[Suggestion] Make Mines more Useful

I feel the problem of that implant is it shows mines for everyone in the surroundings. It should only work for thosebwho equip it.

Even with that change, EOD would continue to be a hard counter to mines.

Really, I thought it was just for the user. In fact I have seen people run over mines that were clearly marked on my HUD. Either way I agree that it should be for the user only.

@Demigan
Correct me if I'm wrong. Your idea was:
-cheaper and weaker AV mines (no more AV mine instakills)
-minimum distance added for AV mine dropping towards other AV mines so it's no longer possible to drop them close to or on top of another
-add slow down effect to vehicles hit by AV mines
-not more mines but instead the ability to pick them up again

Concept: No instakill anymore due to lowered damage and spreading of AV mines, forced to hunt enemy vehicles down after hit by AV mines, suported by a movement impairing effect on the enemy hit.

You're trying to turn a passive defense option that may or may not achieve an instakill or aid in destruction or fail utterly into something that, at best, aids in destruction. Bottom line of that idea: If there's no AV capable minefield watcher around while something goes off then the effect is worthless.

So the old concept is: AV mines that may be useless / aid in destruction / score an instakill.
Your concept is: At best you'll always have to chase the target.

I wrote a lenghty post about your stuff but it boils down to something much easier:
I just and only support Metalsheep's suggestion but adding to that:
Weaker mines require either a lower nanites price per single mine bought or more mines to get per 50 nanites (current price pre AV mine) paid.

One thing I noticed about your post is that you assume too much and instantly treat that assumption as a fact:
"probably because you like you crutch too much."
"There's others of course but you don't want to hear that my idea has merit, you just want your crutch to stay that way."
You're locking up the option to reply by one-sided declaring how / why things are a certain way. If you've already an opinion-based "fact" how / why everything is then why are we even talking with another ?

You want others to come up with ideas to your suggestions and lash out on people if they don't do so to make it work:
"With additional benefits such as slowing down enemies who drive over it"
leads to...
"Also did you even think about how it would affect different vehicles? Since the Magrider is reliant on it's mobility to aim it would be hit the hardest, that means to make mines fair the other two tanks would need a turret-rotation nerf on top of their mobility nerf to balance it out."
"Wouldn't you just be capable of adding a temporary block to all abilities when you hit the mine? Are you really incapable of thinking beyond the one example I gave?"
Suddenly there's turret rotation, suddenly there's ability blocking and you're all upset I didn't treat your idea as if that had been part of it right from the start but instead only commented on what you've actually written. You want me to contribute to your ideas to make them work but if I don't like the initial idea at all or post an own idea you don't like aka that doesn't support your idea(s) it means I must be incapable of thinking.

Also please stop using bullshít twitter terms, like "Victimshaming". This just translates to: Someone didn't check an easily visible roll off point, as I explicitely wrote: "except for areas where no easy line of sight check from the vehicle terminal to the roll off area is possible.". The harsher the consequences the faster people learn from their mistakes and the way I wrote it it couldn't be misunderstood the way it was by you, if it was read correctly.

You might also want to change what you said about vehicle spawn auto drive as it isn't an unnecessary feature. Once someone else spawns a vehicel everyone and everything that's currently on the vehicle pad is destroyed, so this feature you label unnecessary is necessary to avoid that. I know you actually just want to be able to turn, break and leave the vehicle instead of being unable to all that while driving towards AV mines in front of the roll off area or at best have no AV mines there but you didn't word it like that.

The most easy solution to the roll off issue would be to use the anti mine / anti turret pain field that already exists in the game around vehicle spawners. Just extending the range of it would allow the roll off feature to persist in auto drive mode while getting rid of the threat of an unpreventable death.

Considering the EOD implant (anti explosives): This one still needs to be discussed as we've not yet come up with a good solution for making AV mines useful again despite it's existance.
The best I've read so far, imo, was not making this one mark the explosives for all allies but only for the player using the imlpant. I still feel that this'll be too strong and that vehicles actually need a special rule for each vehicle and eventually individual vehicle seats on some because what vehicles are worth in nanites and on the field varies greatly so that one rule can't fit all there.

