Why is it that a single infantry can 'solo' a MBT in this game?

What world do you live in?

It's beyond infuriating when anyone can spend 450 free, self regenerating nanites on the most powerful ground unit in the game, and kill any infantryman in just one shot. Not only it's ludicrous that any player has access to so much firepower without spending a single cert, they also gain an armored, mobile platform, so forget trying to counter or shoot back because rocket launchers - that only 1 class out of 5 even carries - do 1/12th of MBT health pool.

And even if you get SEVERAL heavies shooting at ONE player in ONE tank, the tank can just casually roll away to repair and return a minute later. Honestly, the 'balance' decisions made in this game astound me.

Actually in the 21st century if you put 2 bricks of C4 that big on a tank its going to be gone after it goes off.
Also the 29th century thing can go all into speculation for all we know all the technology devopment went into space travel and well other thing and they just left the tanks as a "Good enough" becasue we have this machine that can just "print" them out so if they get destroyed who cares we have a clone of the driver we can get the scrap and print out a new one we dont lose anything and they still pack enough firepower to do their job.

Holy shiz

I almost never die to c4 in my tank. Almost...never. When I do...it's because I pushed far ahead of my empire's front line. It takes a few seconds to throw two bricks and pull the trigger. So you idea of a TTK of 0 is wrong.

It actually is pretty easy to avoid c4. In smaller fights it should be far harder. Your gunner's job is to look for them...if they aren't doing this job your gunner is just lazy.

Now....Lets address the red text.
For 450 nanites you are saying that a SINGLE infantryman who has to get with in melee range, and stay in melee range to throw a second stick, shouldn't beable to kill you with 150 nanites of consumable. (that is use weather he sets them off or not). Well...I hate to tell you this but you are just an infantry who just brought a giant armored tank in with out paying attention to your surroundings. That doesn't mean you should get a free pass man. If C4 didn't instakill tanks you could just get out...and repair it with you repair tool that has infinite ammo....which as a fellow tanker I see is a problem. Having infinite repair juice is also completely broken. I hate the repair guns in this game and their infinite ammo. Same with medic tools. They should all have ammo. Getting a tank makes you very hard to kill....but it doesn't, and shouldn't save you from your own lack of situational awareness or the stealth ability of another player.

Nerfing c4 so that it would take 3 sticks to kill a MBT would basically remove 70% of the function from the least flexable class in this game. To me that is unacceptable.

Planetside 2 is really a WW2 game with a new coat of paint and different spawning mechanics.

Actually...you are wrong. C4 on the outside of a tank is likely to only piss off the tank crew in modern times. If put in just the right place, it may beable to knock out the engine or blow off a track. But generally....it wouldn't do much more then scar the armor.

This is a total fallacy. In fact I'm pretty sure you simply just made that up off the top of your head.

As you said weapons and armor are a continuing evolution of one upping the other. There are plenty of infantry viable solutions to armor. Today I make a suit of armor, tomorrow someone invents the gun. There is of course always the weapons that you don't know about as well ;-) don't be naive enough to think they don't have options.

Infantry can in fact disable tanks in modern times. Javelin launchers are capable of taking out tanks by disabling them. There is even munition systems that you can set on the ground...they sense the vibrations of the incoming tank...launch a mine in the air that then fires itself down at the engine compartment of said vehicle...all by itself. It only requires two people to pull it off a truck and put it on the ground....it also carries more than five rounds and it is relatively small.

That said...we aren't playing a real life war simulator....and I support the idea of two bricks of c4 blowing up tanks. Because it helps balance the game. Vehicle zergs are strong enough in this game...infantry still need some ability to fight back. That comes from someone who spends more time in vehicles then infantry.

We're quite a ways into this thread but I don't think it's wrong to point out that one player would theoretically be able to solo a lone MBT in PlanetSide Classic too. A sufficiently certed player would have enough utilities to keep the tank relatively immobile, dis-armed, and deal heavy damage to it if they had to fight it in straight combat. This would have to be a specialist sort of loadout, though, as he couldn't do too much else.

It's probably just as easy to destroy an unaware, immobile tank using Combat Engineering alone.

Sorry OP, but a 150 Nanite purchase that requires you to be within 5M (albeit horizontal) distance to target with a placement/detonation time measured in full seconds as opposed to a 450 Nanite purchase that can OHK from 300M seems like a rather fair trade off.

The IS-2 was impregnable from the front. Not even late-war HEAT shells (which, mind, made AP rounds completely obsolete IRL ) could pen them. So, comparing that probably means rockets should just bounce when hitting the front of a Vanguard and do zero damage.

I would be all for having C4 and mines even 1 shot tanks if it meant we could have armor angling and bounces exist!

Another intangible aspect of tank warfare is probably the fact that armies during actual, real, scrappy wars, take and use the munitions and arms of the enemy whenever they can, and tanks were often merely forced to be abandoned and remained serviceable after repairs. The red army took P4s and StuGs whenever they could, and the Wermacht granatwerfer could fire pretty much any mortar round on the battlefield.

