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

Why? Not all vehicles can deal with each other. Why should all infantry be able to destroy vehicles?

Shoot gunsights off vehicles? What? A grenade to slow them down? How about no?
Why the hell are infantryside players bent on making tanks even more inferior than they already are. There should be no way an infantryman should be able to ever kill a tank 1v1 unless the tank runs over a mine. Ever.

You're right, it does sound like a lot, because it is a lot. You would have to double tank armor, double splash damage on HEAT/HE cannons, give prox radar that doesn't take up a slot, a coax shotgun, and double the tank speed to balance that **** out. Especially since we're getting MORE absurd AV in the form of Vulcan-like harasser weapons for the other factions.

No. Plus, I think last time there was a deal where infantry got an indirect buff and tanks were promised a buff to balance it out, the tank part never happened.

Because little, hand-held Frag Grenades somehow have more lethal explosive radii than 120-150mm HE tanks shells.

Because PS2 is a terribly balanced game.

To make certain we're on the same page, you are proposing all of this at once?
That's a terrible deal if so.

Thanks for repeating what I said about C4 acting as a deterrent minus the "tunnel-visioning farm machine" part.

Demigan, don't split up my paragraphs to make me look like a stubborn idiot. Because of this, you ended up repeating something I said.

It was not supposed to be an argument in the first place. I was simply having a small discussion with Movoza regarding the role of C4 in tank gameplay in Planetside 2.

Like with Movoza's list, I will explain why these analogies do not apply to the situation where C4 destroys a tank in the same order and format you presented the analogies.
- A tanker can here an ESF coming easily over the noise of the engine the tank. In fact, there was an update previously the increased the noise of an all aircraft flying. After the first rocket hits the tank, the tank does have ample time to react before the other rockets hit, unlike C4, where often times, after the first explosion, the tank is dead. The tank has a couple options it can use during that time between rocket impacts in which it is possible to do a couple of them simultaneously; the tank can move, activate Magburner, activate Vanguard shield, activate fire suppression, and/or activate IR smoke.
- Simply take the explanation above and replace "an ESF" with "a Liberator".
- You are describing tank on tank combat which is nothing like infantry with C4 on tank combat. But going on with your example of when a Prowler ambushes a tank, the defending tank has a couple of options after or when the Prowler fires his salvo in which it is possible to do a couple of them simultaneously; the tank can move, activate Magburner, activate Vanguard shield, activate fire suppression, and/or activate IR smoke.

Seriously, enough with comparing infantry with C4 on tank combat with other examples in game since none of them can quite fully illustrate the situation.

First of all, Movoza and I were only discussing about tanks versus planes, not tanks and infantry versus planes because infantry are unable to one shot aircraft unless if C4 is added into the mix, in which it will become a completely different topic. But regarding the original example Movoza and I were discussing regarding tanks versus planes, I challenge you to find a thread, that was posted before the time of this post where air jockeys complain about tanks shooting them out of the sky.

Throw all the numbers you want, it's all meaningless without the calculations to prove them. Also, you have forgotten about the drop pod scenario that I mentioned.

If the nanites in the C4 can eat away armor, wouldn't one brick be enough to dig a hole through the armor and activate the explosive, in which the explosion can go through the hole. In game, two bricks are needed to destroy a tank, and the bricks do not need to be on the same part of the tank in order to destroy it. A more plausible explanation to C4 is that it is filled with concetrated explosives and it uses shear high explosive force to destroy a tank. In which, case the hole in the lore still remains where for some reason, the explosives in rockets and tank shells are not filled with C4.

Point out where in my post that I strongly implied that we should implement such things so that HE would be almost obsolete. I only referenced real life tank cannons for "your information" only.

Isn't that the point of a tank? Tanks are supposed to be able to take multiple shots before going down. That is one of their intended roles ever since the beginning of their creation in World War I. Again, I never mentioned removing C4. I made a previous suggestion of discussing the effect if C4 could be detonated one at a time rather than simultaneously.