This is an excellent thing to mention.
We do have these anti-mine pain field around the pads - that also demolish anything on them at a spawn.
Yet the auto-pilot, and fields aren't aligned to match, so we have the auto-pilot drive past the safe zone.

EOD is also, the anti-mine device when it works, to the point of "Good Luck", since there is little implants that operators really need.
But EOD? Range-Finder & mine-detection , what else you gonna use instead?
So again, yup.

It's so simple yet not.

I like the idea of a AV mines as a area denial weapons but I think if mines are changed this way they won't act as area denial weapons, they'll just not work (damage aren't significant enough)

What do you think about this kind of area denial weapon ?

• AV mines are automaticly detected at 35m by infantry, MAX, vehicles and airplane. Sweeper implant increase the detection range by 16-35m)
• A single AV mines is now able to instant kill any vehicle
• AV mines are immune or very resistant to any weapons
• The best way to neutralize a AV mine are to destroy it with a EMP (don't explode) or defuse it with repair tool.
• Extend anti-mine painfield near vehicles terminals, or make newly spawned vehicles immune to AV mine for a few sec.

It make AV dangerous enough to consider them as a threat. Nearly invulnerability ensure enemy spent time, nanite or to risk themselves to neutralize AV mines one by one, making the operation very risky if there are enemy in the area. Since they can OHK, it's no longer needed to stack AV mines so you can create larger minefield.
Make AV mines fair for everyone.

Main con about this idea is AV mine will probably kill less people (even while being more effective), so their auraxium medal should be changed to something like the engineer's shield barrier. For example, it can away a few xp everytime enemy vehicles are destroyed within 35m of your AV mines.

I would love anti-harrasers mines that act like Spider Mines from Starcraft that borrow into the ground then activate and attach to the armor. The mines would deal great damage to light armored targets but weak damage to heavy armor targets like MBTs, or Lightnings.

Cheaper and weaker AV mines as well as AI mines, I keep saying that it's not exclusively for AV mines but for some reason people don't pick up on that.
Minimum distance for AV mines to prevent the OHK from happening anyway.
Add a nerfing effect, for example slow down but other options can apply to, possibly simultaneously. You could even have different mine effects.
More mines as well as the ability to pick them up again, making it easier to use them without fear of losing it.

You could even improve the way you place them and pick them up again. For example with leftmouse you place them one at a time, with rightmouse you throw several in a pattern. The pattern can be changed by pressing B similar to how you can set weapons to single, burst and auto fire.
To retrieve your mines, hold out your repairgun (in the case of AI mines for Infiltrators, hold out your recon equipment). Leftmouse it works normally, rightmouse you pull back all your own mines within a distance. Holding the trigger longer increases the distance in which they are retrieved. For example, a tap retrieves in 5m range, holding it for each second afterwards will increase the range with 10m up to 50m distance. This gives the player a control over what mines he retrieves and where. This is necessary because you'll be placing more mines and if it takes too long to place&retrieve them then it leaves you too vulnerable during use.

Perhaps they could even allow you to place&retrieve AV mines without ever leaving your vehicle for increased utility and speed.

Did you read my previous reply to you?

Anyway, using mines for weakening an opponent is something I already do and have found to be very effective. For example when opponents notice you after a flank, you pull back, place one mine rather than enough to OHK the opponent, when he drives over it you finish him off because after a blast like that you are usually better off. This means you have more mines for the next engagement, lasting you longer.
In a defense scenario placing one near a route that would flank your position is wonderful as well. The detonation warns you, you can then finish them off and replace the mine. If you move on, the single mine is less of a drawback. Placing them close to cover and bends where enemies might hide is also a wonderful trick. Should they try to move up they will be focused on you rather than the ground, mine goes off, you can finish them off.