I would really like to see this part of PS1 return in some way too. Granted, it was only with small arms (right?).
Fighting Vanguard vs Vanguard would be really cool IMO. Especially if tank combat was enhanced.
At that point, allowing more tactical play, allowing more skill and positioning and such things to matter to tanks and increase their power, I'd like a 750 nanite build cost and a 400 cap or something while in use.

Name the last conventional war in which infantry-carried weapons were the leading cause of casualties?

My statement was purely limited to something along the lines of C4, a small explosive package tossed at a tank (hence the "toss"). Nothing like that exists today that can so easily penetrate tank armor. You would need something at the smallest the size of a paint can, and probably something much, much larger.

It was not meant to include ATGMs or other methods. Though these are becoming more and more obsolete.

You are right that MBTs should be significantly more powerful, but 2x C4 should still eliminate them. I find this to be an exciting game mechanic, you need to be aware of your surroundings. This is IMO "fun" on both the giving and receiving end.

I said the backside. The Panzerknacker was a magnetic HEAT bomb, basically. It blew open a tank and then caused some incredible damage. The IS-2 was epic... but Brad Pitt and his crew were better than all!

I am more than familiar with rounds bouncing off... I've played tons of CoH. Angling is a concept I don't really understand, though; is it a thing were you try to make your armor tilt by going backwards on a small incline, or do you rotate your tank 40-75 degrees so that your front is at an angle?

And as for using vehicles, that's what an Infiltrator update could release. When you think about it, hacking a terminal is infinitely more challenging, because it's got all that information in its specs or something, while you can have even an Engineer and hotwire a tank

It doesn't even have to be on the backside in planetside, or even attached to the tank. Maybe they should put in directional armour for c4 so front does meh damage, side and tops is more, and rear is the lovely 1hko infantry "need".

You forget, ALL technology will be advancing. By the 29th century * explosives * will also be advanced. They'll drop something the size of a sugar cube on that thick armor and it will explode and cut through that thick armor like butter.

Advancing technology: Another thing people forget is all this easy remote drone crap only works with a high-tech army against a low-tech opponent. Much as we have today. But when both sides are high-tech and can use communication signal jamming tech against each other, then those drones will fall out of the sky and all the remote equipment will just stop. One good EMP pulse will end a battle. Of course, then there will be counter-measures against counter-measures against counter-measures ad infinitum.

In the end, it will be two guys fighting with knives because everything else is broken or non-operational.

Enjoy.

That's probably one of the most important points. Don't forget that the C4 costs resources too. There is a reason that tanks should operate in concert with infantry, at least in confined areas where there is any form of cover. Don't look at the tank as a superweapon. 90% of the time it should be a support weapon, working along side friendly infantry to take out targets that they are going to struggle with, kill sundies, fight off other tanks, ect.

I totally disagree with your premise. There is almost zero evidence to suggest that infantry AT weapons are becoming weaker. You could argue that developments in reactive armour has caused problems for ATGM's in particular but reactive armour wouldn't do anything against kenetic energey or direct explosive attacks such as C4. It's also probably fair to assume that the infantry rockets have pen aids like tandum hit charges. One could even argue that the need to stack two bricks of C4 in order to kill a tank creates that same tandum hit effect which in turn causes the tank to be destroyed.

Besides, the most effective form of reactive armour is explosive reactive, and we can assume that the tanks in PS2 do not use that on account of the fact that you can be an infantryman standing near a tank and not have a come to Jesus experience any time the tank gets hit.

One of the better examples I can think of was the first Merkava to cross the border in the 2006 Israel Lebanon war. It made it about 20 feet before rolling over an IED made from stacking a bunch of old Anti Tank mines on top of each other like a pancake. Destroyed the most heavily armoured MBT in existence with a price tag in the neighborhood of 6 million USD, and killed its entire crew at the cost of a couple antiquated soviet AT mines from the 70's.

You want to know the secret to make getting c4'd a thing of the past?
Stop tunnel visioning the pretty lights in your thermal optics or better yet, stop spawn camping infantry in a tank.

That's right, for the low low price of not being a cheese lord, you too can live a long and happy life in your MBT.

Let's be honest, guys. All you MBT drivers just want to farm and kill as much infantry peasants as you want. It's simple. You just want to kill and have high K/D to fap to. You want certs and all-mighty steel steed. No. Screw you. You're almost as bad as air farmers and I hate you. I play MBT sometimes, but I understand that it's much easier to kill enemy infantry when I'm driving a tank. If they get you then it's All Your Fault.

For missions that aren't "transport X" or "destroy Y with no regard for collateral damage" how do you plan on accomplishing those in your tank or plane?

thats kinda true, but if you're, in the same region as a biolab or any joining region, i can c4 you from high in the sky.
the new drifters work REALLY well with jump pads, jumping sideways and strafing allows you to get to any target you like.

i'm not debating whether i think its ok for one infantry to kill a tank, i'm just pointing out that it doesn't always happen because they lack situational awareness.
noone really looks for a single infantry guy flying 100m up when you're so far from the base.