Is C4(in its current state) good for the game?

Because explosions and I'm completely biased. Engineers have AV mines and mine pouch which gives you what, 6 mines instead of three but without the ease of mobility of a jetpack. HA has RLs to attack vehicles from ranges, less risk from vehicles directly but vulnerable to infantry. Has a RL pouch and access to AV grenades which you could use grenade bando to get more.

LA has death from above, which isn't practical, with two bricks of C4 that might destroy a vehicle, a single vehicle. A White Knight who can C4 you and rez a roomful of people, not practical either but sounds cool. A HA with rockets, AV nades AND C4? Explosive heaven but no. And a jet pack toting badass that completely relies on you NOT looking in a direction, an engineer with no such mobility, oh i know, he can use adrenaline pump.

TLDR HA no C4 cause RLs and nades, engineers yes cause mobility issue, LAs awesome. White Knights unsure. Biased to explosions.

You mean THREE, right?

If you don't count C4, there is
the HA, with various RLs that fit different situations, as well as AV grenades.
the MAX unit, with both close and long range AV weapons, they are all quite deadly to tanks. And can even survive direct hits from Tanks. Lockdown and Aegis Shield both make TR and NC MAXs a threatening opponent to tanks. ZOE is... well... not good for anything really. VS get kind of shafted here.
and the Engineer. The AV Mana Turret is not something to be ignored, as well as Anti-Tank mines.


That just leaves LA, Medic and Infil. None of which need AV capability. They tend to be more Anti Infantry focused.

WITH c4... only Infil cant touch tanks outside of Explosive Crossbow bolts. Which tickle at best.

I think C4 as a weapon is in a good position, what makes it unbalanced is it's availability. Light Assault can make the most use of this weapon, being capable of extreme demolition far superior to the Engineer despite us carrying four sticks at a time. I made a suggestion thread about this a long time ago, to replace C4 on Light Assault with small explosives called Lightweight Charges, think of them as a more powerful Anti-Vehicle Grenade, but they have a detonator activation. Additionally, Engineer receives Satchel Charges which are extremely powerful but come with many use delays(Greater arm time, 2-3 second detonation delay on trigger, much lower toss range). Both explosives would add to the classes and play to their strengths, Light Assault would be able to do demolition from safer locations instead of hovering directly above their target, the downside is they deal reduced damage. You will never be able to destroy an MBT from full health alone with these weapons, but they will set the vehicle on fire.

Satchel Charges on the other hand, with their massive delays, would deal 3x the damage of current C4, this is to offset their major difficulty to use. They would also cost roughly 200 nanites each however. Why so powerful and expensive? Unlike C4, Satchel Charges would be very specialized and terrible in the role of versatility, you would be almost incapable of using these against infantry or MAXes, or without preparation and planning at the very least. But, you'd be able to take out any single target with only two Satchels(A combined force of 6x C4, which is capable of destroying a Deployment Shield Sunderer, but requires much time to set up). Directly damaging the Satchel Charge causes it to deal half damage upon forced detonation, to limit it's abuse... still 1.5x the power of C4 but at over double the nanite cost... hardly worth using.

With these additions, C4 would be available to only three classes, Engineer, Combat Medic, and Heavy Assault. Why Combat Medic? Well, lets be realistic they have no other utility worth using, Medkits are useless to them, and the Auxiliary Shield is not nearly as useful as C4.

...What do kids learn these days?



Literally the first video, posted 4 days ago. Hitting air with AP isn't any harder than hitting air with a Dalton... In fact, in most cases it is easier. It takes some skill/experience but once you get it, it's very repeatable. Even on TR where I can't OHK most air doesn't survive more than a few seconds after eating a python, if they don't instapop cause this game isn't in a glass tube and not every plane is running around with full armor

The reason infantry is more versatile than vehicles is because it is wildly more fragile and less effective, unless you think AA rockets and C4 are better than walkers/skyguards/bursters/AP/halberds/enforcers/sarons/etc.

"if you need to heal, you get medic..."
This, and not even knowing what an infil is even used for, is exactly how I know you have no idea what you're talking about.

Don't you have a spawn room to camp somewhere? I know you aren't good enough to be rolling up on other tanks, but you surely must have something to do.

