MBT vs C4

If tankers have to manage their playstyle around resources then infantry should too right? balance.

I am not going to look it up but higby posted people shouldn't be able to pull vehicles every 5 mins, then you should NOT be a super soldier, you should use your resources to stock the C4 OR the rez gernade, why do you get to do everything and be effective?

Meta get used to it, your choices now matter in the long run. Hence c4 should be 150, if not 200 resources even.

before this gets into too much of a poop flinging contest

what are the real problems with C4 on MBTs?

1) C4 doesnt cost enough compared to a MBT?

if we look at the cost to kill vehicles with C4 at a resource level on paper.

Flash 100 resource takes 1 stick of C4 to destroy so C4 should cost 100 resources.
Harasser 300 resources takes 2 sticks of C4 to destroy so C4 should cost 150
Sunderer 400 resources takes 3 sticks of C4 to destroy so C4 should cost 133
Lightening 400 resources takes 2 sticks of C4 to destroy so C4 should cost 200
Prowler 450 resources takes 2 sticks of C4 to destroy so C4 should cost 225.
Maxes 300 resources takes 1 stick of C4 to destroy so C4 should cost 300

Looking at the stats of most people who C4, most people have one stick fail on an attempt either a mis places C4 or killed before detonating.

Flash 100 resource takes 2 stick of C4 to destroy so C4 should cost 50 resources.
Harasser 300 resources takes 3 sticks of C4 to destroy so C4 should cost 100
Sunderer 400 resources takes 4 sticks of C4 to destroy so C4 should cost 100
Lightening 400 resources takes 3 sticks of C4 to destroy so C4 should cost 133
Prowler 450 resources takes 3 sticks of C4 to destroy so C4 should cost 150.

if we look at what those resources can offer us in game.

450 resources of tank gives us,
firepower
Un-limited resource destroying ability.
Mobililty for two people.
Invulnerability to small arms fire for two people.
Staying Power

200 resources of C4 gives us,
600 resource destroying ability if two maxs.
on average a C4 user can get 1-4 infantry kills per C4.
C4 has no respawn timer

A MBT as an asset in game offers us a lot more than two sticks of C4.

2) C4 shouldn't insta kill a MBT?

This is something myself and my outfit have discussed to a great deal.

If C4 were to be tweaked that two C4 puts MBT to critical damge, then you will find that LAs will work in pair as they do currently for sunderer hunting and place 3 sticks and insta kill. Or C4 users will target MBT that are being engaged that are slightly weakened to insta kill it.

Most tanker would be happy with this situation as it involves team work and be outplayed to be destroyed outright.

However tanks will still be solo killed by HA and Engs who plant C4 and then fire a AV rocket to detonate the C4 which is currently being done to solo kill sunderers.

3) MBT have no defence to C4?

Loadouts of vehicles are very rock, paper, scissors.

AI secondary means weaker to vehicles and air.
AV secondary means weaker to Inf and Air.
AA secondary means weaker to inf and vehicles.

However each faction has an AI secondary which is effective against inf.

One of the best counters for C4 is team work, another tank or inf can cover friendly tanks from inf attacks.

It takes around 6 seconds to deploy and detonate 2 c4 which is alot longer than most inf weapons TTK.

Movement: LA have limited jet pack use, so if a tank stays mobile to keep the LA to have to adjust flight path the LA will drop to the floor becoming very vulnerable.

However if the tank is in cover from a hostile tank and the LA flies over your cover to C4 thats teamwork in action.

Positioning: LA will go for easy targets so tank on the flanks or tail or isolated be attacked. Or they will go for target that are positioned where the LA approach is most concealed. A number of tanks have been avoid by a C4 attack due to how it was positioned generating too large a risk for LA C4 attack.

However a tank will position to give itself the most cover from what it believes to be the biggest threat. which in turn will make it vulnerable to other forms of attack.

In closing adjusting resources of C4 to match a MBT so 225 will in turn make it inbalanced against killing sunderers meaning 675 resources to kill 400 of sunderer. Re-adjusting C4 isnt the way forward.

The resource cost of a MAX is insane, personally I think is should be 200-250.

