehicle, an infantryman, or a weapons terminal, it doesn't matter. Our tanks are generated out of thin air, what makes you think they're supposed to be all that sturdy in the first place? And C4 hurts vehicles by breaking down the nanites that form the vehicle, instantly deconstructing them. C4 kills infantry just by impact. That's how. If anything needs to be changed, it's bullets. Everyone is abusing bullets. Last night a group of enemies kept killing us with bullets. They shot the bullets out of their guns. I say "Abusing," because bullets are being used in an unfair and unfun way and make the game hard to play. I'm not saying bullets need to be nerfed, but something needs to be done about their constant use for something they were never intended for. In real life, bullets can rather easily be used against people. However, they have to be shaped in a certain way to be used against light aircraft. How can something hurt people and planes equally? ^ That's how ridiculous your claims seem to me.
Look at definitions 1.1 and 3, respectively. Just because something is the top definition doesn't mean it's the definition that was intended or implied. If anything needs to be changed, it's C4. A select few Light Assaults are abusing C4. Last night a few light assaults wiped out massive amounts of infantry with two clicks, while not being in a force multiplier. They tossed C4 from an unassailable position. I say "Abusing," because C4 is being used in an unfair and unfun way and makes the game silly to play. I'm not saying C4 need to be nerfed, but something needs to be done about their constant use for something they were never intended for. In real life, C4 can rather easily be used against people. However, they have to be shaped in a certain way to be used against multiple-inch thick metal plating, that, when molded into such a shape, greatly reduces its effectiveness versus infantry. How can something hurt people and amor equally when it needs to be directly changed from its base state to be viable against either? ^ This is how I see my claims. My issue is that something that is generally reserved for anti-vehicle gameplay in most games of this era can be so easily used against infantry, not that I personally am not having fun. If C4 just hurt the nanites, then our pistol rounds would be destroying tanks as well. I don't see my suggested change as a nerf, although I can see how it would be seen as such. It does reduce our anti-vehicle effectiveness. Alternatively, we could separate C4 into two categories: Anti-infantry and Anti-armor.
Your use of the word is incorrect. Nobody "Abused" anything, which was the point of the synonym If anything needs to be changed, it's my playstyle. I'm letting a few Light Assaults repeatedly attack us with their only viable weapon. Last night a few light assaults wiped out a few infantry who had no situational awareness using an extremely risky tactic that could have been ended by a guy looking up.Taking advantage of our carelessness was a force multiplier, as well as their better positioning. They dropped C4 from an easily reachable position, we never looked up once, even after repeatedly getting blown up. You'd think one of us would sense the pattern, but no we kept crawling up the road. I say "Abusing," because not knowing how to deal with an easily dealt with enemy is an unfair and unfun way and make the game silly to play, and I do not want to have to learn to play. I'm definitely saying C4 need to be nerfed, and something needs to be done about their constant use because I don't like when something kills me and I don't like adapting to different situations. In real life, C4 can rather easily be used against people. However, they don't have to be shaped in any certain way to be used against light vehicles created from nanites floating around. How can something that killed me be allowed to stay in the game? fixed it again, it is NOT generally reserved for anti-vehicle gameplay. Just because you don't use it against infantry doesn't mean it can't be used against infantry. "I don't fly esfs, so they shouldn't be used against me." And in what game does C4 or C4-like weapons not kill infantry? In Planetside 1 Boomers(C4) killed infantry in 1 hit. That makes zero sense, since bullets or lasers in pistols don't break down nanites. C4 on auraxis =/= regular bullets Or we could just leave it as it is, since there's nothing wrong with it. Don't fix what's not broken
I don't see it as problem with C4, but the other way around: C4 in this case was used specifically as it should be; by LA making an advantage of the fact you are clumped up and pinned down behind the cover. Normally, you should have your own Light Assaults operating in the area to prevent this kind of C4 attempts, but naturally they were pinned down by vehicle fire as well. This is what happens when you bring infantry to a vehicle fight: you get farmed. Sorry to be blunt, but you simply chose a poor strategy to advance. In this case it would be better to proceed with your own tanks to clear out enemy tanks first.
Okay, I concede. My arguments were weak. I'll state my last few rebuttals here. We WERE looking up. Well, I was at the least. From what I can tell, the LA cleverly chose to hide inside the bowl of the rock till the last possible second. In this case, Iridar is right. We should have had counter-LA's with us. I still don't understand what you're driving at with the definition/synonym topic. I used one definition of the word, you interpreted it differently. And you say pistols don't break down nanites. Aren't the soldiers nanites too? Thank you all for your time with this thread.
Well, playing the devil's advocate here It was written in the rocket launchers that they were supposed to be effective against armor and infantry. Yet, they nerfed them because they were too effective. Right now, even myself see C4 as an all around grenade. It's an AV nade combined with a frag nade. With the push of a button, I decide when it goes boom.
More or less this. Give the LA a choice, a HE type charge that's good against infantry and very weak vs vehicles; or a AP type charge that's strong against armor (if its stuck to it) but has little to no splash. C4 is one of those things that currently is too good at everything; with few downsides.