No, I mean one. Turrets and mines repel vehicles, but if they're there, you aren't fighting them with it unless the driver is incredibly bad and sits there while you drop mines and a sticky, or they're doing it from a stealth flash, which is vehicle play btw. As for the turret, if you cant shoot it while the operator is locked to it for like 5 seconds after firing, that's you. Again it works for repelling when vehicles don't know you're there, but for actively fighting it's only an option against plebian drivers/gunners

I didn't count in mobile suits, MTs, or whatever you'd like to call them, with infantry, but if you would like to that is fine. 2 out of 6 classes can fight vehicles, one of them has a shadow of a chance against a lightning in certain situations.

It's not a presumption anymore, this isn't your first post.

I described no man's sky to you, so you could better understand what will happen to infantry in this game without reliable access to AV. I have no idea if the game is successful or not, that isn't what I was implying, it's just incredibly boring and completely void of epic moments, which isn't a good idea for this game.

also, you're pretty much saying you want to get rid of C4 right here.

I work for the fire department, not the school board, and I don't think someone fueled entirely by their need to have their emotional points satisfied can be swayed by things like logic, so that's that, duces.

Why this just seems like a bad response.
1. Video depicting a vanguard killing bad ESF pilots. Incredible, should I do a flaregun compelation killing maxes? Consistency is the keyword here. Just because it can doesn't mean it constantly will, such as PPA actually killing ESFs.
2. Reviews how "easy" it is to remove air with a tank by personal experiences. Again, flaregun lord would say flaregun is the only weapon you need.
3. Fragile, free, cost effective, constantly be revived no matter what bullet and have long range capacity to kill vehicles, fragile is out the window as soon as I say "MAX". Hell practically everything is tossed out the window as soon as I say squad of competent people.
4. Attack at my experience as a player, funny, I could've sworn I put the ***** given somewhere, probably burried under my KDR, or probably behind all the ragetells. Either way, this seems like a pointless statement.
5. Another attack at me, that got old fast. And no, I fly ESFs, ya know, the cheaper, decking, actually effective, skylords that actually matter in this game? Call me anytime you need your tank to die, I'll send the regret hornets your way.

You seemed to have spent more words at me than the point I was getting at, let me make it alittle clearer;

Infantry should not have a tool that allows each class to remove a vehicle on a moments notice.
When a component of teamwork is missing from a group of infantry, that should be punished by whatever circumstance they are not prepared for. Infils provide recon and removal of key classes (medics and etc) medics keep everyone up, engies keep everyone stocked, heavies prevent people from getting in and remove vehicles, light assault flanks and disrupts the enemy, maxes even provide a steady stream of dps in infantry spaces while maintaining a presence. Light assault shouldn't be the one for vehicle removal, heavies should not heal people, and medics shouldn't be the ones providing reconnaissance.

Yes, it shouldn't be the end all, be all...

So where are the alternatives?

You can't remove C4 until viable alternatives are given. You seem to be arguing specifically for it's removal, while that would be worse for the game than leaving C4 in it's current state.

"There's a counter to my playstyle! It's not fair! Nerf nerf nerf!!!"

Not exactly the best counter argument, even I want C4 to be changed(To a degree, I want it replaced with a lesser explosive on Light Assault, and more explosives added to Engineer to make it less common) and I'm a huge advocate for C4 usage on Engineer over anything else.

There are two reasons the explosive is powerful: availability, and versatility. It is available to four classes, two of which make the most use out of it: Light Assault(Combined with the Jetpack), and Engineer(With use of Demolition Pouch). The Heavy Assault doesn't necessarily need it, but they got it because they are an anti-vehicle class, and Combat Medic certainly shouldn't have it, but they have no logical alternative. Essentially, Engineer uses C4 the LEAST even though it can potentially do the MOST with it. This is a matter of ease-of-use. The Engineer simply cannot reach certain areas to place those critical explosives, this makes the Light Assault a go-to for C4 and why almost every player of that class will unlock the weapon over medkits/restokits(This extends to Combat Medic as well, but they cannot make as much use of the weapon as anything else).

You could use the argument I've quoted for my response here for many players, but it goes right out the window when myself(A C4 user going on four years) says that the weapon needs alterations. It's by no means a counter to my playstyle, as I am an Engineer who partakes in infantry combat most of the time, were I a vehicle operator like most then you'd have a standing argument against my claims.

