[Suggestion] Choose: C4 or Rocklet. Bad design as is.

Giving the LAs an extra tool was exactly what they needed to make them a more interesting and enjoyable class to play. Any sunder worth a damn will have shields, people to defend it, engineers to repair it, or good positioning to prevent c4 fairies from easily flying to it. If your sunder is getting destroyed right after deploying, it's honestly just you having a bad sunder or putting it in a bad place, or just having bad situational awareness for your deployment.

Hi Cedd. I am a rare player type who, when he pulls a sundy, always guards it. I deploy (usually armored sundy for C4), I place 3 claymores (TR), 5 mines and a Spitfire. Then I either man a gun or take up a nearby spot to watch and guard.

I don't bother with ANY of that anymore. Despite all that, an LA kills the Sundy in seconds. As more players gravitate to LA as a result of the power boost, that will just get worse.

The punishment for defending a sundy (wait around with nothing to do) was already bad as opposed to getting in the fight. Now it's stupid to guard one.

I appreciate the addition to LA, they did need something. But the adverse impact on gameplay is going to get worse.

Deployed sunderers make for a fight. Now we have a Planetside with speed continent locks and even speedier destruction of supposedly robust sunderers.

Just give everyone continent ranged sniper rifles with head-seeking bullets and make the game about how fast players can left click.

I think having some defensive tools up and a Spitfire is a great idea, but you need to think wider in terms of accomplishing objectives. Taking a base from 1 sunder against an equal pop ? probably not going to happen. Taking a base with 4 sunders, two tanks and some spawn beacons ? Then you have solidified your attacking methodology to capture the base. Using all these defensive tools for your spawn is not needed when you have more attacking and spawning options, communication and teamwork with other players. Perhaps you are taking advantage of these options and still your sunder is dying, but from my experience, having a better pre-planned attacking strategy is better than an After I Deploy strategy to keep your spawn points.

I've killed a few shielded or armored sundies with the new C4+Rocklet cheese. And yes, more sundies deployed is best, but I believe, strongly, that it is only a matter of time before more and more players opt for the quick LA kill of sundies, one by one, no matter how many are deployed.

90% of players just expect sundies to be there. Very few guard them, very few check if they need repairs, very few replace ones that are LA cheesed.

So I am suggesting the game design change, because that is more certain than changing human nature.

The C4+Rocklet cheese is bad, and bad cheese just gets worse when left out.

I think you have little grasp of tactics although I grant you that some snipers do not play tactically. I have helped to break up assaults (with other snipers) before enemy could get into the the base buildings for CQC. I've also removed support weapon covering fire by sniping mana turrets. And I've gotten up behind defensive lines and forced them to retreat or be shot in the back. I've no idea how much my recon darts have helped a tactical situation by revealing enemy positions to my allies, but that is only because no one ever tells me. I'm guessing (from the number of times I get motion spotter xp it is a fair bit of help)

You could kill a shielded sundy with C4 and an explosive bolt or a UBGL before the RR came along. Nothing new there.

Using a weapon for its intended purpose is not cheesy. Sniping lone infantry with a Decimator or an AV mana turret...........now that's cheesy. And taking out enemy spawn points is not cheese either - it's tactics, doesn't matter how you do it.

It does matter how you do it, to a certain extent, since that establishes the conditions by which users play the game and how they interact with each other in the game.

You can't get into an argument arbitrarily assigning levels of "cheese" to specific things, especially when outside of context, and then turn around to blanket all methods of task execution for something else specific beyond rating in terms of "cheese."

Remember the days when gamers took what they had and figured out what to do? When ownership of one's game experience was more important than the amount of tears a person could produce?

I do.

Well, I don't disagree with most counter-points here. Most are well made. But here's the reality at least for me: I was that guy who always pulled and defended a sunderer--in both defense and attack mode. This help create and sustain fights.

I no longer do that. I rarely pull a sundy, and if I do, I just pull it, park it, and ignore it. And I do that rarely. Not worth it.

The change for me was the addition of rocklets. What can I say?

The point about bolts above---well...a player has to make a CHOICE to use a crossbow. The player sacrifices a slot for that ability. Rocklets are not a choice. They are included. And please...AA rocklets...c'mon guys

Like the original ZOE Max?

Like the original Harrassers that killed everything with impunity and repairs to them were 100% from the rumble seat?

Like the original Striker that cleared the skies and fields of NC and VS vehicles with no risk to TR?

Like the original Hellfires/Breakers/VS version discos?

Like the PPA and Banshee nose guns that annihilated anything remotely near the cursor with impunity?

You do?

Really?

You do?

