Mines

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Babope, Jul 1, 2018.

  1. Babope

    Just an idea.

    Not sure if something similar was posted before but, I'd like to think that mines would be more useful if they could not be disabled/exploded by shooting at them, instead using EMP grenades or the engineers' tool. This way it would be easier to control doorways and roads in smaller fights,

    What do you think?
  2. Demigan

    I think that would make mines even more of a no-skill weapon than they already are. Imagine just being able to dump mines somewhere and go on overwatch. Anyone getting close will hit a mine: You win. You can be prepared for range, and even force enemies to chase you if you are damaged... At which point you either get enough time to repair up, or you get a mine kill. Either way you win again as you just repaired up and are able to re-engage the damaged enemy.
  3. FateJH

    Sounds like tactics.
    • Up x 1
  4. Halkesh

    I think just make tank mine resistant / immune to normal splash damage will be enough to slow enemy tank that have good vision or mine sweeper implant.

    But I don't support the idea if it also apply on AP mines (repair tool can't deconstruct them anyway).
  5. Demigan

    Being able to insta-kill 50 players with weapon X would also be a tactic, but is it a balanced and fun tactic for both sides?

    Being able to clear mines by shooting them can be a challenge enough with mines half into the ground. Forcing players out of their vehicles because you basically made a kill-wall with mines and buying you enough time to repair or get a kill is going too far. Right now the tactic of laying down mines for people who follow you already is very powerful and already wastes enough time for attentive players clearing those mines, there's absolutely no need to give players the middlefinger by making mines even more OP.

    And oh yes they are OP. While player like to complain about C4, AT mines have always been very close to their power and they have less risks most of the time. Just dump it in a good spot and wait. Hell why wait? Go to the other end of the continent and those mines still net you a kill!
  6. LtBomber

    I personally would like to see mines in a complete different way:
    AT and AI mines should be more of strategic use. AI mines, once activated in any way, emit a painfield sphere for 5 seconds doing 1k damage during that time in 1.5 m radius. AT mines should be much smaller, faster placeable explosives with lower damage. With increased number to carry and reduced narninte costs they can be used to make mine fields and actually deny areas, while reducing the 1HK Potential. AT mines should be imune to splash damage, forcing infantry, mineguard, or defusing engies to do work. setting them off paartially with a vehicle and repair is ofc. also valid.
  7. FateJH

    Tell you waht: I'll agree to join you on your crusade to eliminate this mine that can insta-kill 50 players if you leave the less offensive ones alone.
    I see that an argument as it being impractical. In my experience, even sunk mines can be targeted through the ground with the repair tool. For all I know, that might have changed with a recent update; and, I haven't had to do this recently myself; but, in my recollection, it tends to work and that suggests that eliminating the mechanic, if it resigns people to using the more reliable method, might be a good thing. Also, considering the number and patterns of mines that get laid, calling it a "kill wall" is giving it too much credit. It's more like a "kill patch."
    It's a very poor pursuit if it's taking the other party more than four seconds to get to where you are. I see people hitting the mines as teaching the over-eager about engagement planning and those who can avoid being rewarded with good observation and reposition skills. That's not much different than complaining about following an enemy soldier into a room and suddenly finding an unexpected squad of enemies with their rifles trained at the door.
    I can also use blanket staements things like that.
    "And, no, they are definitely not OP."
    The sessile manner in which they operate is exactly why they are allowed the level of power they possess - they're designed for asserting traffic control in a combat environment that requires quick negotiation to handle issues different than vehicular traffic control, with a bite that allows them to be relevant without having to be constantly attended. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of the combination of words in that last sentence. Without being constantly attended, they are easy to disassemble without the problem of ambush. If a variety of tactics are desired to be utilized, a variety of weapons and engagement possibilities need be considered.

    How is that more strategic for the mine layer?
    I'm actually one of the few people I know who appreciates that the developers limited the number of AT mines an individual player can place because they wanted cooperating players - not just a player - to be necessary for proper mine fields. Also, mines are already pretty fast to place down, the four second arming trigger notwithstanding, and I can only see faster individual mine placement, without making the animation look silly, having to involve throwing out multiple mines haphazardly like they were bread crumbs to the birds.
  8. TomoB

    For such an OP weapon at-mines seem pretty useless. Harassers casually drive over them and exploding wall of mines make it buff out a bit of smoke. Then they just drive behind some distant rock for repairs and my mines (250 resources) are completely wasted. Also tanks seem to always detect and destroy my mines.
  9. Halkesh

    Your OP mines are hard countered by one implant that everyone use while in a vehicle and also by mineguard user.

