I'll never be happy with the dynamics of C4 and tanks.

For what purpose?

Suspend your sense of reality for a moment. What would this provide? It would give tanks the ability to do what exactly? Farm more?

In real war it takes one AT mine to completely disable a tank.
In real war tanks need a full crew to operate.
In real war artillery can be used to instagib a whole armor column.
In real war people don't respawn.

You're making a lot of assumptions there buddy. Also in planetside there is little to no consequence for dying. c4 faires can just suicide bomb armor with impunity, due to the pathetic armor and AI abilities with tanks in this game, which is designed so that infantry can counter anything so that mindless players can easily compete.

Also have to take into account how the maps are designed to me hallways to artificially force fights.

i agree......it should be changed so that....if you want to hurt heavy armor (sundys and tanks) then you have to physically place the C4 on the vehicle......but otherwise it could work as it does now


i just got my second brick of C4.....never before have i killed so many MAX units.........i almost feel bad for the VS and the NC when i drop C4 on them.


C4 is one of those things that the users of will try their hardest to not let it get nerfed because it gets them certs, while everyone else sees it as a pretty cheesy weapon....i just dont think its fair for Tanks to die to something so quickly (tank mines dont count)

no its not.......C4ing tanks is easy

So what kind of assumptions did I make, "buddy"? Which tanks take one person to operate? How many soldiers respawned after death? Are the artillery and AT mines some artistic work of fiction?

I'll take that as a joke, tankers can't seriously be dense enough to contradict themselves in such cringeworthy way. Do you even know what the word "impunity" means?

Shelling a spawnroom from top of the hill is a classic form of farming "with impunity". Butchering infantry with OHK HE spam that takes no skill whatsoever is done with impunity. Meanwhile the suicide bomber sacrifices his life to destroy just a single tank.

Or are you implying that, since there is a respawn mechanic in the game, his death isn't much of a "cost"? Well, then yours is too and you shouldn't get so worked up about it. Nanites? They replentish so quickly none of you will see much difference. You've spent your nanites on advantages like range and survivability against majority of threats, he spent less but just to kill you.

Anyway, infantrymen can knife other soldiers "with impunity" the way you see it, too. Provided the guy doing the knifing survives getting close, same as with C4.

Unlike C4, tank shells can travel long distances and resupply for free. You can kill 2 tanks with 4 people in them if you're extremely lucky, yet you can farm infantry to your heart's content with the tank. C4 does not give you immunity to small arms and AI explosives nor boost to your explosives resistance from other sources. It doesn't prevent you from flipping a point or fit in a room, but it doesn't give you 2x/3x the speed of sprint or roadkill capabilities either.

No risk/reward balance for tankers who, thanks to the current nanite economy, can chainpull farmchariots and kill everything for the same XP rewards infantry gets is a much bigger problem than C4 right now. It's like somebody else has already said in this thread - if you want the MBTs to be treated like tanks, then they should be redesigned into something more similar to what PS1 had. Then we can (hopefully) all agree that C4 should be drastically changed as well.

C4 should be removed from LA, too much cheese

Those that are arguing realism are grasping at straws.

No one can explain to me what a C4 nerf or even a removal would do for tanks. They've got NOTHING. They are in utter denial about the fact that their MBTs are not used for anything other than cert farming.

Everything is used for nothing but cert farming. Its all in your head. I use my MBT exclusively for hunting vehicles, except with the new directives I'm forced to use PPA/VPC if I want new shinies.

OP, just play VS, unlock PPA and enjoy infantry 300+m range C4 safety overkill aera.

At least you're not denial about it

I don't really have a problem with cert farmers. I really don't. What I do have an issue with is when they want balance changes to things that are hypocritical. Like this C4 rant. They want C4 nerfed so they can continue farming unhindered.

The real fix is to give MBT's a role outside cert farming. That way tankers don't have this illusion that infantry are better at farming then they are. Because lets be honest. The reason infantry are such a threat, is because you're facing so many more of them. At least one LA is eventually going to get through.

With a better role, you wouldn't see this happen as much. Roles such as splitting open walls so your forces can come in easier and the like. Sitting outside a base sniping the occasional dude that comes out, is bound to get you C4'd once in a while. Moving tanks don't get C4'd. But if you constantly have to move around a base keeping turrets and walls down, then you're less likely to get stuck.

I wouldn't mind C4 if the nanite cost was upped to be equivalent to that of, say, a Lightning or a MBT. At least enough that if you pull max C4, you nanites get totally drained.

"Sure we'll give you the ability to kill anything in the game, but that's all you're gonna be able to do aside from run and gun."

In my opinion the problem isn't that Light Assaults have C4, it's that Light Assaults don't have any better way of earning certs. Give us some passive equipment and make us more able to assist and we won't be C4 fairying as much.

Yeah, as much as I like the Directives system I have a gripe with how it was implemented.

The problem is that if you make only vehicles counter vehicles and infantry only counter infantry then you really take out the whole "combined arms" part of the game since they aren't really interacting with each other. You'd lose any real purpose for pulling vehicles. The idea of vehicles destroying walls in bases is good but it would require a massive chance in terrain and base design. There would also be a certain amount of coding word required as well. Basically this would take a lot of man hours to complete and drastically change the way the game is played so I don't think it's a very realistic expectation.

In terms of the balance between C4 and MBTs I don't really have any problems. As a user of both I think the balance is fine. Any time I get C4'd it was due to me tunnel visioning. Any time I C4 a tank, its because he sat in a bad location that enabled me to get to him easily or he was sitting still for too long.

Only if max C4 was like, six bricks. The reoccurring error people keep making here is that C4 is always 100% successful, never misses, never bugs, walks itself to its target...

The only time light assault c4 is more efficient than pulling your own tank is when there are too few to justify the expense, or too many and you just get gibbed. If tank chances exist, I prefer to tank because it is SIGNIFICANTLY more efficient at not only killing tanks, but keeping them out of your territory.

^this

Also this:

C4 was costing quite a lot before they got rid of the infantry and mech resources in favour of nanites. Removing C4's price altogether was actually quite a wierd decision, the price was spot-on in my opinion.

Another player complaining about c4. Light assaults with c4 can kill a lot of tanks or they can die a lot. It is simple to kill them. Either roll a tank next to a skyguard with proxy radar or get an anti infantry gun on your gunner slot and have a gunner and use radar.

I roll with skyguard and radar most of the time, and anytime I fly or use a mag I got to have radar. The system was made for a reason.

Mmnyeah. Yeah, really.

Make a 3rd slot for tanks. The give them the option of a automated AI, AT, AA turret that does half the damage of their counterparts or defensive systems like a laser point defence system or a SEAD system for tanks.

Or a defence ability that has an omnidirectional claymore on the tank that kills anything within 3m.

That's not the point. The point is doing it that way just looks pedantic. There's already enough of a risk-free element to C4 tossing while flying. I'm not even saying no one should ever do it.... some tank drivers deserve to get trolled every now and then (if I could do it to Hondadude, you bet!). But if some LA is doing this on a regular basis, then most people could agree he's a coward who isn't "playing the objective". He's one of the main reasons L.A's get a bad rap for being useless and making commanders think they have more manpower in the area than they actually have.