c4 vs fully certed MBT

Tanks already got plenty of things to do (sunderer-hunter being the main one), but because infantry AV (and mainly MAX AV and c4) is so rediculously strong, tanks cant fullfill that role without dieing to the infantry that spawns out of said sunderer

If a tank dies to C4 from the infantry of a Sundy it is currently destroying the driver is doing something horribly, horribly, horribly, horribly wrong.
(Agree about the MAX though)

I disagree, its not a death sentence to hunt sunders, not unless you are lone wolfing and attempting to play peekaboo with one that happens to have half a squad sitting on it. I do agree with the MAX av being a bit strong, but the main issues with that is that any old tom dick or harry can pull a MAX from a mobile terminal on the side of the sundies you are hunting, I personally think you shouldn't be able to pull maxes from sunders in the first place, if you couldent it would be far less annoying then it seems at the moment concerning max AV and hunting sunders, it would also make max crashes that are not well organized fail, since you have to cart the maxes there via vehicle from at least a base away (or hack and hold enemy terminals)

I mean in-base, like when a sunderer drives up the stairs of a wall-segment in a tech-plant, or whatever place that allows a sunderer not to be attacked from range.

See above. sunderers in open terrain are dead within seconds, usually by either infantry or vehicle AV. Its the sunderers that are surounded by walls/whatever that makes infantry for too effective at defending them vs vehicles thanks to C4.

thats kind of the point, a sunder is an infantry support and transport vehicle, why would you want to park it away from infantry cover? the players have the choice to set these up were ever they want (with a few exceptions) and they choose to put them were the infantry spawning from them can have better cover from tanks; this is not indicative of some imbalance.

C-4 is the biggest crutch in the game, always has been, always will be. It ends fights with a little luck, and not much skill.
(note* skill is involved in not being seen in a 12 v 12 ok, that is skill..96 vs 96 not so much skill)

It's been in the game a long time and I think it's there strictly to keep players from rage quitting when a bunch of armor or MAXs show up.

Flanking doesn't mean dropping C4 from above it means attacking from the side! Please go look up the definition! If you wanted to say that LA's job was to flank INFANTRY positions I'd have to agree but they are not meant to flank tanks. It is just silly to think a guy light enough to fly around with a jet pack has enough explosives to take out an armored vehicle. While the guy with the rocket launcher has to keep ducking behind cover or an engineer has to throw down several mines of a specific type. I can't argue this point enough if you want to give LA a big boom making item make it a satchel charge AKA big splash range but not C4 damage. But there is no reason the most mobile of infantry classes should be better at taking out any vehicle than a heavy or even an engineer who are meant to be anti-vehicle classes!

If you are going to have classes and roles then at least do them correctly and stop trying to give every class a loop-hole function to let them act as another role. Either let me be the soldier I want with the equipment I want or force me to play within the style for my class this attempt at combining the two it just silly.

Below are some links to better help you understand what it means to flank because when you drop explosive from above that is defined as BOMBING not FLANKING!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flanking
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flanking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanking_maneuver

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bombing
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb

I know... Wow. Sorry but that reaction seems a bit overzealous. I did offer to reduce the power of C4, right? I didn't mis-type anything? I do remember suggesting to decrease the killing potential of C4. Pretty clearly.

Hell,
then if I had a fully certed LA
I want to survive a direct hit with an AP round
WHY NOT?

okay, I got enough of this stupid necro-thread, it keeps comming again and again despite having no argument against the C4.

FACTS:
1) 2 bricks of C4 cost 200 resources, take a lot of skill,time and luck to use and the enemy has to be blind/deaf/stupid/spawncamping or a combination of those to succeed.

2) thinking ahead,mobility,proxy radar or an aware secondary gunner- hard, hard counters to C4

3)XP wise, it's not worth the effort to do C4 runs. For a vehicle kill you get 50 + vehicle_resource_cost + crew_kill_XP(125 XP per player). So for a lightning you get 400 XP + 125 XP for the driver =525 XP = 2.1 certs = 4.2 infantry kills. For a fully manned MBT (rare, at least on Miller) you get 500 + 2*125 =750XP =3 certs = 6 infantry kills. In other words to earn 1000 certs you'd have to kill 333.3 fully manned MBTs. Ask yourself if thats easy. Usually you're better off killing infantry.

4) AV mines and rocket launchers are much more efficient. There's no data on it on the web but you can easily measure how many times have you been killed by C4 and how many by other means.

5) Since 2 bricks cost 200 resources and a lighting costs 350 resources, that means that even if you got C4ed then your killer looses only 100 resources less than you. For an MBT it's 200 resources. Considering how hard it is and how many attempts end up in a failure I'd say that resource wise it's better to pull an AV MAX or some vehicle.

