[Suggestion] C4 no longer remains after death, how about some love?

Personally I think c4 should cost more resources and more certs, after all it one shots sundys and tanks which cost more resources, have cooldown timers and often have 1000-2000 certs spent on weaponry/defences.

Personally I think you should learn the game basics before posting ******** on the forums.

ITT: i'd be fine with the C4 changes if they fixed all those hit registration bugs. having the C4 lost on death is hard, but detonating it for no effect is frustrating

C4 does not one shot Sundy's. It takes 2 to kill tanks, but only sets Sunderers on fire.

I have made a thread about C4 in the suggestion forums, you can find it here: http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/c4.105883/

Please support it if you want the C4 mechanics to be improved. Thanks.

I've been C4ing things all day and this change hasn't affected me negatively at all. You just can't be as blatant with your C4ing as you were before.

TRUE . I agree with every word. FIX it !!

"It doesn't effect me, so it isn't a problem" That's not a very sound argument.

If you haven't blown things up after dieing, then you haven't been trying hard enough
I had this "feature" effect me multiple times over the weekend. Tower getting zerged and I drift out to the offending AMS, get 2 C4 placed and get killed before I can detonate. I sat for a bit with my thumb in my azz to see if other fire would blow them, but the C4 was in a sheltered position. I eventually respawned and said goodbye to my wasted 200 resources.

I can agree with the arguments that post-death C4 should be changed. But the way it was changed is bunk.

Lemme give you an example.
You say: "I used to run out of cover to stop enemy heavy machine gun bullets with my body, but recent update ruined it for me! Now I'm not immortal and I die if I run into enemy heavy machine gun! Unfair!"
I say: "This *nerf* doesnt affect me, because I'm not stupid enough to run right under HMG's fire, immortal or not."

Hope that gives more clearly what my POV is.

I read a couple sentences and decided not to support your cries for buffs to balance "a nerf" that was just correcting an effing bug.

Seriously you people are ******** because the game won't let you waste resources. The very reason for putting resources into the game was to give value to specific items. High risk, high reward. That is what C4 supplies for us, and most of you seem hell bent on ignore the risk part.

You seem to miss the point. Nothing else costing resources despawns on death. Why should C4? It was a bug yes, but patched badly.

And do me a favour. Look up the definition of crying. You will see that none of that has been done in my thread. I've stayed calm and mature. Maybe you should too.

You are asking for a buff to compensate for a bug fix. C4 already got a buff, +1m to blast radius. You claim that you are staying calm and mature about this, but which one of us is voicing complaints and saying "it was done badly"? I raised a lot of noise about the spawn room redesigns (about the death bubbles actually) and that WAS badly implemented. The DEVs set out to correct a problem and they failed to correct the stated problem while at the same time creating a more annoying environment to deal with. That is the definition of bad game design, not a simple bug fix that people just happen to have found inconvenient.

Nothing else has the destructive power that C4 has. Now I'm sure you are going to say all kinds of things to point out other things but C4 has a very wide range of targets and it is devastating to all of them. It is a unique weapon that can be used offensively and defensively and has some level of precision to it.

Quite frankly we have abused C4. It's a high resource cost item and people were using it like candy and wondering why they never had resources or why it was so expensive. It's a versatile weapon, in order to balance that versatility it HAS to be expensive. In order to prevent suicide bombers from exploiting the system, it HAS to have a long toss animation (I only wish Engineers suffered the same animation durations when laying mines). These things HAVE to be in the game to control the use and power that C4 has.

My point is that you are asking for compensation for the loss of a feature that was not a feature and we had no right to use or consider a feature. This is the reaction of a spoiled child, not a mature adult. Maybe you should consider the meaning of the term crying, before you go telling others to look it up.

You don't know what you are talking about. Please educate yourself.

SoE wants to make this Indarside: 2 Heavy Assualt

What did you expect?

c4 costs 700 certs for both bits, also costs 200 resources to equip has no cooldown timer.

Tanks cost 700 for each gun, 1000 for the good ones (main + top = 2000 certs) add on defences, radar, chasis, sights, ammo clips etc and the tank could have 3000 certs spent on it easy, They also have a default 10 minute cooldown. Yet people want to have a second chance too kill tanks when they fail to detonate their c4, its not rocket science.