    IMO AV mines need only a few changes :
    • Buff AV mine resistance to normal splash damage so tank with mine sweeper will lose more time to destroy them.
    • Buff AV mine resistance to small weapon so it will be harder to self-detonate them AND it will be harder for enemy infantry to destroy them.
    • Buff repair tool effectiveness at deconstructing things :
      • Quality of life improvement : left clic to repair, right clic to deconstruct
      • Improved range
      • Improved deconstruction speed
      • Can disarm AP mines
  10. FateJH

    You mean things besides AT mines?
    That reminds me of a story of an old text chat story.
    Ally: "how do I get rid of enemy mines?"
    Me: "You need to get close and use your Engineer repair tool on it."
    Ally: "ty"
    A few seconds later he appeared in the killfeed as having died to a Bouncy Betty.
  11. Halkesh

    Nice story :p

    It's currently only C4 and AT mines, but it could be nice to add hardlght barrier and AP mines.
    Obviously with more range and improved deconstruction time. Something like 0,5 sec to deconstruct mines and C4, and 1-4 sec to deconstruct hardlight barrier.
  12. Bloodlock

    In the real world, mines are buried into the ground, making it almost invisible to the not trained eyes...
    I remember that in Wolfenstein Enemy Territory, you needed to spot mines using a binocular... but also a text message appeared on the screen when you got close to a mine field... but mines where invisible when not spotted... :p
  13. Halkesh

    You got a message ? I could have avoid so many death in wolf ET. :(
    • Up x 1
  14. LaughingDead

    And in this world, they are slapped on the ground because no being in game knows how to dig.

    You slowed him down enough to shoot the mines. Forcing a player to step out and decon or shoot them with a gun gets tedious really fast when the other option is he dies because he didn’t see them and you threw 100 resources on the road.


    Ok why? Because they ran a counter to your kill doritos? Who the **** thinks making mines that one shot you harder to disarm is fun and interactive gameplay? The point of the mines is a punish for attackers and boon for defenders. If you’re placing them on an open road in which you expect a kill, that driver should be able to shoot them and move on. How much effort did you really put into placing them? Maybe the same amount of effort the driver used to grab a vehicle and see them on the road.

    Or otherwise they are completely and utterly destroyed. Wtf do you expect? Who wants to run the risk of simply traveling and blowing up to dirt pizzas.

    As diverse as the implant system is, I think currently we are eh-ish. If you find an enemy deployable an infantry unit should either be able to destroy it or bypass it in some way. Mines cannot be moved past without detonating and only deal 1k damage, which means the newbies with 1050 hp will always live which makes it painful as **** to aurax.

    Personally, I think it’s stupid we drop glowsticks that are dimmer than these mines. Making them glow in places like hossin swamps is one thing but everywhere? Metal flooring that off color? Sand? Snow? These things are almost painfully easy to see. I did have one thread on separating the mines more because it was basically best mine and 2 circle mines that we basically suicide grenades if you wanted to deal damage, but oh well that’s lost.

    Also no, if I see the mine I should be able to shoot it, how the **** else do I get past a walled off door with mines all over the room?
    • Up x 1
  15. Movoza

    But you can already employ these tactics, and the decision to explode mines is giving more tactical depth than mines that are invulnerable unless special equipment is used. The special equipment is likely to be too sparse for true tactical depth and gives the mines a too rigid wall like obstacle that can kill you.

    An argument can be made for the AT mines, as they are likely to be encountered by tanks which generally have engineers or MAX units that are often joined by engineers. For the MAX units it would mean they can't advance until the next part is more or less controlled to be cleared of mines, or you get sacrificial MAX units.
    • Up x 1
  16. Demigan

    Since detection = protection you could also argue that C4 has even more hardcounters as you have an easier and longer range detection of any C4 fairy, not to mention the giant red light on the C4.

    Even with the implant AT mines still get a ton of kills. I have not noticed a large drop in the amount of AT mine kills I get when I place them and I haven't seen a big drop in numbers since the implant came out.

    I was using an exaggerated example to show you that simply because there is a tactic, doesn't mean the tactic is a good one to keep in the game. We've seen it with old PPA for example where a single Magrider could easily hold down entire squads. Great tactic, extremely useful, completely game-breaking. AT mines that can't be destroyed as easily as now wouldn't be as terrible as that (as they are single-use for each mine) but they would still be terrible.

    The point was that we can already see how terrible the design is when we encounter sunken mines: They are much harder to destroy with weapons-fire and require more time to disable, if they are detected at all. These situations almost guarantee a win for the mine-layer. These weapons require little skill in usage and simply delaying someone by forcing weapons-fire or getting a kill on a greedy person who notices the mines too late is more than enough power for that skill.

    Player 1: Lays some mines, can now place them out in the open for all to see and they still work. Effective skill requirement: Potted plant.
    Players 2: Requires skill (and luck considering how wonky Q-spot can be spotting mines, I've stood on top of mines and Q-spotted them and needed 4 tries) to spot the mines. Then the player is forced to exit the vehicle, walk around (you always spawn back left unless it's blocked), expose himself to every single enemy and stand over multiple mines to disarm them. Even if you made the disarmament instant it wouldn't help much. This is far too a strong effect for the amount of skill player 1 needs to place the mines in the first place.

