[Vehicle] C4 Changes

So now medics won't be able to kill tanks....nice buff....

Type-S AR. Explosive crossbow bolts.
Throwing some of that stuff around at a burning vehicle can do wonders for your survivability at times.

The fact is that, now that the Rocklet is in, this doesn't matter too much. If you're going to C4 you just need to get closer than 500 feet in the air and be ready to rocket burst the tank if it doesn't explode on detonation.

FFS can you not look at teh bigger picture.
Im not going to explain what i meant to you, you just piss me off tbh.
Welcome to ignore.

Do you haver a tourist brochure I can look at while I'm here?

I haven't commented about it because it seems like a pretty minor change.

Medics won't kill you anymore but I can't even think of the last time I saw the killer of my tank be a medic.

Lights have to finish you off with their rocklet launcher but that shouldn't be a big deal, most of the time. I guess I'll have to see if it's like "burning but just barely on the edge of it" or "burning and like 1 rocklet away from death". Maybe tankers will see fire suppression as more of an option (but as TR I consider anchored mode as way too good to swap out. I have an HE loadout that uses fire suppression and is meant to hit-and-run infantry targets, never stopping or locking down, but I mostly consider it to be silly and rarely use it.)

If anything I worry it makes "flank armor" a little too obvious of a choice compared to the other armors. They should consider merging the front+side armor option, to keep that at least a little tempting.

Maybe mine guard + proximity radar + nanite auto-repair could be merged together too. Call it the "electronic defense package". I have tried playing with all of those and just can never justify them. I always use either cloaking or top armor so this patch won't change my choices any. Still gonna be top/flanking armor for open terrain and cloak everywhere else. But some of these merge ideas I've brought up would be tempting.

I'm not sure why this change is marginalised by many people. 2 big complaints were the instant death and "not being able to respond" as well as the C4 being dropped from enormous heights. Both have been solved. In addition, the kill process has been extended with seconds, as the LA needs to switch weapons. This will make the tactic much more risky in situations where allies or you can spot/kill the LA. In addition, it is more difficult to get multiple vkills with one strike and via options as boost/FS/shield you'll have even more chance to survive.

I know many people want more to be done against C4, which is fine, but not acknowledging that this is a huge change and reduces the effectiveness of C4 in great bounds is an oversight I hate. Now lets first see what this change will bring after release, as the ramifications can be huge.

That is incredibly confusing.

I think a better change would be to reduce the amount of C4 bricks the LA can carry to 1, especially now that they have the rocklet rifle. If someone manages to sneak behind a tank on foot and plant two bricks, he should be awarded with the kill.

This change means nothing, because the biggest abusers of C4, the LA, now also have a second AV weapon - the Rocklet Rifle.
One burst before or after detonating the C4 = instant kill like always.
I'm not sure why anyone would spend certs and a def slot for something that will change their instagib resistance from "2x C4" to "2x C4 + RR burst". And that's only if you have full health.
With the RR addition, LAs can solo any ground vehicle in a matter of seconds. <- there's your real problem.

the only benefits i see is pre-emptively exiting your tank, you shoot the LA dead but he detonates the C4 you probably survive the explosion with flack armor and repair your burning vehicle and using the armor as a counter against ambushes by tanks using stealth.

I guess we see change differently. With your reasoning, Nanoweave doesn't change anything. A bullet or 2 extra, from the same gun, will give the same end result. A dead infantry player.
With the new armour you do not get blown up at once by C4, the attacker has to switch weapons at least once for full destruction, losing valuable seconds and giving easily 25-50% more time to destroy a tank, giving the tank opportunities to get out and kill the LA, turn the turret and kill him, drive over him, drive away, initiate FS/boost/shield or for someone else to finish the LA off before they kill the tank.
In addition, not all classes are as well equipped, as they have to use crossbows and ubgl? Making a huge change to AV for these classes. Also, the above situation is if you missed the LA for some reason. If you spotted the LA beforehand, you'll practically have won the engagement due to the extra time needed for the LA. Oh and high altitude drops, which are only feasible on tanks that stand still for longer periods of time, is now largely negated.

