c4 vs fully certed MBT

Maxs take a fully certed Med Gun, 4 seconds to revive, and at best you come back @ 25%. Therefore the resource cost is significant.

Flak armor does mitigate C-4 somewhat but indoors people do not typically look up, if you want to say that that is a short-coming skill wise fine, but be aware if there is any eye level threat that will take a players attention 80% of the time. A skillful LA can EXPLOIT A LACK OF ATTENTION is closer to the truth then saying a player is bad because they didn't see the LA, at least thats been my experience.

If a player who dispensed C-4 stays down someone can still grenade your C-4 and set it off netting you kills even though you are dead. If a MAX dies it is not a threat, if a MBT dies it is not a threat, if a C-4 Fairy dies the C-4 is still a threat. Even if the C-4 fairy doesn't get the kill score for those bricks detonating the effect to the receiving side is the same.

Thats an opinion, of course I feel that if you cannot see a MAX or a MBT I question your skill level as well, they are both fairly large objects when scaled against a brick of C-4.

Funny...an LA can carry both auto-shotty or fast ROF weapons and carry two C-4 aswell......isn't it?

Talking about LAs being valk or gal dropped during tank battles. I dont know where you got spawn camping from. Also i run my tank solo with a walker on it, in the heat of battle its hard to watch 2 tanks and LAs dropping at the same time. I can sometimes pull off the 2v1 minus the LA.

Yeh, it's fine if you sit back 300km from the fight shelling. Then you get infantry complaining that tanks are just farmers rather than getting into the fight.

The tank needs to feel like a heavenly armoured assault vehicle that one uses to push an assault. At this point of time it feels like an open jeep with a grenade launcher.

They need to buff the hell out of tank HP, armour and firepower. They already have the weak point at the back for infantry to hit them in. Urban combat. Give air better weapons to take tanks out as long as infils laser target them. Give vehicles/air more fire power but link them to infantry so they need infantry to get the most out of that firepower.

First and foremost, the number one and two most dangerous things to a tank should be A, enemy aircraft; and B, enemy tanks, in that order. The two things that should kill tanks most easily should be the Dalton on the Liberator, or MBT AP to the rear. Not generic high explosive C4. Tanks are designed to be having **** blowing up all around them. High Explosive, is not, and should not be equivalent to High Explosive Anti Tank, or Armor Piercing.

Secondly, whoever is saying that AP rounds one shotting infantry is a valid argument for the way C4 works right now... If you manage to catch a tank caliber AP slug with your body, you should probably die. In real life an Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot penetrator coming near a human will kill them (not saying PS2 is, or should be, like real life). Shooting a grunt playing peekaboo with you with your slow loading main gun isn't easy by any definition of the word. It definitely does not equate to flying around dropping bricks of magically powerful C4 on tanks. Just because a tank can get a soldier multiple kills in one run, does not mean C4 should just one shot them. A soldier on his feet can get multiple kills in one run. I remember playing when the game first came out and HEAT and HE were the bee's knees against troops on the ground. After a couple years hiatus, that's definitely not the case now. And I'm assuming that is either because of nerfs on splash damage in general, or because everyone is in general a bit more certed up.

As mentioned in this thread a few times, C4 should only be at its current level of damage if placed directly on a weak spot on the tank. Such as the rear, or detonated under the belly. Why? Because then it actually requires real effort, finesse, skill, and most importantly: balls. As opposed to the sheer luck involved in jet packing over, or hucking a couple bricks of some generic Acme C4 "near" a tank, and detonating it to catastrophic effect.