Not destroy but hamper and sabotage. Like I said, Heavy and Engineer keep their vehicle damage weapons, but the other classes get abilities to do something against them as well. None of the other abilities dealt direct damage, and only one could remove a vehicle by flipping it to their side if it was empty.

I'm not an infantryside player. I like playing infantry, sure, but I enjoy tanking as well. I am not hell-bent on making vehicles worse, I am for a much more balanced game based on combined arms. Tanks should get some awesome weapons to deal with infantry without having to sacrifice a lot of power. In the meantime all infantry needs to be able to deal with vehicles, up to a point. Which is why I'm proposing CQC abilities that don't deal damage but have effects on the tank and mean trading in something else.

That's your fear speaking. First of all tanks need to get this update to get their co-ax canons and the like, and then the other classes can get their updates eventually.

Guess what "hamper and sabotage" lead to. Destruction. You are still advocating more AV. The game currently has too much infantry-borne AV. The answer is not to increase it.

All infantry do not need to be able to deal with tanks, up to a point. That is absurd. What the hell is the point of pulling a tank if "all infantry" can deal with you? I might as well just save the 450 nanites and spam grenades, because they are apparently more lethal, I suspect because of infantryside's non-stop cries for more AV. I don't care if you call youself a part of infantryside or not, you want the exact same thing, an increase in infantry AV.

How about this, we do that deal, except the other classes never get their updates after tanks get co-axial cannons? You know, since we never got part two of the tank nerf/buff.

I'm not sure what the difference is between all of this at once and in phases.
But if it does happen in phases, tanks first, every tank ability first. The AOE nerf might have been just a reduction to less-skilled farm weapons, but with the AI weapons and co-ax canons I think tanks would instantly become much, much more damagerous than the old AOE tanks, although it will depend much more on skill than having a large AOE do the work for you.

Rocketlaunchers (only available for Heavies, class is abundant because it has easy crutches for the big populace), AT mines (only available to engineers), AV turret (engineers), C4 (all classes but only one class is known for using it much against vehicles), 2 types of ES AV MAX weapons.
6 AV weapons

Aircraft have: Rocketpods (officially not AV but it deals enough damage), Hornets, Zepher (officially not AV but it deals enough damage), Dalton, Tankbuster.
5 AV weapons

Tanks have: AP&HEAT, Halberd, ES AV, Furies (officially not AV but deals enough damage on both Sunderers and Flashes due to the mechanics those work on).
5 weapons, but available on multiple vehicles rather than just one.

There is nothing wrong with increasing infantry capabilities against tanks, when tanks get an increadible update as well. Hampering and sabotage might lead to destruction, but with the mechanics in place it's highly risky and doesn't guarantee anything. Even if we added 50 new ways for infantry to deal with tanks, if it takes away something somewhere else (such as the ability to carry C4, tanks mines, or lose abilities against other infantry) you can balance that out as well.

Guess what? all infantry already can deal with you, with the exception of Infiltrators. Although they can deal with you indirectly through stealing turrets and blowing you up, or killing drivers when they get out. I haven't changed that much with my idea's.
MAX's carry AV weapons, Heavies rockets, grenades and C4, Engineers carry C4, tank mines and AV turrets, LA's carry C4, Infiltrators steal turrets and have an easier time getting close for killing drivers.
All I'm changing is the way people can deal with you, by removing the damage dealing options mostly. LA needs to switch it's C4 to a sabotage utility, engineers suddenly want to choose not to destroy your tank and hope they can hack it, infiltrators are the only one's who get an extra edge by being able to steal empty vehicles. It's all CQC, and it's mostly a no-damage option that's replacing the damage option.
Only now I realize i've been missing the medic. I'll think of a nice option for him as well at some point.

If you feel cheated by the devs because you never got the promised infantry updates you can. It was a bad move to nerf AOE and not continue with the promised infantry nerfs. But that doesn't mean you should attack me for your disgruntlement with Daybreak/SOE. Look at the idea itself and not your feelings to how tanks were treated in the past. Maybe you'll see the merit of tanks getting a straight and awesome upgrade to their lethality at most ranges against infantry while infantry get some alternate options to deal with tanks, mostly replacing their damage-dealing options.

