[Suggestion] C4 should be removed and replaced with something else, MAX units should be nerfed

Uffff, I should have known you were a LoL player. You're actually trying to compare balance in a MAX 5v5 ranked, MMR based MOBA to Planetside? Let's just bring SMITE balance in while we're at it.

buh bye.

Really? Where do I say something like that? I point out that the challenge and risk is mostly for the opposition, not the Harasser. I didnt say it was a cakewalk for the Harasser, but that it was easier compared to the vehicles it fights. And the solution I gave is to remove one shot to kill so that the Harasser is more vulnerable, not that it takes less skill to hit it.

Ofcourse nuance is a bit much for the people protecting their toys.

No not lobsided. Also THIS IS HOW IT WAS BEFORE THE HARASSER OUT OF THE BLUE GOT THIS UPGRADE WITHOUT ANY WARNING OR ANYONE ASKING FOR IT.

Now I could go point by point but the frankly insulting responses based on practically nothing is not worth it.

This really boils down to people not respecting the fact that Players are as much of a force multiplier as Vehicles are.

When you assume the risks are lower and it's not a pilot/gunnery skill keeping the much lighter armored and easier to kill vehicle alive. Keep in mind, you're working a solo-vehicle with tanks with the added bonus of a gunner in the MBT. They can already be 1 2 deleted if you're even mildly aware of them and are of a decent enough shot to get the job done. Hell, even me with middling tanker ability can usually swat a harasser away if I'm aware of the lanes of approach they're likely to use and keep an eye on my surroundings. I just happen to like running Harasser more. Sounds like you wanna swing the favor over to tankers near exclusively if you're referring only to 1 shot less. Or am I reading that wrong as I'm sure you'll tell me?

The challenge and risk is for the driver to remain cool and pick fast in/out routes to keep him and his gunner alive and for the gunner to hit as many of those shots as he can. Odds are if you're killing a harasser, you're getting two kills as opposed to the usual 1 tanker kill too. Reward's higher for tanks in this case while you're risking more as a harasser. The tanker's problem comes when they do what kills... well anyone in anything. You overextend without leaving yourself an out.

Also, how it was before? I'm a bit confused. The harasser has been hit with nerfs rather heavily repeatedly that I'm aware of. Some deserved, some not. Particularly deserved was the full backseat repair. But they've already been nerfed heavily in the shots to kill department. Sounds like you just want it easier, not even.

I do remember you constantly moving the goalpost of conversations though, but I'll bite again.

More on target to the thread. I disagreed with the LA having rocklets from the get go as it's more... well he's a Heavy than can fly now that can literally do it all. Figured that was what the other classes were for. With infantry I thought it was supposed to be more pronounced in particular roles. Doubt the devs are gonna ever give that up though. #Wrel'd

As for you max proposal. Totally against it. The max is already super dependent on his team to do anything. 1v1 or 1v3 he has a bit of a chance, but one person with C4 and pop, he's done. The self-repair they do is minimal at best. Relying on an engineer also hampers his ability to push, and giving the max the ability to be healed by the medic would be against the original intent of "giant armored stompy thing" they originally had for it. Revival by medic is a thing though so... eh.

You also only have to look at the nerf of the NC's max to see how negatively it affects the max to do one simple thing. They're already easily handled by a LARGE number of means, and little more than fodder half the time... More so than HA's even, who's supposed to be their "little brother" not their savior they run to. Indoors is about the only place they can thrive, but if it has a lot of cover around them, they're just as dead as people move up to kill'em.

I don't agree with the removal of maxes.

Things are too broken to fix. Yeah, C4 exists to fight vehicles and Maxes, but it also exists because of base design and revives. With unlimited revives and either choke points or rooms to hold, there's simply no other way to break in to these places without exosives.

I find flak armor very useful most of the time, sort of depends on your playstyle and what you're more willing to die to, bullets I don't mind being regularly vulnerable to, but its always amusing to eat an explosive or two and shoot the person in the face.
And there are weapons made sort of specifically to counter MAXes, the Archer primarily. I find MAXes to be among the lesser balancing issues of the game because they can be squishy with the right counters and the nanite cost keeps them from being too overused.
C4's deploy time I would say is meant to be its balancing factor, but can become annoying to either side depending on lag and such. I generally avoid using it just because it seems finnicky, even buggy after some patches.