And why is that a bad thing? Why should mines be a fire-and-forget option for a free kill? Recon darts require someone to make use of them, AI turrets require someone to make use of them, C4 requires someone nearby to spot/know the enemies are close enough to the explosives before detonating, Deployable shields require someone to be nearby to use them, deployable shield regenerators too... Everything but Spitfires and mines require someone to be nearby to make use of them, and it's not a problem for anything but the moment we are talking about mines it's a problem? Why?

Mines could and should work similar to everything else in the game: Someone has to be nearby to make use of them. With the ability to retrieve them there's no reason not to place them and makes it easy to always be nearby your mines.

So you just want the cheesy OHK option to work, you don't want to do any work?
Why is it OK for a recondart to require someone to use it and finish off the target, but it's a problem if a mine damages the opponent and you have to finish him off?

The only difference between Metalsheep's suggestion and mine is that mine has restrictions to piling the mines and my mines have additional effects. But because you lose your OHK ability it's a problem. That's all it boils down to.

You hypocrite!
And have you given any reason for me to doubt any of my statements? No! All you focus on is the fact that you lose the OHK ability, you even agree with Metalsheep who basically rehashed my idea but without the "don't pile mines" restrictions.

My assumptions are right. In fact they aren't assumptions as your posts all revolve around losing that crutch, including the crutch of placing mines within the auto-drive range and disagreeing with allowing players who spot it during the vehicle spawn to stop, change direction or clear the mines.

No, I put forth an idea with options for alterations. You then pick the one example I give and take it as if that's all I want. You don't consider alternatives, you don't consider how the system could be improved in a way you would want to. That's because you don't want to lose your crutch.

Just because Twitter uses it currently doesn't mean it's a twitter term, and it's definitely not a bullcrap term.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Victim Shaming

This feature is unecessary.
Once someone spawns and stays on the pad, he gets killed and gets a message why he was killed. Lesson learned. This lesson will also be learned very late in someone's carreer as most players will immediately take control of their vehicle and never figure out that this exists until they either get stuck on the pad due to traffic or because they try to troll people and block the spawn by standing on it.
In the meantime with the auto-drive feature people have been killed tons of times by players deliberately blocking you (including with deployable shields and such) or by unintentional blocking of players who start checking the map after driving off.
And I didn't say "remove the feature", I said "give the option to stop the feature". Again we run into your selective reading to suit your needs. You try to give the feature a ton of credit for things that it caused more than it prevented.

And the best solution is to actually give players the option to break off the feature entirely.
If you are AFK while your vehicle is spawned, no harm done as you drive off the pad normally.
If you aren't AFK and some doofus is sitting AFK in front of the pad or has placed a deployable shield or traffic is bad, then you can take control and drive around the obstacle, and in the worst of the worst-case scenario you can always exit your vehicle if you can't drive off.

The first I've ever heard of EOD allowing everyone to see the mines is here. The only my own EOD has ever helped people spot mines in advance was by me Q-spotting them after my EOD spots them.
As for "fixing" the EOD, making sure there's more mines so that the EOD implant gives you the option to spot them in time but require more time to clear them. You could also have a feature that mines "spot" an EOD implant, making the user spotted for anyone to see and engage. Maybe they could even add something like a gravity to players wearing EOD, making mines "detect" an EOD user and then be attracted to them. That could also be a separate feature where all mines have an additional AOE around them where they will start slowly approaching vehicles within their range for increased hit-chance.

How can AV be weaker? The hitreg is so ****** up today I dropped 3 AV mines, a Flash ran over them and it didn't even explode.

Anyone consider giving mines some sort of cloaking? PS1 mines had that capability and despite being considerably less powerful and EMP grenades being universally available they were pretty effective. If you drove through an area with mines in it at full speed you would never see them until they exploded while if you went forward slowly the mines would decloak in time to avoid them. As long as the EOD implant was changed to only spot uncloaked mines mines would still be useful weapons against the unwary/ reckless.

Thoughts?