Dude, that's why I said "top 25%".
Yes, there are plenty of very good snipers who do a good job on this game, as it is rather large and has been active for quite a while.
However, the vast majority of snipers are not like that. That is the problem. Snipers are a high skill class that doesn't contribute until you have acquired the necessary skills.
This is different to, say, a low skilled medic or heavy. Those classes always contribute, even if it's just a single bullet worth of damage or two revives before they die themselves.

But even at a high skill, there is a very low cap on snipers. If you got two or three decent snipers, you are golden. When it becomes more than that, you start losing the ground battle because there's no more feet for the meatgrinder.

Not really understanding the point - the only way you can kill a heavy vehicle is with anti vehicle weapons. Cheesiness doesn't really have an accepted definition AFAIK so I default to "massive overkill" or "not intended for the purpose" as rough working definitions. Using an AV weapon against a vehicle doesn't seem to fit either of those.

In this game, the only absolute specifics about when something is most definitely "not intended for the purpose" is whether or not it can damage a target. ("Overkill" has a completely subjective meaning, from player to player different.) That still doesn't mean the subject has to be "as good as it may be" at what it does. That's the argument this thread is having and to just say "as long as the job gets done" is to devalue the concept of the experience.

"You got hit with an AV turret, softie? Tough, that AV turret got a hitmarker off of you. Go directly to spawn; do not pass 'Go'."

Or we can turn the topic back to C-4 damage modifiers. Those threads are the quintessence of trying to figure out what "overkill" is, and what something's "intended purpose" is, and "how good" something can be allowed to be against its acceptable targets.

This is a big problem. It reduces the role and frequency of Infantry Attacking Bases in the game. Which is to say the non-Zerg, formal objective gameplay for the average player.

Deployed Sunderers remain the heart of Infantry attacking. And they have become progressively more fragile and unreliable for, and progressively less used by, the average player. Most notably in non-Zerg fights.

This problem becomes even more of an issue with the added problem of alternate Formal Objective completion by Player Made Bases that deter player interaction.

And what we end up with is a push toward:
1) average players farming more instead of pursuing formal objectives
2) average players zerging harder to achieve formal objectives
3) hardcore organized players doing their own version of zerging (smaller sized than normal zergs, but overpowered strike groups that ovewhelm skeleton crews of underpowered defenders)
4) a small % of players using Player Made Bases to achieve formal objectives

I too struggle much to protect the Deployed Sunderers I Deploy. And I notice much fewer people bothering to spawn and Deploy them (before fights as beachheads or during non-zerg fights). Though I saw this reduction well before this LA buff.

To be fair, the LA buff is just the latest "very effective" Deployed Sundy Killer, reducing the survivability of Deployed Sunderers across more placement setups, and I would not single the LA buff as "the" problem: the problem is ALL the current very effective Deployed Sundy Killers stacked together, now making for such a comprehensive and effective Deployed Sundy killing force.

This suggestion is basically "zerg harder". Overwhelm with greater overkill. Which moves gameplay away from both balanced fights and from smaller fights.

I agree that this should be handled at a Game Design level. Some options are:
1) buff Deployed Sundy survivability (or Cert/Loadout options which do so)
2) buff Deployable perimeter defense for Deployed Sundys
2) nerf Deployed Sundy Killer lethality
3) break the Sundy monopoly on Infantry Spawn Point. Giving it to other units, or other methods (in addition to Squad Beacons) like other beacon types, or other methods like Player Made Base upgrades
4) improve Instant Action again so that players can use it again to get to or stay in fights

These are general options, which each could be explored within a very wide range of intensities and variations. Also, I am sure other player could add other options to consider.

Though I will say as I have said before, I do not look for a Design solution because I have very low faith on the aptitude, awareness, ability to listen to and learn from others, and vision of the Design team.

I can appreciate this sentiment, and agree with it across many/most situations. Though:
1) in some types of situations, Sniping is definitely a huge asset
2) F2P starting Infiltrators have little option but to snipe (that is their default Main Weapon), and I won't fault such players for getting experience/fun with their unit that happens to be a poor fit for a battle. Instead, I blame PS2 Designers for not giving them better starting Main Weapon options in order to engage more productively in more types of fights.

Back in time sundis did not create no deploy zones. People used to bring them in masses, it was considered OP and nerfed. Why not bring this back?

Let's see, a C4 package that can actually kill something, or a Rocklet Rifle who's power is way overestimated and is only really useful in combination with C4 or a few edge-cases...

Nope, not going to happen. That's not a choice, that's just screwing over the LA when it finally gets a weapon selection that every other class has had since PS2 launched.

Close thread already.