Read it again, it's not the same. There are very nice differences between our posts. You completely focus on an already C4red tank, I focus on the gameplay as a whole and how you can avoid C4 by simply moving amongst other things.

They have 4 seconds to react, moving is too slow, fire suppression helps them for a tiny moment, IR smoke doesn't do a thing, Vanguard shield adds 2-4 seconds survivability but just like Magburner it might save you for a moment but the worst damage is already done. At best the ESF has to break his attack and will finish the job from above as you've already been dealt a bit more than 50% damage before you can react.

I don't think I even need to comment on this. It's like a Heavy right in the open without cover faced by a 2/2 MBT. You theoretically have a shot by firing your rockets, but in reality the only thing you can do is run towards some far away cover or hope the enemy is stupid enough to somehow show his back to you during his attack. Otherwise he'll always be able to get away and repair after which he'll be back.

You never used an Anchored Prowler against people's unprotected back have you? You can kill a shielded Vanguard before he's got his side turned towards you, and a Magrider needs to be standing against a ramp or ledge and be able to jump behind it to escape. All other options you named do not work in time against a TTK this low.

Indeed they can't, because they are safer to pull off and can be repeated for multiple targets without cost.

I pointed out how stupid your argument was that aircraft can hear a shot and react.
Also, ever used a Decimator against an aircraft? Or a Phoenix? OHK's ESF anyway.

I thought that was obvious. The Droppod slows down before it hits the ground, otherwise the infantryman inside (who does get damaged from X distance falls) would get damaged and die. It's a droppod, it's entire function is based on letting the occupants survive the impact intact. Otherwise why use a droppod at all? They would be dropping infantry without a droppod and smack them into the earth, because 'well a droppod doesn't defend them, why waste materials on it then?'
The fact that you even consider it a question is mind-boggling. And you can look up the calculations yourself. The CD of a brick is about 2,1 for instance. There, your first step into the calculations. It's too easy to scream for the research and calculations when you don't do it yourself. All you ask is that the opposite team does the research while never taking responsibility yourself.

A more plausible way to explain it is that the combination of nanites and explosives aren't enough to deal critical damage to a tank, so you need two to destroy it. You suddenly assume that just because the C4 eats a hole in the tank, the explosive is strong enough to instagib the tank. You constantly assume the worst scenario while not going for the obvious.

The point where you said that almost any shell works as an HE.

That's the purpose in the real world. The purpose in a game is to provide a different gaming experience as well as an increase in power. But like in any game, you need proper counters. In the current meta where a tank can be repaired quickly in a safe position and outrun any infantry, you need a weapon with restrictions that can actually kill it. The restrictions are in place: you need to get close and vulnerable to anyone who is paying attention to do it, and it costs resources.

If C4 is detonated one at a time, any tank can escape. You hear a big boom? Drive forwards. Unless you were so tunnel-visioned and the LA is at the front of your vehicle you'll have an almost automatic escape from any C4 attack.

You are not entitled to sit afk in a vehicle out in the open and survive an engineer planting four C4 bricks on you, hopping ontop of you, dancing for two minutes, then detonating them. That's insanely anti-competitive.

Merriam-Webster online dictionary page on the definition of the word "Competition"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competition

Your tank is a vehicle. I have gripes about the tank's ability to perform to its role and talked about some of them earlier in this thread so I don't feel the need to repeat the various tank buffs I listed. But it should be expected to perform its role and receive relevant upgrades when lacking - not function as a magic vehicle token that guarantees your defense against another player unless another magic vehicle token is fielded. Vehicles are pieces of equipment operated by players and a substantial combat boost which should be appropriately fit for purpose and worth the resource investment - but not magic tokens. This is not a card game or board game, and it's not a singleplayer RPG.

Planetside 2 is a competitive multiplayer game. Meaning you are competing against the other players, and if 1 person defends a base against a force of 2, the 1 should be able to win if they play better. "We haz magic token thus free win" from one or both of the 2 should not mechanically block defeat on their part.

