I still don't see how a sunderer that: -has no weapons -has more life only when deployed -would have slower repair time than usual -would die just as fast as a stock sundee when not deployed -(extra) increased no deploy zone so there wont be to many close to each other be a bad thing. I blowed up enough sunderers be it deploy shield, blockade, using tanks and a LA or just throwing mines under it if there's no shield with plenty of people next to it plenty of times. At first I thought it would be hard to get white camo by destroying deployed sundees and after doing it, mostly using drifter LA it wasn't hard at all. I am not asking for a nerf to anything, I don't find C4 that much of a threat when I play a tank myself, while it is the major threat you have once in a vehicle regardless, I just ask for a new gimick to a deployed sundee which I don't see as OP cause it can't do anything but prelong a fight a little longer when people get to the sundee in a larger number.
Shield Sundy. Or just pay attention. Happen? If it literally takes most of the allied defense to break the literal spawning zone of enemy, it just won't ever end for the defense whom needs the Sundy dead. If you plan to attack, you certainty need it dead, and before reinforcements appear. If they can't defend it, nor use a Shield Sundy - It deserved to die fast. Then you literally just want a Sunderer that if repaired-en-massee is immune to any quick destruction. Infantry would empower the hell out of it - Even if brain dead, all they need is to aim at the sunderer with a repair gun. If nothing can kill it quick, and it ain't a Shield Sundy - You can out-repair it unless it's a ******* MBT unloading into it without pause. Literally, you have a Sundy treading on the entire purpose of the Shield Sundy... Which unlike this, wouldn't be resistant to tank-fire - More health = more hits from everything. Which grants even more time for any defense to react. More time to react, easier to repair & defend, since the defense has nothing to worry about outside of repairs. Exactly the point - We have Shield Sunderers. They achieve the Goal, without being Tank-shell-absorbing spawn points. You want a Sundy that has enough health to live through any infantry assault by health alone. This means it can also withstand more weapons-fire from anything including Tanks. IE better than a Shield Sunderer in some respects, given the literal additional time before it dies. In a small fight, you either would never destroy the Sundy due to opponents paying attention to it preventing light tanks from destroying it. Or idiots leave it un-defended long enough that a Tank, or multiple allies can cluster around the literal spawn point of the enemy. If you can't enjoy a Shield Sundy, you won't enjoy a gimped version of it with more health that needs sheer bulk rather than tactics to destroy.
I just find it particularly frusterating that C4 is, what, 5 times more powerful than rocket launchers? You have to lead a slow-as-**** heavy drop rocket that any mobile armor can easily dodge, and then even if it hits, you need to hit them another 5 times, and that's with huge reload times and already giving away your position! And then along comes a LA who tosses a brick and instantly kills the thing.
Look at it as a flexible capture point that needs defending. If it reduces repair speed by 50% and increases no deploy zone near it by 100%. This would help big fights that I am sure everyone playing this game is looking for them the most. I honestly don't think it's that bad of a idea, maybe have some modifications to it, idk. PTS version for testing would be the first step to see how bad it could play out. Also if it's a hard spawn point that does just that, give the ability to spawn it sure would encourage some team effort to take it out in this scenario, some combined arms initiative after all.
Attacking isn't hard. Most of the game is slated towards the attackers. Multiple spawn options, often closer to the points, have vehicle superiority almost by default (which negates the possibility for the defenders to place multiple Sunderers), their attack can take as long as they like as long as the spawns are properly defended while the defenders are instantly times in minutes the moment the attackers take the points, points that are easy to defend (which is bad for the defenders because they don't win by defending the points but by pushing the attackers off the base). That's actually the entire reason zergs form in the first place: When defending you are constantly the underdog. And as much as people root for them, there's more people who want to be on the side of the sure thing. So when the attackers win an even fight, the defenders start to leave for another area and suddenly it's a Zerg. This only stops on the bases that are easier to defend, IE large facilities and some specific bases. And also yes, making Sunderers resistant is how you make it too hard to properly push attackers off in small fights. While the small fights will last longer on average, it's only because the defenders stop being able to properly push the attackers off. In the meantime the attackers still have the same time and effort required to push off the defenders, if not less because they need less effort to defend their spawns.
Or just use a ******* shield sunderer rather than a clone of it, minus regeneration, that needs a **** load of alterations just to not be superior or problematic. Big fights, where Engineers are plenty. Big fights, where the durability will seem little, and defenses be numerous. If it could withstand everything but a dedicated tank, that's less things to defend - granting even more power to an oblivious attacking force who can't be arsed to defend the spawn point with even an Spitfire..
Yes, that is true. But current infantry AV remains weak except in very specific conditions. Most of them have shorter effective ranges than the tanks and none deal enough damage, even with two guys focus-firing, to really kill an attentive vehicle user. This gives far too much power to the vehicle users who needed to save up a bit of resources, only to use a vehicle that on average survives long enough that you need only 1 to 3 minutes extra to get the resources back. You could argue "but how much power difference is up to the players". But overall most players don't (seem to) enjoy the infantry side of the infantry vs tank engagement. And I can't fault them. PS2, like most FPS games, is about the power fantasy. You want to see results. And most infantry AV engagements end with the vehicle hiding outside of effective range and being back to murder you within minutes, making the AV feel ineffective.
I think a little bit of each? Something like 15% more damage for rocket launchers and 15% less for C4. Just a thought.
Do you not know of the Flank Armor on PTS? 15% less damage likely is enough to make the near suicide it takes for C-4 near pointless. Rockets are also altered on PTS.
Like all developers, the canned avoidance response. There's a difference between appreciation and balance, you've already chosen your stance with it. There wasn't even a need for you to post with this kind of deflection. Your combination of C4 fairies with this ridiculous tool has gotten out of control wtih dropping it from the ceiling in the sky down to a specific mark. There's no way those physics should be in game. If you played it, you would see tanks blowing up out of nowhere with nothing and no one around it.