As i mentioned best defence against for C4 is teamwork, therefore teamwork should have to be employed by LA to insta kill a MBT so tweaking C4 damage to make it critical after two sticks will involve team on LA side, or two sticks of C4 and 2 HE under slungs, meaning a long TTK for a solo LA. As planetside is intended to be a game that promotes teamwork.

I'm okay with this. HOWEVER:

What happens next? What will your reaction be to "I spent all these cert points only to get C4'd by some Light Assault that waited until I retreated to repair, and he blew up my tank when it was at half health! Blowing up tanks with C4 is too easy and something should be done about it!" I feel like the goalposts will move. Maybe not for you, but some people will simply shift the argument to "LA just waits in a tree until I'm down to 75% while fighting another tank, then I get OHK'd! Nerf C4! It's still too easy!"

What will you say then? Will you agree with them and want more, or accept that death is possible no matter how much you pay in resources for something? I actually like that every aspect of the game carries considerable risk, and that death is possible at all times. I think if people could hone their skill to gain a 100% chance of survival the game would be ruined. The fact that death remains a possibility at all times makes it exciting.

Lastly, now we have to have some give and take. If you get certs preventing OHK for your tank, I should be able to buy armor for my ESF that prevents OHK's from tank shells for 1500 certs.

I would not complain about being killed by a single LA at half health. AP Lightnings can do similar things if they catch you repairing. If you have to repair your tank you absolutely must do it in a safe area, that is like tanker 101. I'd be perfectly fine if 2 C4 did 50% health to MBT with Max composite (That's 5000 certs worth of investment ), normally when I get killed by a LA I'm on full health anyways.

ESF's are still cheap so making you immune to tank shells would be insane lol

Haha I know. I was joking. I actually like the chance of being one shotted out of the air because it keeps me from being lazy. I usually come in close to full speed and if I get picked off, well we both got what we deserved.

Sorry but your line of thinking is flawed to compare cert cost. MBT can and are pulled without spending a single cert. That MBT, without spending a single cert, is able to kill infantry fine. The secondary gunner spot is given a weapon that is fantastic at killing infantry. MBT's can kill by spending ZERO certs. Nobody can dispute that.

C4 HAS to have certs spent. It is 100% required since NOBODY starts with it.

Let me try what you did with SOME of my Light Assault:
Drifter Jets 50, 100, 150, 200, 500
Jump Jets 10, 50, 100, 150, 500
Nanoweave 1, 10, 50, 150, 1000
Flash Grenade 200
C4 200, 500
Serpent VE-920 Carbine 1000
Soft point Ammo 100
Supressor 100
HS/NV Scope 30
Laser sight 100
Advanced Laser Sight 100
NS44 Commissioner 1000
Laser Sight 100
Total: 6451 Certs
Your Total: 6904

Difference is about 6%. Which is all honesty is pretty small.

Now the really funny thing is, I've spent a whole ton more certs than what I listed on there for Light Assault. This doesn't even count the 6200 certs I've spent on other loadouts for my Light Assault character including other weapons and armor types. Have you spent over 12000 certs for your tank? From what you said above, the answer is a resounding NO.

What it boils down to, your argument is invalid because:
a) You can kill tanks using the base model without any certs spent what so ever on it
b) It is impossible for a C4 user to kill a tank without spending 700 certs on it

Then why the hell are you complaining about C4, which DOES have a cost and not about HA's and AV turrets which don't? Seems your priorities are REALLY MESSED UP!

Whatever, it works. Last week I got my LA with two bricks of C4, jetpacked over a large obstruction, walked up directly behind a MAX, boom goes the first block, he never saw me. I retreat even further behind enemy lines and C4 a lightning and destroy it, then I shot random dudes who were hanging back. Good times.

C4 is ONE person, HA/AV need multiple ppl, well unless you are a moron and take damage and stand still.

And by the way, you suck.

"The LA need to go to the tank and can be killed in this time."!?!

Really?

Let me present you the squad item called Beacon.

You need a team to use it, yeah i know it's hard to play with other ppl, but you can jump 200 meter + and drop right on top of the tank, every 45 secs.

C4 needs a damage nerf to vehicles, read MBT and light. So it can still being used in multiple tasks(max, room clearing, kill turret, etc) but it's not a easy way to kill tanks.

I don't think that every single class in the game, aside from infilt, should have a easy way to kill tanks.

