Anti-tank mines should not be usable as C4

Its often pretty easy to take out a Sunderer in this manner and they can do nothing about it.

Personally I'd like to see the mines cost less resources, do less damage, have a small exclusion zone (so you cant place them all on top of each other) but let the engineer place a lot more of them. That way when a vehicle runs over them they might have time to stop if they are quick rather than instantly dieing, they can't do near instant kills on stationary targets and engineers can construct proper mine fields to deter vehicles.

Take mine guard and laugh in the face of a stack of 4 AT mines

Couple of nights ago I had a sundy deployed. I'm gunning it and defending against infantry, suddenly I blow up from a set of mines. I respawn a fair distance away at another sundy, Guess what? On respawn I spot the same POS laying mines, I kill the same guy who just blew up my sundy 300+ meters away, trying to lay mines.

At first I thought hey didn't I just see that name, then I looked at my chat log. "you were killed by Pxxxxx" next line "you killed Pxxxxx"
Fracking POS warp hacker.

Yeah for sure but at the moment the only solution to this widely used attack is to cert mine guard. I dont believe this game should have things in it that are so powerful that the only counter is to force players into picking certain load outs.

I mean realistically how limiting has A2A and G2A lock-on missiles made the air game? Near enough every fighter must have flares or they are pretty much easy kills.

Errr the whole game is based around team work and you picking a strategy or load out that you find most effective.... One of the most effective ways to take out a sunderer is with landmines... The most effective and easiest way to prevent this is with certs in mine guard. Choosing Mine guard makes you way more vulnerable to other anti vehicle weapons such as launchers.

. Only an engineer who has certed into Landmines heavily will be able to quickly take out your sunder and onyl if they get close.

When i intend on deploying my sunderer i use mineguard, if i do not intend to deploy it i use Repair ability since when given the choice an engineer will go for the deployed one instead of the non deployable one

Everything you do is designed to be effective against something. Certing heavily into Anti Air certs makes you excel at A2A and give Air units a bad day... The air either certs to help defend themselves or they rely on team mates. You cannot expect to be one player and counter everything on your own.

I accidentally liked this post :-/ Please disregard my support.

No, YOU may not able to do that, but there are people which trained their bodys, to do stuff like this. And btw we have nanits.

I am learning from so many Informed players that the problem is not with the mines but rather the problem is with the owner of the vehicles to attach mine guard to their vehicle to combat a weapon that is intended to act as c4. I guess PS2 is redefining the way mines are supposed to work in games now.

Considering AT mines have been doing the exact same thing since Battlefield 1942, not really.

Lets see. I invest in mine guard 3 today. Got tired of getting one shot by a rogue engy with an OP mine. So I take my Blockade armor off and put lvl 3 mine guard on. Guess what happens next. An Engy rolls up to my AMS and I shoot him. He lays down his mines of course at the same time I am shooting him but he gets two off before my bouncing betties take him out. Mine guard actually worked. AT DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING>

The defense of mines are tired and especially the notion of equipping mine guard to your AMS.

Like the PS1 Orbital Strike, the only thing these tools are good for is destroying stationary sunderers (or AMS in PS1). Basically they are really good at destroying infantry spawn points, ergo mines are a weapon against infantry not tanks.

PS1 mines are a different matter, you could carry 20 but they were about 5 times weaker, so they were better at killing enemy tanks than deployed enemy AMS's.

In PS1 AMS drivers would usually put a ring of 20 mines and 10 spitfires around their AMS so if any Jihadi did try to take out their AMS they would have to content with those defenses first.

well if there is no movement in the proximity then how does it know there is an enemy in said proximity. logic djerp hjerp

In a future where everyone and everything can be reconstructed, I have only one answer why proximity based AT Mines tend to hurl themselves to enemy Sunderers.

NANITES. THEIR LOVE AND HATE FOR EACH OTHER DRIVES THEM TO A FRENZY TO COMBUST WHEN NEAR!

Or as the Def Leppard song goes: When Love and Hate Collides.

Obviously they explode when a large metal object is near them. Such a trigger would not be influenced by motion (or the lack of it) in the slightest. The only delay would be the safety arming timer.

