[Suggestion] Remove C4 from LA or buff tank HP

moan about C4 yet for the price of 5 bricks of c4 you can get a MBT that can repair and restock ammo with an extra gun and fire at the same speed as throwing and detonating C4 without actually exposing yourself, next it will be reduce headshot dmg for sniper rifles because there are a lot of snipers and so many heads to shoot

I personally just think it's annoying because it makes so that in order to perform well as a MBT driver, you have to stay far back from the actual fight and snipe infantry, as getting even remotely close to the base makes it too easy for a drifter to c4 you. This in turn makes it annoying for the team trying to kill the tanks because they're so far away you can't deal enough damage to destroy them before the take total cover.

I like the idea of making c4 placed by green hologram, but then LAs would have to be buffed in some other way. Perhaps give them a thowable device that makes a false ping on the enemy radar and mimics the sound of your faction, so not only can they get to where infantry wouldn't expect them, but also divert their attention away too.

This kind of device would also help compensate for the c4 nerf, diverting a tank's attention in order to place the explosives.

I've got no issue with LA with C4 most the time you die to them it's either because of greed trying to land that last shot on something (usually a sundy) or just a risky move hasn't paid off. The rare cases like in the first post and general cheesy stuff like high altitude drifters with C4 and C4 flashes are very annoying when they happen but thankfully not common enough to be a big issue.

If it's a high risk area just limit your time stationary and hang back keeping an eye over the less exprienced tankers and deployed sundies, C4 fairies will normally focus on the easy stuff unless you've annoyed them so much they go full rambo mode on you. A fun thing to do is drop a spitfire turret in drifter hot zones (like the north gate of andvari bio lab) so it gives the other tanks that aren't paying attention some cover. It can be surprisingly good at picking them off as they fly in.

I'm going to recap the most important things of this wall-of-text here:
1: There are already lots of tactics available to counter C4 fairies, people just don't use them for no reason at all.
2: Tank armor is powerful, the only weapons that can damage it have short ranges and with the exception of C4 and AT mines it cannot OHK anyone. In case of C4 you can at least react properly
3: No one complains about AT mines here, even though they are cheesier, lower risk and full of bugs that prevent detection
4: Aside from the tactics that already are available several idea's have been put forth to better fight off C4 fairies and even change how C4 works, these have been ignored because the only thing the tankers seem to want is that the LA does not carry a weapon that can kill a tank, even if the C4 in an AV role is set to a DOT attack and gives tankers time to react.
5: Tankers want more combined arms by removing it, they should be adding infantry weapons that deal with tanks rather than removing it.

They can "tank" hits from infantry, just not all hits from infantry.
Also why the hell does everyone complain about C4 when AT mines are much more cheesy and low risk?

ah, here's the problem! An infantryman cannot destroy an MBT virtually undetected. There are several things you can do to prevent them getting to you undetected and all options are easy: Move around, keep an eye on where the spawn is and possible approaches towards you from the spawn then use that knowledge to keep a distance between cover that helps C4 fairies (this is no different than standing somewhere with a view of a busy infantry route based on the same knowledge), and lastly look the copulation around.
Just the fact that the tankers use a video that showcases complete tunnelvision and disregard for a C4 fairy that's spotted and fired upon and using the exact same tactic over and over again shows how tankers do not try to detect the C4 fairy even when it's detected for them is an indication how deep this stupidity goes.

Yes that's a difference, so?
You need to approach your enemy undetected, if you are detected you are dead dead dead... Unless you find these gems of a tankers that do absolutely nothing to defend themselves even when you repeatedly get spotted, fired upon and still blow them and their friends up, then those tankers come back for more without changing their tactic.
And still, why aren't you complaining about AT mines? AT mines are most often placed while the engineer is safe and away from harm, the AT mines will go off and unless you placed them badly will automatically get you a kill, no chance of "missing" a mine because of the heat of the moment of the tank moved just as you started to throw. Add all the bugs surrounding AT mines, such as not being detected with a Q-spot half the time, AT mines sinking through the ground and the cheese of placing them near vehicle pads where the AI will drive you off without you being able to prevent it/exit/shoot them and these things are riot material.
But noooooo, you have to complain about C4 even though there's several tricks and weapon loadouts that would reduce C4 fairy attacks to almost zero!