C4 is Fine as it is IMHO

OK people are throwing ideas around but nobody really seems to be listening.
C4 users have pointed out over a dozen things that MBT users can do to counter their C4 play.
MBT users have points out real life (LOL) and other balance issues.

Lets maybe say for once, "The current state is imbalanced." Now before you do anything else, you must watch this video:


Quote me something from that, then lets discuss this all again. Is it not possible that the devs have given everyone the tools to cope with this situation for MBT's? Things like radar, constant movement, a secondary gunner who watches for C4 users, and so forth are available. Isn't it possible that C4 users also have the tools to cope with MBTs?

The game should not be 100% balanced. Think of rock-paper-scissors. There are three possibilities on purpose allowing for a cyclical style of game play. One trumps another which trumps another which trumps the first. Is there not the slightest possibility that the game (PS2) should be designed in such a way so that this happens? Why do MBT users, which are able to get dozens of kills per MBT, feel that the resource costs should be so vastly different from effectiveness costs? That's really what we are arguing here.

Is it unequal? Yes! Should it be? YES! Does that make for greater game play, forcing users to think new strategies and new methodologies? YES. Is this good? RESOUNDING YES. It keeps the game interesting for a longer period of time for a greater number of people.

Can MBT users actually argue against that? Lets see....

Argue against a long winded video about how "perfect imbalance" is good for the game when in reality all it does is restrict an entire arm of a "combined arms" to act as glorified artillery?

Are you joking?

What strategy does C4 grant? (Staying 200m from any fight) What Meta game does it add? (Face rushing repeatedly). In reality all it does is restrict.

By your very same sad example having armor as largely immune to C4 would also be an example of "perfect imbalance" since infantry would have to design interesting strategies around countering armor....


But I'm sure you wouldn't like that...

No the point is that resource costs were increased for vehicles, that makes vehicles less abundent. If armor is less abundent then counters to armor need to be less abundent. Its a very simple argument. A few people braught up the point that increasing it to 3 c4 to instagib a tank, and have 2 c4 do like 90% damage might be a good enough. Regardless the point is that you cannot raise the cost of half the equation and call it balanced. Less tanks, but same amount of AV and all you have is tank zergs getting wiped out and staying wiped out. If they are going to be rare this whole glass cannon **** needs to go.

Unless people seem to think that before the resource increase armor was too effective? I would love to hear that argument.

If you see my posts you will see that i was one of who gave the idea to make resources costs higher. But SOE got the idea and ignored all the problems that i've predicted.

2 that i think that right now have more the impact in the game.

1: Easy use and way too powerful C4.
2: Beacon rendering in a distance of 100 meters. what allows ppl to "skip" the front of the battle and C4 the tanks/vehicles immediately.

You can say that is "possible" to defend from C4 right now. and yes, it's possible to defend. But the C4 user only need to succeed once, and the tank need to succeed every single time.
And that is: IF is only you vs him.
What in most of the times isn't true. In most of the cases is 40 players x 40 players, and who do you believe ppl will focus more. A lonely infantry guy or at a tank, that renders at 2~3 times the distance?

See the problem of C4 instagibing Tanks?

I love treads like this. Amazing...

Indeed. Watching as one half of the armor / AV equation is changed drastically and all the infantry kiddies come rushing out of the woodwork to defend the new gameplay as completely balanced is quite the display.

Sort of depressing as well really since these people aren't interested in balance.

whats the arguement again?

OMG you obviously didn't watch that video. Please don't reply to my posts unless you actually take the time to think and go through what I post. It is a waste of all our time if you don't. People who call for "perfect balance" obviously don't have a single clue how game mechanics work.

Let's say we call for counterplay, not for perfect balance.

As long as tanks have the advantage in the open (and the counter to tanks are other tanks and airplanes, while infantry are more of a deterrent in most cases), but fail up close when the enemy can get above or behind, we're fine with it.
That's why tanks are more damage resistant frontally, why AP rounds have less of a penalty when hitting hard targets, and why tanks have less damage resistance from the sides, top and much less from the rear.

It's the lack of counterplay when C4 goes boom that is the issue (and when tanks were cheap we just embraced the suck got a new one, which is why this topic wasn't brought up till now).