Please look up the definition of a force multiplier.

I did and it refers to a factor(s)/combination(s) which gives personell or weapons (hardware) the ability to accomplish greater things than without it.

In this case, a secondary gunner and a rumble seat which can 1) add another weapon 2) use other tools and weapons to make the harasser more dangerous 3) if engineer can add to its durability and overall longevity + in-combat repairs. Seems to fit rather neatly in that definition, no?

I'm glad you were picking up what I was putting down, lol.

You realize he's pointing out that the disadvantage you've been flaunting for the Harasser requiring a second man to gun is actually an advantage as more personell can be a force multiplier?

I dont think you do, or you wouldnt have applauded it.

You must be short circuiting today in your efforts to prove me wrong, bro.

It can be both a requirement for full effectiveness AND a force-multiplier. These items are not mutually exclusive.

People need to stop blithely throwing around the word 'toxic' when describing something they don't like. Sorry, but the use of an item that exists in the game as a playable option for anyone does not meet the criteria for 'toxic'. Shooting your dead body while t-bagging and spamming Taunt is toxic; refusing to run into a murderbox of MAX suits and infantry and instead chucking a C4 brick through the window is common (or used to be) sense. Argue all you want about whether it's balanced or not, but please don't apply false attributes to something because you think it adds weight to your argument.

In that same vein calling MAX suits buffed infantry is a bit disingenuous when they cost more to pull than most vehicles and are arguably less effective than a trio of competent players unless you have a pocket engineer.

This really, really suggests to me that you are either new to the game and haven't figured out how everything works yet, or that you don't play either of these classes and haven't the first clue how they work. In spite of all their awesome guns, at any given time Medics will generally have far fewer kills than any other class, and while Heavy is good at a lot of things it isn't the best at any one thing, while being entirely dependent on other classes for support.

No, I hate admitting it (b/c douchcanoe), but Sav's right.... YOU need to stop this for a couple weeks, and learn to Record stuff. Edit it together in videos, present your case with HARD EVIDENCE of the problem... Visual representation, not just exaggerated claims.

If you Do that, and then @ it at Wrel on Reddit, then you'll reach the persons you actually need to convince. Even IF you magically convinced everyone here of your currently Wild and Arbitrary claims, it wouldn't change anything. We're not even here for that. We're here to relax and understand our own community. So stop polluting it please

If you think I'm DEFENDING C4, guess again, my opinion on it has always been right here for all to see:
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps...detonated-on-me-in-1-2-a-seconds-time.250329/
It was completely Futile to even post it. No one from DBG works here, not even Moderators anymore.

wrong games are there be played for fun and while everone has fun and enjoys a game differently
no one likes to be frustrated to play a game ..

learning how to fly and use a ESF is a massive challange f.e. why? because it´s controlls are convoluted and limited in costumisability ..
what that does is making the learning experience more frustrating than it needs to be ... and that is why many give up on it ..
if the learningexperience is no fun at all, if the players have to fight the game´s mechanics and limitations than their supposed opponents then this is were things are wrong with the game ... not with the players motivations ..

same counts for imballances between ground vs airplay were ground is lacking in options against air, same with infantry against air as well as afformentioned difficulty of using air to do AA duty in a aircraft ..

then as mentioned harrasers being a bit tough despite of having greater mobility than other vehicles, both the harrasser and the esf are meant to be used for their mobility than their healthpool .... speed and mobility is their surviveability ...

as for maxes they need an overhaul .... not a nerf .. they rather should be a supportplatform to a infantrysquad or to a vehiclecolumn outside ..
in their current state they merely are a chokepointholder ...
they are VERY vulnerable to c4 with their limited speed ... like it´s very easy to get c4´ed as max than when driving any vehicle
even as infantry it´s easier to avoid getting blasted by a brick ..

so yea each area has its problems, one area more than others ...

the mbt is at most effective with 2 players otherwise both the mbt and the lightning are limited to its maincannon where it easy to miss a shot against a harrasser, in that case the harrasser has a greater range of options for its topgun and many that are easier to use than a tank maingun ... the mbt has the topgun as secondary option yes BUT ...
while the harraser lacks a pilotweapon it still is faster and is capable to drive through terrain better ..
and with a full crew the harraser either gets additional firepower in the form of a max or additional survivability in the form of a repairing engineer ... a engineer if well played could damage a lightning or mbt even worse with AV mines .. allowing the harrasser for greater variety of play .. sooooo i wonder would the change of making the harrasser surviving one less shot realy that much bigger of a challange for the harrasser vs how challanging it would be for a lightning or mbt to deal with it?