Because you get ample of opportunity to defend yourselves. You are faster, you have longer ranges, you have weapons that OHK infantry with a direct hit, you have immunity to most other weapons, the C4 needs to be placed from a close poximity, it's ridiculous that people even think that C4 is a problem for tankers!

It does it's job perfectly. It protects against small-arms, the infantry weapons designed against you all have relative short ranges, especially compared to the tank weapons, and of the two weapons that can OHK you there's one that's easily detected and killed before placed and there's one that can be anywhere at a time and has several bugs that prevent detection causing cheap and almost risk-free kills. Guess which one you guys are complaining about?

What? There's 1500 army emulators out there, PS2 isn't one of them. PS2 is a sci-fy wargame, and I don't know what kind of bullcrap it is that you think that a large portion of the gamers are playing this because of the military.

Also, I've given a ton of additional idea's for tankers to make killing of C4 fairies even easier, for one because it makes tanks more like tanks and because I think it would open up a better variation between different factions and how infantry and tanks can combat each other. I also think that adding a supa-dupa co-ax canon won't make a lick of difference because the problem isn't with the C4, but with the tankers.
And you know what? There's idea's in this thread for an ability that eats away C4 and mines for a few seconds when activated, there's Co-ax canons and tertiary top-mounted canons specifically designed to kill C4 fairies and be light AA, there was the idea to split C4 into an AI version and AV version and making the AV version deal DOT rather than insta-kill to give the tankers time to get out and repair/destroy the AV C4. What was the reaction to these? nothing. The AV C4 that doesn't OHK is exactly what you guys asked for since you guys hate the fact that C4 insta-kills you, but still what did you want? What did every single tanker in this thread want? They want C4 nerfed to a point where one LA can't kill a tank anymore. It doesn't matter to them if they get 15 tools to deal with C4 and an extended period of time after the C4 is placed to remove it, the only thing you guys want is to have an impervious tank that can barely be killed by infantry in almost any scenario.
Well you can't have it. This is a game, having a balance between various unit types is good. We see this in almost every single game so far, where tanks can and will be destroyed by infantry.
Seriously, no one complained in Crisis about the stealth/superspeed suits running up to them and C4ring them, or the stealth rocketlaunchers that could fire upon them from high elevations.

As I've explained before, to keep PS2 a combined arms game C4 needs to stay. Otherwise infantry gets less ways to deal with tanks, and seeing how easy it is for tanks to do things like spawncamp without being destroyable by infantry, and seeing how many Heavies are currently necessary to go toe-to-toe with a tank, you should know that infantry needs more weapons to deal with tanks, not less.

The most likely reason is probably the perception that they're doing what they are supposed (intended?) to be doing. Certainly, there may be a semantics stretch to go from "tank" to "ground vehicles;" but, before all else, it is a landmine.

Well, this is C4, which is universally used in games as an anti-tank weapon. It doesn't make sense when compared to real-life, it doesn't make sense anyway that tanks have health, can survive repeated penetrations, will always do the same amount of damage per hit, that infantry bullets always deal the same amount of damage even though a good hit can instantly kill you while other people have been hit more than 70 times and survived.
This is because we use game-elements. And it's strange that in every other game is a valid anti-tank weapon, in PS2 it's suddenly a problem. And 95% of the complaints is that C4 can kill a tank, not that C4 is too multi-functional, for which there have already been several fixes proposed that should work wonderfully.