Alternatively, like I've said before, AT mines can frequently be set on timed fuses to be used as improvised AT grenades and demolition charges. The use of AT mines in an offensive fashion is far from farfetched.

I've already discussed this to death, but for the sake of consistency:

The problem lies with the rapidity with which this tactic can be carried out, and the lack of teamwork needed to do so.
The door swings both ways: It should take teamwork to defend a Sunderer, but likewise, it should also take teamwork to take it out - not someone getting one lucky kamikaze run through, which is relatively easy even at Sunderers swarming with enemy infantry.

In conjunction with this, roles supposedly more specialized at taking out Sunderers, are less effective at doing so.
A fully certed AV MAX takes far longer, is far more vulnerable, and many times easier to counter compared to this tactic. (For the record, I do not believe any of the other more specialized roles such as the AV MAX needs a buff in these regards)


Another thing I've tried to get across is that I also believe a possible "nerf" should swing both ways, not only should this tactic be less effective, but Sunderers should also be less spam-able.

I've come up with some suggestions both in regards to balancing the Sunderer, as well as balancing the AT-mine issue, most of which can be found here and following the links from there, but to reiterate them shortly:

AT-mines/C4:
- Make AT-mines deal significantly/somewhat less damage unless they are placed directly under the stationary vehicle, meaning areas that require the attacker to crawl under the vehicle in order for the mines to deal maximum damage, potentially also meaning the attacker will take damage if he or she can't escape before the AT-mine arms and detonates.
(Lore-wise, the AT-mines do detonate from proximity)
This translates to headlessly throwing AT-mines around or close to a stationary vehicle, will overall be less effective, and the attacker would need to deploy more mines to achieve the same amount of damage, or conversely, take more time to place the things, increasing risk/reward as well as the situations where it can be used to the same effect that it currently is.

- Make C4 removeable and unable to be remotely detonated after respawning.
I'm not much for it, but if a damage nerf should be on the table, I'd only suggest the damage being lowered so 1 extra rocket, compared to the current situation, would be needed - and a comparable amount of damage from an underslung grenade launcher - after detonating the C4 charges.
This should remove some of the guaranteed success, but still make it viable on undefended Sunderers.

Just to reiterate, I'm not against the tactics being viable, just against the lack of teamwork required to carry them out succesfully.

Sunderers:
- Increase AMS cert cost
- Add respawn penalty for spawning at AMS' in the same (and possibly adjacent) territories, much like in PS1.
- Each cert level reduces the amount of time added by each level of "respawn penalty"
- Possibly add a "lingering field" which leaves behind the no-deploy zone by ~1 minut after the destruction of a deployed AMS, and 10 seconds if an AMS undeploys. Should the "undeployed" AMS be destroyed before those 10 seconds are up, the Lingering Field stays in place for ~1 minut.

This would, hopefully, mean that even with spammed Sunderers, the enemy force wouldn't be able to keep up pressure ad infinitum.
The added cert levels, cert costs, and "Lingering field" would create more of an incentive for the controlling Empire to actively defend the AMS, and at the same time reward the other Empire for destroying it, if they are able to push back the opposing Empire before they can redeploy - which should also compensate for the higher difficulty in taking it down.

All in all, I think - and I may be overlooking something - that this would create a higher demand on co-operative play in both defending the Sunderer as well as attacking it, reward defenders for doing a good job, not reward an attacking force for spamming AMS - or at least remove the efficiency/benefit of doing so, and finally, also translate to the defending team having a more tangible "end-goal" - more so if a "respawn penalty" is added to Outposts as well (This idea is fleshed out a bit more in the other posts linked above).

Well, I guess it wasn't such a short post after all. Sorry about that.

Buff C4 and they can change tank mines. I see no problem with them now though, it's not easy reaching a sunderer in a good spot as an engineer. But really, I feel LA should be the vehicle sabotage expert since that's what jet packs are suited for. I feel they should give the classes synergy between their abilities and weapons, and balance them from there.

For example, infils were rightly unhappy with mostly long range weapons but utility that demand they enter CQC situations. If CQC weapons are overpowered with cloak, that should be adjusted without just taking CQC weapons from the class as they initially did with shotguns from what I've read.