When i am killed with c4, i realize that it took some skill to do so, i do not expect when i respawn for the person who laid the c4 to suddenly ignite, i died i deal with it, if you die deal with it.

c4 differs from mines because it sticks to the target, if you fail too detonate live with it you should not get a second chance.

Planetside all about teamwork. If your infantry cannot kill one running man, or if you going to battle without infantry support - you will be blown up by LA's C4s.
Why not? Because tank's too expensive? Then whine for nerfing rocketlaunchers, your enemy can use it without spending certs and infantry resources.

This is the most fail response ive seen yet.

HA with Rocket launchers are not demanding a free shot once killed, that is the crux of this issue.

If you die before you detonate c4, you should not get a free second chance, period.

I like option 2. However, I would add an option 4 (would likely take a while to implement, so option 2could do till then):

Option 4: allow engineer repair tool to destroy C4 harmlessly and allow it to remain after death indefinitely like mines. This way, a tank driver would have the chance to get out and disarm C4 from a LA they had killed, but would run the risk of getting shot (or the C4 getting shot blowing them and their tank up). If it took a sensible ammount of time to disarm, such that if they got out straight after killing the LA, they would have enough time to disarm before a sunderer respawn by the LA, the. I think the right balance of risk/reward would be achieved.

What always annoyed me about C4 LA was blatantly suicidal runs where no matter what you did, your tank was doomed. The recent nerf seems an overly clumsy way of dealing with that.

Oh wow, where to start...

I am asking for C4 to gain the functionality it deserves and for the developers to fix the - in my opinion - badly implemented fix for the unintended feature. Furthermore, it matters little what you have tried to get fixed in the past, I do not know why you even added the last paragraph. Lastly, I apologize if I may have hurt your or others feelings, but for me stating something to be done badly is in no way being immature or not calm.

Pretty much all which you have stated is your opinion, which I do not share, I'm sorry.

The fix did not make me come up with these suggestions, they merely pushed me to finally post them. In addition, you really should have done your homework I gave you:

To cry
1. To sob or shed tears because of grief, sorrow, or pain; weep.
2. To call loudly; shout.
3. To utter a characteristic sound or call. Used of an animal.
4. To demand or require immediate action or remedy: grievances crying out for redress.

Since none of these really apply to me, it's safe to say you do not know what you're talking about, alone the fact that you call me spoiled proves that. Here's your next homework Billy, go look up the meaning of obtuse little child, which pretty much applies to you.

You're going to have the last word on this, as I can not be bothered anymore and do not have the time to discuss with you. So good day to you.

I agree, where to start.... DERP

You are asking for compensation for a bug fix. You can disguise your request however you wish but the simple fact is the entire reason you made this request is because of a bug fix. Argue it however you like, say whatever you like, I know you will because it's inevitable that you must feel yourself to be correct in the matter.

It was not badly implemented, it was a correction to the code. For it to be badly implemented then the desired effect would have had to fail. It did not. There may be new issues cropping up because of the fix, sure. These issues were not made obvious until after the bug was fixed however. To call it bad implementation is to show disrespect to the developers who work hard to make this game over a minor issue at best. Get over it.

The exact same thing can be said about you, and everything you have said. Except in your case it's actually true.

No other explosive device (except maybe mines) will kill a MAX suit with a single blast. No other explosive device can be used against vehicles and kill a tank with just 2 strikes. A mine only takes 1 but the tank has to oblige by running over the mine and this situation probably isn't so common out in the field as an attack. Likewise for phalanx turrets. While mines can be used offensively against Sunderers, this is probably going to change sometime really soon (I hope), which means that C4 will be the only device you can use to aggressively demolish a Sunderer with.

The range of use and targets, and the power it has to deal with those targets, is immense. C4 does not need "love". This is a fact, not my opinion. A fact that is supported by the lack of DEVs falling over themselves to give C4 love despite others with clearer insight to it's uses asking for it.

I'd say that one fits you quite well. Again, dress it up however you want. Say whatever you want, I honestly don't care. Your continued use of the term "bad implementation" is an attempt on your part to help support what you want done. And that's the part that really ticks me off. Child or politician, I don't care how you want to describe yourself. Either way you are spoiled into thinking this thing has to be done because you think it should.

People always want more.

I agree.

I don't think C4 needs to be made more expensive, but it certainly doesn't need improvement because of this simple tweak.