C4 should have it's place, but its place should not be bringing "terribly rampant anti-infantry cert farming" and armored columns under control. I'd myself rather see my HA's missile launcher do better than put a scorch mark on the paint of an MBT. At least I know that that'd help me when I'm boots on ground, and on the other hand at least that's something you can resist in a tank. Sure Infantryside can sit here and cry "get better situational awareness tankers, gosh!" But that's not the point. A grunt wants to sneak up on my MBT and lay some serious hurt on me, and he catches me off guard? Good on him! He deserves his glory, I deserve the hurt. But, he should at least have to have SOMEONE ELSE shooting me at the same time. I personally think if they wanted C4 to continue having its ridiculous splash, and armor cert ignoring damage; at least make it so it's capped out at like 80% damage for both bricks. That way the Lone Ranger out there at least has to have some kind of battle buddy shooting missiles, AT turret, or another vehicle backing his bold, Medal of Honor worthy, valorous, super ballsy, assault. Otherwise the tank at least has a chance to back up and repair. I mean is that not the ENTIRE APPEAL to the vehicle game in Planetside 2?

Do I think LA's deserve some measure of anti-vehicle capability? Of course. The jet pack is cool and all, but the class does deserve a little more than being little anti-infantry bumble bees. Should they have the end all, be all, final solution to encroaching armor? No, not by a long shot. The fact they they trump not only aircraft and tank's AT capabilities; but the capabilities of the engineer and HA class is just silly. I think C4 should still be an extremely potent tool anti armor, especially when other AT assets are combined with it. I like the idea of the anti tank grenade launcher, but to take C4 away from LA's completely (or to nerf it into the dirt) is just a slap in the face for people who get honest enjoyment out of playing with it in an AT manner.

The point a lot of people are making on here about resources has weight too. To get a tank you have to drop 450 resources, you usually have to drive your way all the way out to wherever you're fighting. You may or may not have some longevity. You might get in a slug fest with another tank, just to have some dude blow your tank into next Wednesday with a bunch of C4. On the flip side of things, if you're an LA and you're going up against the tank, and you get smoked... No biggie, infantry almost always has a nearby spawn point. You don't lose the resources unless you drop the bombs. So who cares? If you get wrecked in your tank, then ohh well, you'd better just suck it up and get on the ground like everyone else. That or you go wait for your resources to pool back up, so you can drive all the way back out and hope the Lone Ranger is dropping nuclear C4 on someone else's tank.

I'm not by any means saying armor should have the reign of the battlefield in Planetside 2. Not at all. I love playing infantry as much as, if not even more, than I love playing armor. And I'm a real life 8 year veteran tank gunner, I honestly love tanks. Moving on; armor shouldn't break the infantry game, and infantry shouldn't break the armor game. But FFS we have a hard enough time killing other tanks out there, just to have some dude on a suicide mission run up to plant a couple bricks of C4 on you, that's a guaranteed catastrophic kill. C4 shouldn't hurt a tank more than another tank, or an aircraft, period.

So in summary, C4 has its place in the game. By all means it should be here. But what I'm asking from you "Infantryside" guys... Hear out the tankers. The stuff is kind of ridiculous. Not everyone here is whining. Not every tanker here is blind to the fact that tanks can potentially exploit infantry. Personally, I think it's a lot harder now than it used to be. But C4; it needs to be less about fly bys, and throw and blow. Make it so the saboteur has to exploit a weakness. Or actually muster the cajones to run up and stick a magnetic charge physically to the tank's hull or turret. Stopping the enemy armored menace should be supported by the LAs packing C4. But it should be spearheaded by aircraft, tanks, MAXs, engineers, and HAs. Just because tanks can potentially wreck house on infantry, doesn't mean the devs should go out of the way to make the armor game less fun. Keep it challenging for the tankers. Make it so the tankers have to stay on guard, and on their wits. But honestly... I just don't think the "punishment" fits the "crime." Not seeing the Lone Ranger run up on you and drop a couple bricks of High Explosive shouldn't be a death sentence, but it should put you in a pretty bad way.

They only trump those classes capabilities in a very narrow set of circumstances. When a tank:

• Hasn't moved for a long time
• Is sitting close to the infantry battle beside some kind of high cover
• Doesn't have a secondary gunner
• Doesn't have prox radar
• Isn't surrounded by other infantry or vehicles

Well then LA might trump the AT capabilities of other classes. And for that it's AT capabilities are useless in every other situation. It can't hit moving targets. It can't hit anything more than 5m away. It can't hit aircraft. And it costs resources.