Essentially what needs to happen? Light Assault has C4 removed, in turn they receive a lesser but more mobile explosive I call Lightweight Charges. Engineer gets a powerful but extremely non-versatile explosive called Satchel Charges, and Combat Medic/Heavy Assault should obtain non-explosive utilities which help define their class.

C4 is the logical counter when zergs think it's a bright idea to bring 10+ MBTs to a small base fight.

Yes.

Why?

I believe I recall an anecdote where Higby, who agreed to keeping C4 where it was as a stopgap until AV in the game was where he envisioned it, was asked when AV would get to that point. The punchline is something like him saying "we've been there already." Is this a forum urban legend?

We rarely get beyond this point in this tired conversation so I'll be the better person.
What is your definition of AV weapon viability?

Not from LA - it's part of their class 'thing' in the absence of any other viable AV weapon (not thinking of rocket rifle here) ...........and the current lack of a tool of any kind. LA ought to be the prime assault class although HA have turned them into ambushers. Either way, LA are usually up there where the fighting occurs and need some form of AV ability as they are, after all, an assault class (and therfore likely to face tanks as well as infantry).

Agree that Medic C4 is rarely of use. Not because they shouldn't have a combat role (mine do) but because they are simply not built to be tank hunters or assault leaders. I run C4 simply because medkit is pretty much redundant due to me using nano regen ability. I've used it once, maybe twice, when I've seen a Max heading my way.

But if you are going to remove C4 from medics you need to consider an alternative. Personally I'd go for a shield generator so I could run that and nano regen. Or maybe AI mines to stop people sneaking up on me while I'm doing my thing (I just like AI mines tbh)

Not fussed about HAs having C4 or not. I get the impression they mostly go for medkit instead (could be wrong). Same issue with engies I imagine - I certainly take mines over C4 every time.

The real advantage of C4, I think, is rapid delivery as it has little thrown range. And that is the LA trademark.

There's a large range of options.

Non-lethal weapons that can nerf enemy vehicles, giving the infantry players a better chance to move about without getting hit by OHK shells. These non-lethal weapons could also offer an increased risk. A tank that has reduced speed and maneuverability will need to flee back into cover sooner, and vehicles need to be more aware of their surroundings while they are at it in case there's infantry waiting for the right moment to nerf them.
The range, accuracy and effect will each affect each other. A long-range high accuracy weapon wouldn't have a large effect. A short-range low accuracy weapon would have a big effect, and anything in between.
Alternate non-lethal weapons are protection-oriented. Such as the placement of shields and cover for friendly infantry and tanks. Placement of distortion bubbles that have an effect on various vehicle scopes, reducing their accuracy. The ability to generate fake infantrymen, easily recognizeable at infantry distances but tougher for vehicles etc etc.
Most of these options could be fulfilled either by various grenades, utility slots or as a new choice for ability.

Then there's lethal weapons. Currently most AV weapons are severely limited in range due to the rocket drop&rocket speed or the lock-on range. They also have a fairly limited damage output, especially when the vehicles are at longer ranges.
Now we also see the opposite: Lancers combine extreme accuracy and velocity and quickly become OP when in groups, especially when on higher ground. We don't want to have more weapons like this, so the answer lies somewhere in the middle: Accuracy is still tough, but the rocket speeds and drop allow for the player to hit with some accuracy even at longer ranges.
Depending on the class, each class can get anti-vehicle weapons available. This doesn't mean that the LA and Infil will be running around with rocketlaunchers, but that each class can get specialized lethal AV equipment such as the Rocklet rifle for the LA (but rather than auto-granted and costless it would go into the utility slot and each rocket would cost nanites), (empty) vehicle theft devices for infiltrators, grenade-launchers for Medics ("But that doesn't fit the class!" shutup it fits the balance), LAW's for Heavies with higher DPS rates and accuracy but at the cost of resources.