I had something along invisibility in post#5 but that was either ignored or labeled a bad idea:

While I was trying to grant the anti mine armor some special role in the game if used together with an EOD (anti explosives) implant Metalsheep's suggestion (click) focusses on fixing the issue with AV mines only, is easier to implement and does the job, so it's my current favourite. Demigan wants trap mines (mines that deal less damage but trigger effect(s)), Halkesh's recent suggestion would make AV mine Sunderer runs and mine stacking OP choices, most people swing in the direction of an AV mine concept of " Less effective, but harder to remove mines, and maybe more of them.".

EOD (anti explosives) implant:
I suppose we'll only be able to come up with a fitting idea for it after figuring out a new concept for the (AV) mines instead of trying to change the EOD based on the current AV mines while then changing the AV mines' design concept afterwards.
But definately not okay is that it permanently spots the mines for everyone of the faction instead of only affecting the person using the implant that way, so much can be said already.

Did you know that a Flash can use armor that protect from most of the damage AV mines deal ? Also it was already mentioned:

@Demigan
I just don't like your idea, I've already stated why and I see no way to turn that tank driver aiding AV mines concept into something beneficial for anyone else but a tank driver as long as I'd have to use your concept pattern.
Have you thought about suggesting an additional type of AV or AI mine or multiple additional types along with the currently existing, that would then fit your design ideas, opposed to fighting over a single concept version of AV or AI mines, which is a pretty pointless waste of time ? One answer I haven't received from you yet: Why isn't anti mine armor part of the discussion if you think AV mines deal too much damage, as that's the direct counter to that instakill issue which seems to bother you so much ?

AV mines again:
Let's assume we use the concept of more AV mines that deal less damage, which is what we've come to terms with.
AV mine Invisiblity yes or no ? -> Why ? Would it be an okay option if they'd be invisible only to some types of enemies -or- if they'd be invisible but become visible at a certain range, eventually depending on the type of unit ?
Should AV mines receive reduced damage from explosions or become immune to certain area of effect damage types ? -> would eventually no longer cause them to go off as an AV mine field if one AV mine was destroyed but only have the AV mine triggered or destroyed by an enemy explode, which is the actual reason AV mines are instakill-capable most of the time: they trigger another by their explosions
Should what can damage AV mines and what can destroy them be tweaked -> like: EMP no longer capable of destroying AV mines (instad requires engineer repair tool defuse) but an EMP would disable them for some time -or- only explosive weapons capable of damaging AV mines -or- [your idea here]
Delay on AV mines & the resulting damage -> An issue or ignoreable ?
Anything else to mention / add / change ?

Just a few Stats regarding the Infantry mines.

I took a selection of 15 players from each faction with at least 500 mine kills to their name and tallied them together.

Faction - Plants - Accuracy - - Hits - - - Kills - - - - Effectiveness
VS - - - 110606 - - -35.84% - - 39638 - - 21327 - - - - 53.8%
NC - - --129738 - - 43.46% - - 56381 - - 30864 - - - - 54.7%
TR - - - -- 70992 - - 32.92% - - 23380 - - 20516 - - - - 87.8%

Now I find it interesting that the NC has a better track record with planted mines hitting targets, I've heard that the VS one is easier to see but I'd not given that much credence, apparently the glow on the VS proxy mine is almost as easy to spot as the Claymore's raised profile.
Meanwhile the Claymore has the well known high kill chance when it scores a hit.

I think this was referring to tank mines however it applies to personnel mines too, a unique mine for infiltrators that was cloaked (at least partially) would be an interesting weapon. EOD Hud could be made to reveal it at a reduced range and I've proposed a new Implant Darklight Eyes that would function similar to Infravision to reveal cloaked players, vehicles and items up to a range of 25-35m, but ONLY to the bearer of the Implant.

These two implants along with a reduced damage capacity and the fact that Darklight flashlights are a thing would balance out these mines. They'd serve as Early Warning for infiltrators, you could give them 4-5 of them doing only 20-25% damage each or only EMP damage?