And that's why it's damage potential is justified, because it's only effective in those specific situations. The weapons you're comparing it to are effective almost everywhere. You want to avoid dying to C4? Move your tank. It's as simple as that. Move it proactively. Don't sit there spawn camping for minutes on end, or waiting for infantry to bring down a gate shield. As long as you're moving around you're 100% safe from C4, no other AV in the game can be countered so easily.

It is still revived and repairable, right? Then the resource cost is still insignificant.

You don't need to stare at the ceiling, you just need to glance up every once in awhile. If you died to a threat above you while focusing on a threat in front of you, welcome to being double teamed. Yes, I do exploit the incredible lack of SA in 95% of players to drop explosives and silent bullets on their heads. That's speed class tactics for dummies. Disruption and distracted targets.

That C4 sticks around for a whopping 30 seconds at the most. 7 seconds is more common, seeing that we now have quick deploy. Tank mines/AI mines are what you are thinking of in terms of post mortem persistence. I would be more worried about a random revive grenade getting up a group of guys in a room as opposed to some C4 that is about to disappear.

I have no problems seeing a MAX or an MBT. My problem is closing the 300m distance to get in range with my 10m weapon.

Yes, however one of these things costs 75 resources per brick and the other only costs 1000 certs. Aside from that, a Medic or HA can carry either of the two and can carry 2 C4 on top of regenerating health and resisting damage.

IMO the only problem with C4 vs tank is the fact that light-assault has it. The vast majority of the time you instadie to C4 it is because LAs drop in from very high above (even dropping from aircraft) and thus are essentially invisible to you until a second before detonation. When dropping in from the sky even motion sensors or proximity radar will typically not pick up a LA in time to give you any effective warning because they drop in so fast. Heck - you can even drop the C4 down from outside its range if you really wanted to in order to be effectively invisible and undetectable to your target.

It is a bit **** that no matter how carefully or well you play in a tank this is something you can't fight against. It is just a matter of time until it happens to even the best of the best. Every other threat you can mitigate at least to some extent, but not this.

You can't ask to just nerf the damage of the C4. If any other class manages to get into range to stick C4 on your tank thats on your head and it is preventable and more than hard enough to be a fair tradeoff. It is only the C4 on LA that makes this problematic. Of course if you made it so LAs couldn't instagib tanks like that there would be a massive ****storm from those players so...

For the record I play little in tanks or with LA, so I'm not biased either way, but I've been on both sides of this before and I recognize this as resulting in poor gameplay (most specifically the lack of counterplay without ditching the tank alltogether).

-Stigma

If you die to C4 dropped from high above, it's your own fault for staying still for too long. Hitting moving vehicles with C4 is not easy, and becomes exponentially harder the higher you drop it from.

This argument is bunk because it is not always possible to remain effective while moving.

The LA never loses effectiveness with mobility due to terrain features because of their jetpack.

You talk as if tanks are supposed to be in knife fights with enemy formations. That is suicidal.

that kind of the point I was making if you would read, a tank regardless of load out is still a major threat to infantry. while if infantry were to forgo C4 for something else (unless you are a heavy) you are pretty much useless and cant even dream of killing or damaging a tank bar a base turret.

I'd say over 90% of the kills I do with C4+drifter jets are on tanks that are sitting still out of laziness when they could very very easily move a bit between their shots, rotate a bit and move in a different direction next time etc. Like the movement pattern of an engineer repairing a tank, the movement pattern of a tank should be automatic or habitual, and difficult to predict. In almost all cases of snipers attacking repairing engineers, the engineer dies if he stays still and lives if he moves properly. In almost all cases of high altitude C4 attacks, the tank dies if it stays still and lives if it moves properly.