Now I'm probably too late with this already, but just because these weapons are there and would fulfill a replacement role for C4 doesn't mean they will allow infantry to go solo against any vehicle. Most of these weapons would have advantages in their range and potential alternate abilities, meaning their total damage output would have to be lower than C4. This suits the game fine, since it would mean you can design weapons based on infantry masses without requiring ridiculous feats of infantry to destroy a tank (you have to move up unseen to a faster enemy that can OHK you with most of it's weapons and the vehicle will usually be in terrain where stealthy approach isn't easily accomplished). Let's say for every single vehicle pulled in the game there's 4 infantry dudes running around, 2 of which will pick an AV weapon as their standard option. You design the weapons to require around 3 people to definitely destroy a hostile vehicle, assuming that the vehicle will be killed by the last man standing. This doesn't mean "Oh my god now only 3 people with AV weapons are required to destroy any vehicle, we're doooooomed!". This means that the vehicle might well kill the last guy, and that the skill between the 3 infantry men vs the skill of the tanker is more important in the fight. Also keep in mind that all the lethal weapons would cost resources, and to balance it out the average resource expenditure for infantry AV would be around the same as that of the vehicle they are destroying.

Even though I know what you're talking about, you may want to go back and re-edit the post before you needlessly set someone off and the conversation devolves back into aimless bickering. That's not a word you try to re-brand haphazardly.
Edit: stupid edit time limit.

I think I speak for all players when I say that, while many like throwing Concussion Grenades, we all hate being hit by them for what they do to our control.

If you can't manage promoting this against a Godzilla-level threat like C-4, it doesn't feel like you would have any better luck against something less lethal.

The fact that many players equal "nerf" to "make it useless" shouldn't be my problem, I'll try to use other words next time, however stupid it is that I have to do that.

Why would it even have close to the same effect on vehicles?

You can split the abilities. Infiltrator reduces vision of scopes/disables scopes temporarily. LA reduces the maximum speed and/or acceleration. Heavy reduces the turret rotation speed etc etc. Each separately isn't extremely lethal, and with "reduction of speed" for instance you should be thinking of a 5% reduction per hit (there's no guarantee even that you hit), with a maximum of 20 to 30% speed reduction. That's more than enough without making it an instant "I can't do anything I'm gonna smash my keyboard" ability. The range of each could also be altered depending on their capabilities.

really don't like nerfs? Then we can still use non-lethal weapons that buff the players against vehicles. Reduction in visibility, invisibility on heat vision scopes, shields that slighly change the path of AV weapons that pass through it, shields that tank damage, short-range deployable teleporters that allow infantry to avoid open ground etc etc.

Right now if you propose a can opener that deals 1 damage per minute against vehicles they would still complain. In fact, no matter what you propose they will still say "but tanks are tanks, no infantry weapon should damage us!" Despite tanks being comparatively as cheap as a damn bicycle if you do the math and compare them to C4 cost. They want immunity rather than balance.

Just look at the proposals I make about splitting C4 into an AI and AV variant, most of the time I get a ton of tankers who oppose the idea despite all the merits it has for them, and they support this with the reasoning of "It's C4, it shouldn't damage vehicles. Remove it". Which makes no sense either since if you don't want it to damage vehicles you ask for damage immunity vs C4. Yet funnily enough no one of these tankers ever complains about AV grenades being able to damage them, because they don't pose enough of a threat and aren't used all that often.

C4 in shape like this deffinetly is not good for the game.

You can:

- kill tanks
- kill near by MAX, even if it is behind corner.
- kill infantry... and it is a pure bliss when You drop it on nice zerg... the best are groups of engies and MAXs.
- hell.... my friend even C4'ed ESF with drifter.

It is too versile.... it do everything practically at no cost given, and You can deploy next Light Assault within 10 seconds.

It is one of the reasons why BioLabs are such choke points. Every MAX offensive from spawn-room in immediately C4'ed to the ground.


What should be done?

Put skill in use.
No explosion, just impact, and make C4 more stickable.
If you can stick it to MAX back, then You have enought skill to detonate it in to lower orbit.

Im really on the fence with this one. On the one hand I just started playing a fully certed LA and im having a blast. As a fairly consistent tank operator I HATED C4 fairies. But now that I am one, im having a blast.

I have found that it takes very little experience or skill to get good at C4'ing vehicles. With drifter pack and patience its ridiculously easy. So those people who say "hey if you have the skill you should be able to do it...." well let me tell you it dont take that much skill.

But alas it is a TON of fun. I was starting to get bored with the game and now im rejuvenated. The HUGE problem here is if you take C4 away from LA you will lose hundreds if not more of active PS2 players. Quite frankly this game cant afford to lose that many players. So dont expect a C4 change anytime soon.