But yeah. No change at all. Just like Nanoweave only gives a less than a second advantage which people would never use.

I really don't mind if you think the LA shouldn't be able to solo tanks, but this blatant ignoring of a huge change makes me distrust anything you say.

That's part of the disconnect between you two - he doesn't see it as a huge change, whereas you do, based on assessments on whether ot not the C-4 delivery person's position in the engagement is still quite strong, enough to carry him through with the effort. To my opinion on that, it's the C-4 courier's job, not the tank's, to do everything to ensure the chances of a successful delivery.

If there's anything I'll ask about your assessment, it's that you're now using the argument of people who interpret C-4 as just the detonation while proponents of C-4 more frequently cite the delivery process when discussing the time to use for the weapon. Specifically:

25%-50% of the previous method would be like having to make a second journey from spawn, or to and from a slightly closer drop-off point, to get collect more C-4 to complete the task at hand. If it's 25%-50% based primarily weapon switching time, then the base time can not also include the re-position and delivery.

....

Am I the only guy who thinks it is hilarious that you're supposed to exit and shoot a guy with your rifle to DEFEND YOUR TANK?

Something is just wrong with this game, and I know exactly what it is....

Kekekekeke. Hide your Sundeis, hide your tanks, cause we're exploding everybody out there.

If I'm not mistaken, things that are buring blow up eventually even without any further attack (so long as no one repairs them, or gets killed trying to). Whether true or not I have to say that some of us LAs just knew there would eventually be some sort of nerf price to pay for getting the Rocklet and the flying CoF buff to carbines and that's all there is to say about it.

We'll get over it - Rocklet, CoF buff and no more showing up on vehicle thermals is a good exchange for a minor resistance buff to MBTs and Lightnings imo

My medic has only ever used C4 to deal with pesky Maxes, and I like to keep a healthy distance from vehicles on my other classes, relying more on tank mines, RLs and AV 'nades than anything else - so I guess I'm not addressing the point about other C4 users due to my purely perosnal take on the issue.

Things change, the game changes. Either people will get over it and adapt or they won't and won't play anymore. C4 has never been that big of a deal for me, but since blowing people up is pretty easy the average player needs an edge vs C4 fairies.

I think a lot of people forget this is an OPTION.

Not all tanks will have it.

I would go so far as to say only breaching AI tanks will bother, but I guess we'll have to see how good it is. It might turn into another ESF FS, ie the only real option to be competitive. I don't think it's strong enough to warrant the crazy "sky is falling no one will ever be able to C4 another tank again" reaction just yet.

Personally I'll probably still use mine guard or stealth.

Prediction here: Won't be competitive unless the rear has 5% more protection or if it reduces C4 damage to 3 to be on fire.

I see your point, but the difference here is that Nanoweave extends an already non-zero TTK, which could mean the difference between winning and losing an engagement. With this slot, however, the tank is never going to win the engagement. At best, you could jump out of your tank every time it gets hit by a RR in fear that you're about to be C4'd. But this just protects your precious KD, nothing more. You're still losing the engagement. The LA is still soloing your MBT.
Now, I don't think the tank should be able to 'win' the engagement in the strict sense (killing the LA), but if it's a choice between assured destruction of your tank, and assured destruction of your tank with the slight chance to bail and save yourself a death, I don't see why anyone would legitimately consider this a viable use of the defense slot.

In fact, max nanoweave give 20% resistance to small arms fire. The famous and overworked "one bullet extra" only apllies to being shot at max damage range with something like the SAW, which does 200 damage.

I would imagine the ones who want to go tank hunting will have this sort of kit

This was always the case, nothing new about this problem due to increased resistence

Well, you will have to get lower to finish what you started, sure. But I think this is a bit like my point about the nanoweave one extra bullet argument - Not as common as it may seem from being frequently repeated (at least not on the EU servers) and was only ever useful against dumb, stand still tankers

I don't agree with Rydenan either - the change does mean something................just not that much . As an LA player I will miss the two bricks = kill but my LA has receved several other buffs or benefits recently so, hey - whatever.