You are not granted in-game mechanical immunity from another player defeating you - even if he's not using a magic vehicle token and is an infantryman. And you shouldn't be, because the game is not based around token trading and measuring your stack of tokens against another stack of tokens and seeing who has the bigger token stack - it's based around competition.

Meaning if you sit AFK in a tank, an enemy engineer is not "Cheating" by running up to you and planting mines on you. You're not entitled to survive AFK combat performance.

Cashing in Magic Tokens for Wins isn't competitive.

You invested resources for a combat boost. Not a freebie handout. There's a difference.

The boost should be expected to be fit for purpose. "My magic token = godmode thus if I die it's unfair because my magic token gave me death immunity from you" is not that purpose, and it shouldn't be. "My token requires multiple people to kill if not another token!" is not "teamwork" - your magic token does not provide a "counts as X number of players" magic bonus card.

Suggesting that your magic token should entitle you to a mechanical block against defeat unless faced by another magic token or skewed population doesn't belong in a competitive game. Accordingly it doesn't belong in PS2, unless you wish PS2 to persue a non-competitive route.

You could advocate the position that if you've got a development plan based around vehicle nerfs / vehicle buffs, you delay the change so that the nerfs and buffs be implemented at the same time with the same patch so it doesn't screw over the balance of the equipment in question, as leaving things half-baked for an undetermined period of time is probably a bad design decision, and could be met with (as an example for the point), tweaking some of the stats back temporarily until the proper patch could be developed if that would indeed be better than things left half-baked.

Personally I didn't even notice the tank damage changes until months after they happened and I would have no complaint to the AI tank shells being "buffed" again. If I was in a spawn room that was being shelled, I redeployed, moved a sunderer to a flanking position, and got rid of the tanks by dumping a bunch of random HA's and MAX's on a hill or somesuch. I only found out the damage changes due to reading forum posts complaining about them (though in fairness I had taken a lengthy break from the game at the time too, the point is after I got back I didn't even notice for a while because I don't charge out of spawnrooms that are being shelled like a lemming).

TL;DR: Balance between the extremes. Your tank is not an origami figure, and it's not a magic immunity token either. It's a vehicle and should do its job accordingly. Not greater as a magic immunity token. Not lesser as an origami figure.

The only thing that can make me vote for buffing MBTs is remaking the resourse system so a guy cant constantly pull MBTs all the time.

ATM you can be in MBT like 80% of the time (100% if you are good driver). If you can driver nonstop the most powerfull ground unit ll the time and you cant die easy who will play something else ?

Curent C4 fairys may be cheese but its necesery cheese.

You're assuming that an MBT can't be killed by another MBT, a Lightning, Harasser, aircraft, suicide bomber or anything else except for Light Assault dropping C4 from drifter jets, out of sight, out of radar and audio range, for at most the cost of an aircraft they dropped from.

If a player wants to personally specialize in vehicular warfare, why should not he be allowed to?

In Classic, one could chain-pull all sorts of Vehicles, each one destructive to enemy advancement in their own way. Certainly, not all of them let the drive gun, but most of them had a secondary utility that could be employed by a single person. I know someone who kamikazed Leviathans into clusters of enemies to take advantage of its built-in EMP. If any vehicle was on cooldown, you could freely pull any other Vehicle you had certed. You could rotate a whole gamut of vehicles against a wall of enemy forces in desparation, nonstop, with very little certifcation required. That 4:00 cooldown was paltry compare to how the product could be abused.

There is the absurdity point where pilots and drivers some times complain that they can't pull a vehicle and are "forced" to shuffle around waiting for resources to tick back in, somehow begrduging that they have to play as Infantry, but you only really encounter that kind of obsessive exclusionism on the fringe. That should always be pushed back against. You are under no compulsion to never not be Infantry when necessary to achieve a goal, but that should never stop you from playing the game how you want, as long as you work towards some over-all goal. At the same time, any random Infantry player should not be allowed to complain that they're "forced to pull vehicles" to fight enemy vehicles either. In Classic, you could at least get by with an early-level excuse "I don't have anything certed;" in 2, you don't really have that excuse, because the stock is always available.