The cloaking effect on AT mines would be sweet too but a reduction in damage to AT would make them nearly worthless (unless you could carry 6-10 of them), it might be better to slightly buff the non-cloaked mines damage and give the cloaked ones only a minor damage reduction say 3-4 mines to make a tank kill while the visible ones would only take 1-2 to make a kill depending on unit.

Actually I was referring to tank mines (ex. "drive through"). PS1 mines - which were mostly AV in application - had their own form of cloaking based on distance between mine and observer; the closer you were the more visible the mine was. And yes they were individually less damaging (though PS1 vehicles also had smaller health pools) but available in much greater numbers (I believe the max was 20). Given how much more health PS2 vehicles have, to say nothing of resistances and the option for mineguard (such options didn't exist in PS1), there really isn't a reason all mines - or at least the ones used by engineers - would need to have their damage dropped to allow for the cloak. Of course I wouldn't mind having the damage dropped a bit if the number of mines that could be carried increased to offset that reduction. After all more mines per engineer results in larger areas that can be mined, which not only means more chances of someone hitting one but more time spent in the minefield and thus less chance of being able to rocket through all of them without taking damage.

Oh and your Dark Eyes is really just the original Darklight from PS1. Not that its a bad idea. Though my suggestion would be to not make it a specific implant but an ability available to all thermal/ IR-type sights (yes even the vehicle ones) and implant. Call it a side effect of the cloak bending light (ie EM radiation of which heat/ infrared is part) that it makes it harder for objects so concealedo shed heat, thus they show up as bright thermal signatures when cloaked. Aside from making such thermal/ NV sights actually worth something (as smoke is more often dealt with via the cheat of tuning graphics) it would also make the final rank of Sensor shield useful and provide an effective way to deal with the scum of infiltrators - the ones who camp a vehicle terminal.

Certainly would give rank 5 of sensor shield a reason to exist.

Yeah I'd seen that you were referring to an AT mine which I agree would be a good addition to the game, especially as a second type of AT mine with some stealth functionality (I'd like to see more variation like that). I was pushing the idea further by proposing an AI version of the stealth mines too and suggesting possible considerations that would balance the effect preventing it from being too OP.

Exactly Mine fields should be Area Denial weapons it makes sense that 1-3 engineers could dump large numbers of them on an area to restrict hostile movement.

I never had a chance to play PS1 it ended shortly before I had a chance to download it on a computer that could have run it, I'm actually pleased that my Idea is very similar to what they had. Am I correct in understanding that in PS1 a single player could deploy 20 vehicles at once before some would start despawning?

I do like your idea of letting IR vision be able to detect stealth mines from their heat emissions, however, I'd actually argue they have that as well as Darklight Eyes as the IRVision implant is too limited at range. And the Darklight Eyes would have additional functionallty with Wraith falshes and infiltrators too.

Regarding making Sensor Shield 5 useful I have two lines of thought on that. The first being to simply return the ability for ground units to use Thermal Vision and see infantry with their IR scopes again, from what I can tell most of the complaints were about the absurd Thermal Vision range granted to ESFs and Liberators allowing them to cheese infantry WAY too easily from the sky. While tanks can do some cheesing their much more limited vision brings them closer to enemy infantry with C4 and the Sensor Shield 5 would require them to keep on their toes.

The Second option for making Sensor Shield 5 would be to have it actually do what the implant says "and you will no longer be highlighted by Thermal or IRNV at any time." To me that "at any time" could and perhaps should include when you're driving, riding in or gunning for a vehicle. Essentially having a lvl 5 Sensor Shielded occupant would hide the entire vehicle from Thermal scopes for the duration of their occupation.

While very powerful for Stealth tanks it's about the only way to make SS5 useful again without reverting to at least some vehicles being able to see infantry. I've only really seen people use Infravision on Hossin because it's the darkest continent, everywhere else it risks whiting out your vision too easily to be a viable implant.