Amerish has many, many alternative routes, yes they cost a bit more effort and climbing but I've never had a lot of problems with flanking there, although I admit I haven't fought there a lot.
Of course, if there are too many places where tanks are simply in death traps it's bad for the game, however I don't think they don't need complete removal, preferably I would move death-traps to places where tanks pass through it but often don't fight there. This so the opposing players can make use of the death trap by placing some distraction (vehicles for instance) and then using infantry to close the trap and destroy them.

The Prowler was unique in that it's ROF and double shot made it a death machine, the other two were far from as lethal due to their reload speed restrictions allowing infantry more than enough time to escape.

But as I said, HE as it was then and even as it is now just doesn't fit in the game. I would rather give HE variants an auto-granted co-ax or give them special abilities, such as having a magazine similar to the Viper but with higher velocities and less AOE to better deal with infantry on elevations (like the AV nests on top of towers). Or give each team a different AI weapon: NC gets a super-shotgun for killing groups of infantry, TR gets a gattling gun that can be used at longer ranges with burst-fire or at short ranges with extended fire and the VS get a more sniper-like canon. Just off the top of my head, if you disagree just replace these weapons with other versions you do agree with.
This way you can make AI weapons both unique per faction and you can make them only fireable in a LOS kind of way. These AI weapons could even perform as AA weapons, making these tank weapons versatile and important to carry with you in a vehicle group.

I think it would be better to balance it out. Either by making the side-grades on-par with their counterparts or by changing other things like cost. There have been idea's before to make vanilla unupgraded vehicles cheaper, just give them a standard low cost, and any upgrade costs more resources.
This way you can make weapons and abilities that are never used almost completely free to be added to the vehicle, while more often used abilities are more expensive.
Maybe they could simply do it like this: Current prices stand, but choosing a never-used ability reduces the price. Things that are always used keep the price as it is.
To keep a tab on what abilities need price reducing and which one's not you can keep one goal in mind: The if everything is used equally they are at the right price. Things that are used less than the others need to decrease in price, things that are used more often need an increase in price. Just go up and down the price range by 10 resources, do little patches each week or month to keep this in check and see where it balances out.

Well I think that the solution here is even simple: screw the people who want a jack-of-all-trades loadout. Before long we have a large variety of people who prefer their loadout option over others rather than a select group of people who can wield and prefer the king loadout.
Having versatility in the options is good for the game, it creates more depth, more variation and a game that stays alive for longer with a larger playerbase. Otherwise we should have stuck with on aircraft, one ground vehicle and one infantry option and the game would have stayed alive just as long right?

I'm actually beginning to wonder it there isn't some sort of cheat going on with some LAs and C4, I've come across a few people that have ~19 to 1 K/D ratios just using C4 and Carbines.

Now that may or may not be suspicious, but the thing I've found suspicious is I never see them coming even though I run Proximity Radar and am totally paranoid about 360 visual sweeps and about my tank placement in regard to C4 sneak-ups.

To put it in context I am almost never C4'd in a tank because of this, except by this few LAs that seem to basically be invisible (not just to radar, but to visual sweeps too).

4: any solution put forth that compromises the AV loadout of tanks is not a solution. tactics and methods of play are well and good but changing loadouts will weaken them against other tanks.
5: for the record i don't want C4 removed the problem is it's power at killing both tanks and infantry alike, the fact it is so cheap nanite wise, infantry are not afraid of tanks, it's not about infantry being farmed, infantry sees tank regardless of circumstance and will try to C4 it regardless of what it is actually doing and then get mad when the tanker is actually competent and not C4 bait meanwhile somewhere else a competent tanker is fighting other armor leaving infantry alone and gets c4ed.

This is why i think a shorter ranged coaxial kobalt would be a solution as a driver secondary for defense against infantry without making a mess trying to rebalance C4.

im going to start putting c4 on my maggy and ramming people

i am an avid tanker and i think C4 is fine. leave it as it is.

as a tank buff, i'd rather have a co-axial machine gun on Lightnings/MBTs to fend off single infantry attacks in closequarters.

This is a video game. Nobody is going to be "afraid" of any unit, it doesn't work that way.