Yes, there will be a handful of situations where the terrain is such that the tank cannot move about freely, making it an easy target. But that's not an argument for C4 being imbalanced on LA, it's just an excuse. The tank crew is either stupid to get to such a situation, or takes a calculated risk. A decision or attack that involves having to slow down or stop for a long period of time is inherently risky, not just against C4 but against any anti tank attack.

I don't understand how any of what I've said even implies that tanks should be going CQC.

This isn't possible for most people outside of a Magrider unless you are engaging a large, stationary target.

How can you, a BR 100 tanker, think you need to stay still when attacking? Even I can move around quite easily while attacking other moving enemies, and I don't even have that much time in a tank. It's quite possible to move and fire at the same time when in a tank, even against infantry. That's certainly not easy to be effective with, but also not necessary... A sufficient counter to almost every drifter C4 attack is to stop and aim, fire, then immediately move again, and repeat. Anyone can do that.

People need to stop crying about AI tanks. That's what tanks are for. They provide armor to kill infantry. If tanks only killed other tanks why even have tanks in the game? AA tanks are to prevent AI tanks from killing infantry. The same with air units. Air units are designed to kill things on the ground... The whole point of it all.

On another note. If your tank is positioned where someone can c4 it then you are doing it wrong. Tanks do not belong in close proximity to buildings. They are extremely vulnerable there and that's how it should be. They also need to be aware when need terrain where the enemy is positioned above. In a real world scenario these are vital considerations. There is nothing wrong with the c4 mechanic as is. Nerfing this would make light assaults less likely to even try using c4. So all of these suggestions about using c4 in conjunction with other methods of AA are not realistic.

But, AT tanks are also effective against infantry. If AI tanks didn't exist, tanks would still kill infantry.

• To protect friendly Sunderers and Anti-Air from enemy armor
• To destroy enemy Sunderers and Anti-Air
• To counter light armor (Harasser, Flash) and prevent them from attacking friendly infantry (light armor would have AI weaponry)
• To counter MAX infantry units in open areas

While you're correct that being close to vertical obstacles makes tanks vulnerable to traditional C4 attacks, there aren't really any places where tanks are completely protected from Drifter Jets + C4. Competent MBT gunners should always keep an eye out in all directions, and competent MBT drivers should never stay still for too long.

That would depend on the target, range and situation. Attacking another ground vehicle on stable, flat terrain at any range provides no reason to remain stationary. To passively avoid drifters though, you would have to move more than 50 meters, and possibly more than 100 meters depending on their potential starting point. It's better to watch your minimap and look around to see them coming. The Vanguard also has the added advantage of the driver being able to spot the C4 on their hull in 3rd person and activate the shield to prevent an instant death.

In a lot of cases where precision accuracy is important (infantry or small target profiles) and it's not feasible for someone to use drifters, it's much more practical to commit the angle and position of your target area to memory immediately switch to third person between shots and scan around you quickly before the reload finished instead of moving, braking, and then make minor recalculations to adjust your firing angle for your new position which can lower your DPS or accuracy.

You can't begin calculating the angle difference in a Vanguard until after the 400-600ms braking period or the angle will not be correct. Of course you can estimate the where it would be with an experience-based guesstimate to save a sliver of processing time, but it still would need at least a check and possible minor adjustment before you fired the shell as the variable braking speed, slope angle and the effects it has on the barrel are not always constant.


Every person is different though. Some may have better processing speed than accuracy or both.

To a far lesser extent. If you can OHK infantry with a tank shell from your main gun then the infantry are exposed. Just because something is designed to be more effective at killing armor doesn't mean it should be useless at killing infantry. You are in a TANK. If you hit infantry with an AP round they should die. This just goes to support the fact that c4ing a tank takes some skill unless the tank has poor positioning.

So tanks should only attack other vehicles, completely ignoring infantry going after those same sunderers and AA? Sounds like a silly notion. I think you are misunderstanding the role of a tank. Tanks were conceived to provide ultimate superiority against infantry. Tanks effectiveness against other tanks and vehicles are a subsidiary role.