Deploying c4 offensively is high risk because that means the person using it has to get withing grabbing reach of its target and still be able to detonate it unlike tankmines (or AI mines against infantry unless anticipated around a corner or choke) .. and seriously any undefended sundy deserves to go down no matter how ... then there is the fact that only nonmax/noninfil infantry is capable of dropping c4 so generaly if you anticipate that have a basilisk, kobalt or in case of LA a walker ready .. and unless in number it isn't difficult to negate a c4 delivery and to my knowledge the only two exceptions that may have trouble even though not realy would be the flash (which still can avoid it with its speed) and the lighting (both default gun and skyguard are still good enough to kill infantry from medium range).. if you have proxiradar it should be even less of an issue .. so realy in this case it is a matter of being aware of your suroundings ..
It can't be detonated immidiately .. after tossing it there is like a 2 to 3 second gap were you can't do anything and if you are in the middle of an enemy horde were you frantically try to lush the button it's more likely to get shot than to get the c4 off ..
This is a realism argument, and the game isn't meant to realistic, so let's get this out of the way and focus on the salient point: C4 is toxic to gameplay and inconsistent with the game's lethality model. So, I agree, I hate C4. I detest it, and think it's one of the most poorly designed objects in the game next to heavies and liberators. Nothing else in the game has such lethality. AV grenades don't. Launchers don't. Not even tank cannons do. Sunderers are so tanky it's absurd and C4 is the precise reason. C4 is why deployment shield and blockade armor are the only viable options on spawn sunderers, and the necessary increased tankiness is why sundy trains are allowed to happen (which is frankly not fun to me, playing in or against, though this also has to do with rep sundy spam. Really sundies are also poorly designed in general.) But C4 is available to everyone and there's not really any counterplay except "drive away", which is still a powerful area denial tool. Proximity and tank mines need to be planted ahead of time with regards to incoming enemy approach. C4? Just toss it like a super grenade, take out a room of dudes. I was looking forward to a C4 nerf/rework come the patch. I even posted on reddit about how it could be replaced by 'satchel charges' that set off on a timer and do less damage; heavy AV grenades that do more damage. You know, something that makes far more sense and actually requires skill to use. Reworking C4 to act more like a slow-to-plant bomb and adding satchel charges, plus giving AV grenades (perhaps of varying kinds) to more classes would make the game a lot more fun to play, but of course, change is scary, and people don't read posts, so that reddit thread is buried.
I've never used C4 at all (I'm primarily an inf), but I'd humbly suggest we let this issue go. It's annoying, yes, but the tactical freedom in PS2 is what makes it great. Personally, I'm annoyed (and a little amused) by the guys who fly valks and then drop C4/Mines in bulk. It's just an effective tactic, and the interesting challenge is to figure out how to deal with it.
C4 is fun. Its powerful and it's available to everyone but cloakers and MAX's. Yes dying to C4 is frustrating. Yes it's awesomely powerful and can kill almost anything with 2 bricks. Yes the deployed sunderer vs c4 meta is kind of in a bad place and could be changed a bit in favor of the sunderer without breaking the game...I digress. C4 BRINGS ME JOY TO USE! Whenever I start getting annoyed by dying to it, I run around and blow **** up with it and I get all happy inside. C4 is the only thing IN THE GAME that infantry can use to instantly kill things that otherwise kill infantry with the utmost impunity. Removing or changing C4 is a direct nerf to the fun or joy of playing infantry with powerful killing machines like MBT's and AI MAXs around. Please don't nerf or change C4. There will always be things that are annoying when used against you it's the nature of "losing" to another player in any PvP environment. The MBT 1 shotting infantry has joy, the player getting the main cannon in the face gets frustrated. Maybe we should remove the MBT? Oh we can! We have C4! Changing or nerfing C4 will make the game less fun. The same way removing or nerfing a MBT's main cannon would remove fun from the game. Leave it alone.
Know what else is an effective tactic? Using A2G to swarm infantry! OP you say? Nah just effective. But it's been getting nerfed anyhow, because unlike infantry ******** on vehicles, vehicles ******** on infantry is "bad for all aspects of the game ever". Plus tactical freedom you say, so it's also perfectly acceptable to also have an entire faction redeploy on a losing howling *** fight pull maxes and nuke everyone instantly because that's simply a tactic you can use, overpop. Look, I get combining units is fun, maxes and galaxies are a great movement combo, skyguard and tanks also great, but something you don't even know is in the area because it's spawn is literally out of render and gives no sound indication and no visual indicator beyond realizing the first brick is stuck to you is not fun or interesting at all, it's simply ********. Again, you can play around vehicles and air as infantry or even as a tank I can still react to stuff, there are tactival options you can use to counter said units with your own, you can counterplay literally anything except a render range etc etc, just give me a C4 guard option on my tank and I'll be mellow, but infantry don't know how to do anything except drop a ******** brick, at least with "flank" armor I can't counterplay their dumbfires or maxes, so they can use either to kill a tank, it isn't hard, but people think it's OP when you counter their favorite method of killing tanks, but that's just ******* it, people are saying it's ******** that flak armor blocks 1 AP shell from a tank, a direct hit mind you and are the same people saying C4 shouldn't be countered. Am I missing something here or is that not the pinnacle of infantryside bias?
I assume by lethality you really mean, lethality vs vehicles. C4 is the only weapon to kill VEHICLES almost instantly. The amount of weapons that kill instantly or near instantly is pretty large if you remove VEHICLE from the qualifier. Which pretty much invalidates your entire argument about the "intended lethality of the game".