Why can't vehicle users complain that Infantry anti-Vehicular options are too strong? If the problem statement is <non-Infantry> can be chainpulled, why should anti-Vehicular options be allowed to be chainpulled? If this kind of game is what we're trying to make of it, why is any kind of chainpulling tolerable?

Realy... Its a team game, you should go alone, have someone watch your back. With the weapons you have you should not let enemy come close anyway.

If he drops C4 from a roof onto your head... well... you have big guns and plenty healt and ammo - he has 1 or 2 C4 and mobility. Lern to use advantages of your class. Price is just fine for people not to overuse. Also there is price on C4 if you did not know.

You clearly have no idea how tanking works. I'm not talking about an engineer planting C4 and dancing for two minutes on top of the tank before detonating. I'm talking about someone drifting over you and instakilling your 450 nanite MBT without ever entering your LoS, and the myriad of other ways infantry can deal with tanks in this game.

By the way, is this your main character? I just want to know how much you've actually experienced tank combat.

I like how every infantryside player is using hyperbole to support their stance. Tankers aren't mad that people are "dropping C4 from the roof" because they just park under a building or something. The problem is that you can drifter jet off a a building, a tree, out of an aircraft, or a jump pad, never enter LoS and instakill something that costs 450 nanites to pull, and should be resistant to infantry damage.

This game is about counters. It's absurd to have every class be able to counter you except one, and most of infantryside want that last remaining class to be able to hack or disable vehicles somehow.

As infantry, it should be scary as hell to see a tank coming towards you, or a gunship raining shells down on you. But the fact is, that it isn't. It's so easy to either avoid or destroy those vehicles, that they pose almost zero threat. I honestly can't remember the last time a vehicle killed me, other than running me over.

Also, if your character is the same as your forumside name, you have a whopping 1 hour and 20 minutes in both tanks combined. Maybe you aren't the best judge of tank balance?

You could at the very least, if not read the earlier post in this thread I referred to (It's on page 9) which contained various tank buff suggestions in return for its vulnerabilities, at least acknowledge the fact that I referred to various tank buffs in the post you responded to before dismissing it, claiming I "don't understand how tanking works", and fielding drifter tank killing as a counterargument to my points. And no, that's not my main character.

You stated a tank should not lose a 1v1 to infantry barring driving over mines. That's not asking for it to require more skill to be destroyed or disable. That's not making it less likely for an infantryman to successfully pull off its destruction. That's not asking, for example, for increased resistance to C4 when placed on the frontal armor plates so it takes at least 3 to kill, but if one is placed on the back engine block, it severely damage it / destroy the engine / create a large fire if placed on the back engine block that is harder to put out, or kill the crew if dropped down a hatch on top but do barely anything if it misses said hatch and lands on the armor plates ontop of the turret. You stated that an infantry should not, ever, win that 1v1.

In my response, I explained that this was anti-competitive as a concept and that the tank should receive relevant buffs to make it function correctly as a tank, but not grant mechanical immunity to one infantryman. You fielded "Drifter LA C4 LOS and other infantry stuff" as your counterpoint, which seems to have failed to even read my post, as you have deviated off topic entirely and seemingly refused to acknowledge that I actually want tanks buffed which I clearly implied, since you have fielded a present-day weakness as a counterargument and then refused to respond to my idea about reverting the tank nerfs until a better patch could be devised.

So let's recap: I suggest tanks get a lot of buffs to compensate for a bunch of vulnerabilities, but not to move them into a paradigm where it is mechanically impossible for them to be destroyed by one person. Just that it requires additional skill, and that with skill, more can be achieved with less, and with less skill, more is required. An example being the C4 I just mentioned - more C4 on frontal armor does little and the tank will likely shrug off many C4 attacks on frontal armor plates - but less C4 on the engine block / down the hatch does more. Because this is a competitive game. You reply to these points and this suggestion about where tanks should sit with "You clearly don't understand tanks. I'm talking drifter C4 LA and other infantry stuff killing you." essentially dodging the point.