6) To do a C4 vehicle trap you have to stay near the C4 (it doesn't render nor show up on the HUD from further away than ~25m) and trigger it manually, so you need clear vision on the C4 and passing vehicles. If you die you loose both your C4s (200 r) since they despawn after respawning.Also they cost more than AV mines and you can carry less C4s than an engineer can carry AV mines. Because of that it's very bad for this purpose, unless you know for sure that an enemy vehicle is about to pass this way and you have a good spot to hide yourself. Finaly EOD HUD works on C4 as well and the enemy may spot you or detect you with the proxy radar before you manage to detonate.

7) I'm too lazy for this...

8) I've never heard a real argument against C4.Never. People complain about it instakilling their precious tank. I also use a tank from time to time so I know how it's like. Usually it's hilarious to look at the poor LA chasing you while you back off shooting at him. Yeah, it may be hard to kill him with AP but it's much easier than catching up with a tank .

If you have any REAL arguments to support your theory then please present them. Otherwise **** and L2P, and stop reviving this thread again and again.

for anyone who cares, this is how I envision a directional C4 damage hit box for a simplified tank.



All read areas = current C4 damage

white areas would take damage dependent on armor rating, would need to be tuned for balance.


TOP: a very small slice of back Armour for LA to aim for, also prevent the arc of current C4 throw from making a back hit a top hit if it just clips the top corner of the hull (no more C4 on the front armor = boom)

SIDE: again a very small strip to give the hit boxes a bit of wiggle room concerning C4 placement on the back of the tank.

REAR: 2 C4 on the rear plate = death no exceptions.

BELLY: damage hit box is for when C4 is used a a trap and detonated under a tank, if its not right under the rough center or the very back when it blows it will not kill a tank, mine guard would protect from a belly hit.

What the hell? If you and your gunner let some LA get to you and c4 you, you and only you are to blame.

t. dedicated anchor prowler driver

Maybe I was overzealous but you still seem to think that LA need anti-vehicle weapons. When in fact they need to focus far more on the infantry (like they are suppose to) and leave killing tanks to the tank killing classes. Only classes that should have anti-vehicle weapons are Heavy's and Engineers as it is their main purpose to fight against on near vehicles. Though an engineer with an AV grenade launcher on his gun would make sense as it might help them defend their or an ally's vehicle if even for a few seconds longer. But giving the fly boys AV weapons is a recipe for more mid air spamming like with the C4 now.

Require tanks to have both a dedicated driver and gunner to operate. One person drives, the other person guns, and if you want your top turret manned, you need a third person.

Do that, and I will be right there along side you calling for the nerf to C4. Until then, no.

Why should LA be a dedicated Anti-Infantry class? It's a flanking class, sure, but flanking by no means implies AI only.

It's my own opinion that every class should have Anti-Vehicle as well as Anti-Air weapons to add to their Anti-Infantry weapons. My reasoning is for game consistency. Take vehicles for example, every one of them (nearly) can equip either AA, AI, or AV. This gives a certain breadth of choice to vehicle users, but never really encroaches on vehicle purpose because MBTs are still the most powerful up front (ala HA), Harassers have a hit-and run niche (LA), etc. So every class should have a certain playstyle (engies build and fortify, Infils take accurate shots or invade secure locations, HAs bust the door down, etc.) but have access to AA/AV/AI loadouts geared towards that playstyle.

So HA should be able to take on targets up front and personal

Engie should use his turrets to take them out from high ground and fortified positions

LA should use flanking tactics to get the drop on targets

This is all regardless of target type, but still has all the class flavor.




So my suggestion to reduce C4 power was purely out of fairness to tankers, because it isn't fun to be insta-gibbed. Giving LAs a weaker grenade launcher would still allow them to surprise enemies and take them out at close range. If grenade-launcher spam is too much, just nerf the damage or something.

What's the "t." ?

Well then tell infantry to quit *****in about vehicle farming, this aint a one way street. Its like when tankers get on here to complain about something they are shoved on the back burner. We have issues with infantry launchers, c4, etc etc. Its not like you guys get to ***** about everything under the sun and we don't have a say either. Two sides to every story son, deal with it.

Basically, "regards" in finnish.

Nobody has the right to complain about getting farmed by tanks in the current game.
No, not even players complaining about PPA farmers.

The only times tanks get to farm people are when those people let themselves get farmed by not doing anything about it, or when they are so outclassed/outnumbered that a few (or even a lot) of farming tanks don't even make a difference in the grand picture of the battle.
Infantry has so many ways (of which I consider C4 to be one of the less dangerous ones) to deal with tanks that anybody complaining about OP ground vehicles is either new, trolling or... frankly... incompetent (which is something entirely different to new).

Can you post your rating list of Infantry AV on a scale of least dangerous to most dangerous?