    Ever heard of ranged combat? At 90km/h you travel 25m/s, that means your combat usually happens at exactly 100m distance (except that none of the tanks reach 90km/h and they require to accelerate first). Considering Wrel posted an average range where kills are made by MBT's which exceeded that range on average I think your "poor pursuit" is pretty exaggerated.

    And why is it necessary to make the mines invulnerable then? If you plan the engagement to look for mines and can locate&destroy the mines with weapons fire you already have that system. Making the mines invulnerable would be like replacing the Spitfire with an automated MAX suit and having the player run into that instead of a squad. At least the squad requires players.

    I didn't just provide a blanket statement, I provided reasons as to why they are OP. In this case: a crapton of people think C4 is OP, and it's multifunctionality definitely is, and AT mines are very close to the same power but require less than 1/10th of the skill.

    AT Mines don't require any oversight because they can easily be hidden. When there is oversight then spending time demolishing the mines is a win for the player as he gets free shots and/or free repair time to win the combat, that is assuming the enemy player doesn't hit the mines and dies.


    Because he can't just dump multiple mines on top of eachother and needs to think more about how and where he places them to achieve a good kill, while the enemy might have time to escape unless the mines are oversighted.

    Yes, you are one of the few people who appreciates that because AT mines don't need to be placed in minefields. In fact, in the current system placing them as minefields only increases the chance of discovery and people blowing them up. Placing them in minefields also means you have to have more distance or risk your own mines being set off beneath you, so your own mines prevent your own being there as well. More problems is that the farther you are from your mines, the more chance enemies can safely detonate the mines and then just go back for repairs if they got engaged in that time, then fight you without your mines.

    The stragetic application of placing low-yield mines with low cost associated with them is far higher. Place a minefield and players take more time dismanteling them with ranged weapons, or they could try and risk it and drive through a few mines. This won't immediately kill them but it will give the opponent a higher chance of success at the engagement. Now you have strategy: How many mines were placed? How risky is it to try and just drive through if you are winning the engagement? Can you quickly clear a narrow path between the mines to go through? Did the minelayers perhaps create thin rows of mines to force you into lanes in the old Japanese "come in if you think you are hard enough" style of defenses that also limit your movement range once you are in?
  17. Twin Suns

    The mine doesn't move, it just sits there. Just like a rock does. Just shoot them and move on. Don't over think it.

    o7
  18. FateJH

    If only these things actually helped everyone the way people allege them to, we'd not have a C-4 thread almost each fortnight. That would be a great forum to be a member!
    Using a mine that kills 50 people because the mine is just that devastating is not an example of a tactic, at least no more of a tactic than placing one mine that kills one person, or a mine that kills no one. It's at least not a tactic by the examples you yourself provided before and after this post. If the mine that kills 50 people is a problem because it kills 50 people at once, then that requires fixing. That does not reflect on the mine that kills one person or the mine that kills no one.
    I don't see this as a problem. I don't see this as a problem. The game will be nothing if not stale if different choices in the game world didn't provide different levels of commitment, or difficulty, or methods of approach, not just from the attacker but also the defender. They don't have to be equal in every minutiae of the engagement.
    That's the range at which the kills were recorded. That does not mean there was pursuit. Just because my Prowler is a race car slowed under a layer of armor doesn't mean I have zoom across a battlefield with reckless abandon.
    The point is they walked into a trap and are complaining they walked into a trap. The number of players in the room is meaningless.
    Why is the only option "a good kill?" (And what does the qualifier "good" denote in this case?) I place mines to make it harder for enemies to advance, not to get cheap kills.
    That's not a bad way to argue that mines should be resistant to being shot and resistant to splash damage. One mine goes off, but doesn't affect the others, and the field retains most of its sense of dread. In any case if you arre arguing that making mines weaker to force players to cooperate to place them into proper minefields so that the fields operate in effective ways, could you provide a formal write up for that idea? I'd definitely get behind it for that reason. I would rather not support individual players getting significantly more mines, however, and avoid making mine field planting a one person affair.

    As far as the last sentence is concerned, that's fine. The end result will always be the case that I am to fight the enemy in the absence of my mines anyway, unless I actually am going for an ambush or baiting. In the end, personally, I place mines in the hopes of distraction, to stagger enemy progress. I've even used them to draw the enemy in the wrong direction once, hoping that someone else reasoned "mines probably defending something important" like I occasionally do. That mines get kills every now and then is just a treat on top of some other reasoning.
    You spent a lot of time remarking that mining was a lackadaisical stab from the perspective of the person laying them, but then address strategy in terms of increased mental exercises for the person encountering them, without really changing any of the considerations necessary for any single mine's existence. That feels like stepping on your own argument. It still achieves the result of slowing down the opponent's advance though, so my complaints are limited.
  19. FateJH

    I apologize. I was talking only in reference to AT mines in that case. The other kind wasn't even a consideration since rendering anti-personnel mines immune to getting shot would be a major complication, with only Claymores having a safe direction of approach to use the Engineer's tool.
    • Up x 1
  20. TomoB

    I was just wondering what makes mines so OP like it was previosly claimed if vehicles can't even be killed by using them.