Well, interestingly enough, my post on page 9 suggested making tanks significantly more resistant to infantry damage with their defense options including a trophy system, heat plates to significantly reduce rocket hits that don't hit the right areas, etc.That's not to mention other items I've discussed in the past such as point-laser defense, and of course the coaxial.

However you rejected this because I also suggested mechanical immunity from death from one infantryman was too far and that was evidence I "don't understand tanking" and should have my credentials checked since my lowly connery VS alt isn't properly leveled.

Guess what. Tanks were promised buffs before in return for the lethality nerf. So pardon us if we're hesitant to jump on board with another two-part plan that likely will be just half-implemented. Tanks are still owed their side of the bargain.

As for the credentials, show me that you've actually done some serious tanking and I'll believe you know what you're talking about.

You seem to be under the impression I don't want tanks buffed, which is very strange given the content of my previous posts and that I suggested reverting the tank nerf until a full rework could be implemented in one step.

Please don't explain something that I already clearly stated in a previous post you responded to. I'm fully aware that tanks were promised buffs (I clearly stated earlier in the comment you replied to) and recommended a ONE part plan, not another two-part one, unless you count temporarily buffing tanks back to their original state as a first part (this same first part that you are afraid of being half-implemented and not paying tanks their part of the bargain... I'd like you to explain your logic in that assessment). Again, you seem to have completely ignored and rejected my points and did not read either post entirely.

From the earlier post you responded to quoted verbatim (recolored because I'm nice though):

'You could advocate the position that if you've got a development plan based around vehicle nerfs / vehicle buffs, you delay the change so that the nerfs and buffs be implemented at the same time with the same patch so it doesn't screw over the balance of the equipment in question, as leaving things half-baked for an undetermined period of time is probably a bad design decision, and could be met with (as an example for the point), tweaking some of the stats back temporarily until the proper patch could be developed if that would indeed be better than things left half-baked.

Personally I didn't even notice the tank damage changes until months after they happened and I would have no complaint to the AI tank shells being "buffed" again. If I was in a spawn room that was being shelled, I redeployed, moved a sunderer to a flanking position, and got rid of the tanks by dumping a bunch of random HA's and MAX's on a hill or somesuch. I only found out the damage changes due to reading forum posts complaining about them (though in fairness I had taken a lengthy break from the game at the time too, the point is after I got back I didn't even notice for a while because I don't charge out of spawnrooms that are being shelled like a lemming).'


Your apparent rebuttal to this, quoted verbatim: "Guess what. Tanks were promised buffs before in return for the lethality nerf. So pardon us if we're hesitant to jump on board with another two-part plan that likely will be just half-implemented. Tanks are still owed their side of the bargain."


Obviously I know tanks were promised a buff in return for a lethality nerf and never got it. Hence why I suggested reverting the lethality nerf until the ONE part process with a tank buff could be implemented, as I have already clearly explained.

Either please actually read the post, or explain to me your logic in inferring that me recommending buffing tanks as a band-aid fix to hold over the tank rework is in fact grounds that I wasn't aware of said tank rework.

Also, if we're going to play a game of "Papers, please", it'd be unfair if only I have a turn. Let's go to the link in your siggie, where you have... 24 hours played as light assault, and a whopping total of 33 C4 kills and only drifter jets upgraded to level 3 as of august 7th, today in fact. These are your credentials for your great knowledge of how easy it is to drifter C4 tanks?

Perhaps cite the C4 Fu tutorial video (posted earlier in this thread) on C4ing tanks for credibility there instead. Interestingly enough, most of my tank buff recommendations were also made by this same person. Heat plates, trophy system, etc. etc. So that's a person who kills lots of tanks yet also has several tank buffs in mind. Then again, I've previously seen you also assert that the player who made that video didn't understand how tanks work either, because all that experience destroying tanks couldn't possibly back up their opinion in recommending several defense increases. *Sarcasm*