Aye, most effective with two players, but effectiveness can be achieved with just one as you don't have to swap seats... Unless you wanna micro that. Not really an option for a harasser unless they're looking for a quick death. Tanks don't go down super fast to a harasser unless it has utterly surprised them. Those main cannons, DO have range, however. Top guns they get do too. (Ignoring individual weapons that do not obviously such as grenades/canister shot) They get two weapons unexposed with a fair bit of armor to do their slugging. The rumble seat is rather... hit or miss depending on where shells land as one pop and whatever is in there is dead to a shell or two. That can be extra armor, but it's a rather poor tradeoff if your crew member is dying IMO. Risk reward for that extra firepower.

And yeah, it'd make a hell of a difference. Two coordinated tanks or a MBT that knows what's up are basically a death sentence if the harasser's caught out now. Make that less to kill and well. NC max scenario. Except that you'll force harassers into exclusively long range combat sniping. Of which most of their arsenal is pretty much meh at. I won't say useless, but there are some far less than ideal options. Hell, you'd never really see a maggie die anymore if you thought it was bad before.

Again, Lightnings and MBTs already have the tools to deal quite effectively with it. Just requires you to not fall asleep at the wheel and have at least moderate aim and awareness of where you are.

And you only focus on the requirement, and dont mention the advantage. In other words you are showing a purposely biased version of the Harasser to prove your point and we cant really trust anything you say.

I'm only going to react to this because the rest is just as much bullcrap.

The Harasser is not "much lighter armored and easier to kill vehicle". The difference between a Harasser and a Lightning is 1 shot. Not more. The Harasser is also smaller, faster and more capable of firing on the move. The entire point of the Harasser is that it is a small zippy and hard to hit vehicle. So proclamations like "oh but just a few decent players can delete them" is bullcrap. In fact if everything you said was correct then the Harasser would be hilariously UP and no one would use it.

But there's tons of usage of the Harasser, especially on the TR.

So looking at the sentence I quoted we can safely say that you have an agenda, you purposely warp reality by saying they are "much lighter armored and easier to kill" even though the exact opposite is true. They are quite literally build for hard to kill driveby's. And on top of that you ignore that the Harasser when driven by a decent driver (see how easy that moron argument works?) can easily escape alive and then return to the battle. The Harasser dictates when and where the fight will happen, not the opposition. The opposition however is automatically going to lose any fight where it goes badly even once because they do not have the option to escape the Harasser.
You are biased, you purposely lie and your words cannot be trusted.

He did though, he specifically stated people not respecting multiple players having an effect on combat, i.e. in this case players/tools as force multipliers. An MBT, for example, fully crewed should have very little trouble versus an harasser. I mean, you can still lose but paying a bit more nanites for a vehicle was never a guarantee for victory. The Lightning is a single player vehicle which neither needs waiting around on gunners or anything extra, you just grab one and you can quickly get into the thick of it. There's more to it than which vehicle beats which, there's access, there's amount of players working together, and a bunch more stuff and things which affects the game.

No matter what you feel about him (or Inogine as I just noticed), ending on these dramatic notes does not reflect especially well on you. Every single one in this thread I'd argue is guilty of biases, exaggerated claims, suggestions to improve the game (which can cynically be translated to: "cater to my agenda/vision of the game), etc, etc.

Personally, I rather see more vehicles with multiple seats or force multipliers among infantry beyond MAX suits and variant class combinations.

"Players are as much of a force multiplier as Vehicles are"

A force multiplier has to be a thing that gives you an advantage. Infantry can't be a force multiplier if it's the basic unit. If infantry is on par with Maxes and vehicles, then the game simply doesn't have force multipliers.