[Suggestion] Give the tank ****ters C4 resistance on TOP armor slot only.

I'm already tired I've heard too much of the C4 argument already, and this new budding idea is too much. I'm hoping to push a counter-perspective into the discussion before it becomes a thing.

Weak rear armor still theoretically has its use in tank vesus tank combat.

There are alot of places in the vehicle game that seem poorly envisioned and slap-dash (most of the regular vehicle-ites will agree, and I'm not even one of them - I spend most my time on foot). The deploy shield was basically the development team saying that they do not think a single solider should be able to destroy an AMS Sunderer in one attack.

And alot of this could have been avoided if they just made the AMS and Sunderer separate like they were in Planetside 1... but I digress.

My major concern is that players flock to utility when it comes to mods and attachments, and a tank defense slot that gave even a quarter the resist increase as the directional - while also giving a large C4 resist buff - would make it basically the hands-down choice for the slot. Case-in-point; Blockade being indispensable for battle buses.

I've made it no secret that I support "meaningful loadout choices" and have, most particularly very recently, been campaigning against the "one solution fits all" situation. This is probably why I would personally prefer Blockade Armor scrapped, and instead a C4 specific counter added - with Sunderers getting directional armor instead.

It lets players tailor the vehicle to their playstyle without saying that "this is the right loadout. period."

Suffice to say, the backend of Planetside 2 would look alot different if they had hired me as creative director instead of Higby.

I know what you mean there... make one thread that includes C4 in one way or another and it blows in your hands by the time it reaches page 2. I doubt that particular suggestion will make it way into the thread list anytime soon though and if it does people should just stay clear of it and wait for it to die out.

That being said, current tank defense model might be worth looking into. Current defense options are a bit of a mess with their highly differing cert costs and usage value

On that line of thought - the battle bus is a fairly specific thing. I don't typically see them being used in the same way as a cloak sundy, a deploy shield sundy, or realistically, that much AMS at all. For being deployed, the shield can't be beat, if you want to dig in like a tick and defend your spawn.

But you can't spearhead the way to breaking an armor position with a shield sundy, or any other sort.

So essentially, you're still loading out weapons, chassis, utility - those are mostly different (to me) depending on WHERE and WHAT I am fighting. I don't just run dual fury and call it a day, thought many do. But cookie-cutter loadouts will always be a thing, you can't prevent that even with 100 choices.

I just can't get on board with breaking out C4 into it's own mitigation group entirely - it's ephemeral, hand delivered, and pretty soon we'd be splitting up grenade and ground launcher mitigation as well.

One of my fans has been dead since i got this thing but its always so cold in the winter that it hasnt been an issue as far as overhwating

In the summer i have an industrial size fan on it

I have a weird set up here ._.

New unit coming in 5 days so see you then if not sooner

An infantryman can just go the terminal, and switch to whatever explosive you'd be countering in your system, and come back to gib it.
Do I have to pull a new sunderer just for them to switch again to the other one to gib the sunderer again in a never ending game of cat and mouse? In the AMS instance, the need for multiple explosive type resistance is needed because of how easy infantry AV can be accessed.

Looking forward to it!

You aren't going to bait me again into saying something you'll report me for later. You started an obvious and inflammatory troll thread. You can't say you have no responsibility for what took place after.

Whatever you say.

So that's not you saying "shi*ters" in your OP? Pretty sure it was.

I know full well the part I played in it. I'm just saying, you can't just pretend you're blameless here.

When I saw you threaten to report someone here for the same stuff you do, sorry, my irony detector exploded.

I think you missed my thread where I said I was as much at fault as anyone for starting that thread. I just didn't double down with post after post of personal insults. Don't stop believing that your suspension was my fault, though.

That was probably during the ban, I saw it

Anyway kids, let's fight about a new topic, not an old one

I'm seeing a lot of 'Buff AA' threads and 'nerf c-4' threads

...I think I know where this conspiracy is going

Just dropping this here:

It doesn't look like you needed much baiting I would've quoted it directly, but it's difficult since you and your pal got the thread locked

Source: https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps...ove-c4-from-la-or-buff-tank-hp.237426/page-29

NO! I drive a lot of time in my tank and i hate it when i get c4 by a light assault. So i use the radar, you can see every guy on the minimap in thre range of 50 meters. Thats more then enough, i only get killed by c4 when i forget to watch my minimap. Trust me, i get rarely killed by c4 in my tanks. But here is a video, also Galaxies can be c4-killed:

That's almost like from PS2's trailer !

A bit unrelated, but once I took my Galaxy for repairs in NC warpgate. I saw a guy get on the wing of my Galaxy and thought he's a friendly NC who came to repair it. It turned out he was applying C4

But its not from the Trailer, its real ;-)

BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh........thats funny.

... omg who the hell cares, its not like most of us are going to take stealth off anyways.

You will never catch ANY of my vehicles with mineguard/toparmor, even if it made me completely immune to c4 X)