And in an urban environment, tanks should be "afraid" of infantry because they are vulnerable to guerrilla style attacks. Do you know how many Abrams A-1 MBT's got destroyed or sent back for repairs in Afghanistan and Iraq? And that was just against IED's attacks and RPG's by a bunch of insurgents. Nothing like the first-rate modern weaponry of Planetside 2.

ALL PEOPLE WHO THINK TANKS ARE INDESTRUCTIBLE PLEASE CLICK HERE AND LEARN SOMETHING

And yet I constantly see you idiots farming in obviously bad places to defend against C-4 attacks. Or morons who drive right up next to a building to repair or farm. You are just asking to die to C-4.

i mean SERIOUSLY

im constantly in Tech camo and HARD LIGHT armor,

I FREAKING GLOW

and still i will Constantly "sneak" up on 2 man mbts and pop them.

because c4 is op? no, because people are blind and stupid. again I GLOW AND YOU NOR NONE OF YOUR PALS SAW ME COMING lol

PLAY
BETTER

the rare RARE times i get c4d while tanking, 99 percent my fault

Wait, you actually see 2 man MBT's?? That's rare!

I can't reconstruct the same repertoire of games in my head that fit that classification but that merely may be due to my deficiencies as a gamer (okay, I never actually claimed to be a "gamer," but let's put that aside for now). Regardless, if I think "anti-tank combat by Infantry" in any game I can recall playing, it usually involves a rocket launcher.

A good system would mean that the AI and AV loadout are equally viable.
However, it's not. This is because the AV loadout is powerful enough against infantry and does not weaken them against other tanks.
So your whole idea that tanks should be AV only is complete manure. Tanks have AI loadouts, and tanks should need these AI loadouts. End of story. This is actually a clear-cut sign that infantry should be more lethal against tanks to force a better balance between AI and AV loadouts.

That's we we needed entire bases redone to prevent tanks from completely dominating the bases.
The good solution would have been to buff infantry AV options, both lethal and non-lethal, so that infantry can go toe-to-toe with tanks, keeping in mind that "toe-to-toe" is based on "infantry will attack in larger forces than tanks".
However, they went with a bad solution and instead of making sure infantry could fight back properly against long-range tanks, they gave them walls to shield them from those tanks.

Tanks fighting other tanks are often in other area's than infantry and pay (only slightly) more attention to their environment, but tunnel-visioning tanks blowing up infantry are both in range and easy targets for C4 fairies, such as seen by the very video presented by JohnGalt. Those tanks are actually shooting infantry, farming them as much as they can, and they are the easy targets.

Well at least we agree with this. Although I will also add that it won't make a lick of difference in the amount of successful C4 attacks unless tanks start actually looking around, and considering how they are acting right now even after they get massive signals from their environment I have huge doubts that tanks will actually be better at defending themselves against C4 fairies. They would just be better at dealing with all non-C4 attacks.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Great shooter. But you could stick a bunch of C-4 to an ATV, aim it at a tank, jump off and detonate it to totally gib the tank.

Ahhh good times.

I love that the jimmies of Infantryside are so rustled by this suggestion that this thread is still going.

I've already ignored half the people commenting and told you guys that I've resigned myself to farming infantry and aircraft from a safe distance, just like the game mechanics encourage right now.

I can't go near a fight with an AV tank and I get that now. I'm perfectly content accepting my new role as a tank-sh*tter farmer.

You're just a whiner and a poor vehicle user. Sorry. You aren't coming off here very well and need to get a clue.

All crisis games, Renegade, Far Cry, Metal Gear Solid, Battlefield 4 and probably other battlefield games just to name a few.
And still, using a hand-held rocketlauncher in a game is also ridiculous against a full tank in real life. First because the ammo and explosive/AP power is far inferior to a full tank gun and second because the ammo is so big and heavy that you can't carry enough to actually kill it.
Which is again why infantry AV weapons and tanks in games are based first and foremost on gameplay and second to real life.