Nerfing Mines and C4 only Rewards bad players.

I don't think you should ignore the fact that decreased spawn kill exp. now effectively makes farming sunderers for kills with an MBT almost worthless compared to an instant 500 exp gain. I don't see how players suddenly get "smarter," while there are still areas from which MBTs can "snipe" sunderers, sometimes from cover. You're also assuming the sunderer turrets will be constantly manned to dish out enough dps against the MBT. Sure, there are sometimes "undefended" sunderers, but how does that justify punishing the drivers by allowing something as powerful as C4/AT mines to instantly take them out, while a much more noticeable HA or a MBT supposedly dedicated for the AV role would take much longer to do so?
While sometimes sunderers offer a shorter respawn time, I've already pointed out previously that requiring a player to travel from spawn to battlefield, which although means that players have been alive longer, does not mean that those players will be able to kill on the spot for higher kps and scorepm. The respawn time becomes negligible in determining kps, especially if you're assuming that players are constantly dying every minute or so. And most fights are almost always guaranteed to be concentrated in a biolab at least several times a day. Show me statistics to prove your claim that sunderer forces gain higher spm and I'll say I'm wrong.

That aside, instant experience gain by killing a sunderer was not my main and only point. You still haven't answered my question: why do you think something so important for an offense or defense should be destroyed almost instantly by an engineer or a LA?

^^no comment on this one.

And now to something completely different:
The frightening part for me is mainly the 'arguments' used by minehaters, haven't really seen a good one so far.
'..but in RL...' - it's a game.
'...neds no skill...' - a tiny bit more than deploying spawnderer in a bad place and leave it unguarded.
'.. why should a single engineer..' - why should a single vehicledriver ?
and so on.
The propsed 'solutions' are even more lunatic.
'..area denial..' - '...minefield which doesn't kill, but slows down..' - welcome to repairside 2
and some alterations of that.
The best i've seen so far was something like: '..those suicide engineers just run skilless... ... place tactical minefields, for example at vehicle ramps..' well.... if that's considered skillful, tactical playing, noone can help you anyway.

Actually we will see the exact same persons whining about unstoppable sundys soon.

Welcome to Sundyside 2 when all the nerfs go live.

I agree with the frisbee mine and spawn c4 kill nerf, it rewarded suicidal gameplay and cheese tactics. Now I just wish they'd buff 2x c4 placement speed, it sometimes feels like a million clicks of the mouse from the first c4 toss to the second one (yeah I'm one of those impatient idiots who spam an elevator button hoping it arrives faster), while im sweating bullets no one spots me before I can push the boom button

I wasn't aware that only C4 or mines could kill a sundie. If a sundie is in a bad spot, it will still die to HA or tanks, or carefully placed C4. Gone is the time when an ENG should sprint though defenders, toss some mines, and kill a sundie.

You know the change has now converted C4 into nothing more BUT a Suicide bomb... right?

Before hand, i would risk running away and trying to get out of the blast radius.
Now, i don't take that risk. I pop 2 c4 and just Detonate it while standing on it because if i walk away i'll get killed and it will despawn.

I can no longer set C4 traps.
I can no longer set Explosive bundles (Mine + C4 brick).
I can no longer use C4 in any method defensively.

I don't have to think about C4 placement, its area of effect, and where i can hide it any more.

It is a balancing factor to compensate for the undeniable power and influence an AMS Sunderer has on the game.

I've said it before, One AMS sunderer can be the Linchpin in the shift of entire continent wide conflicts. A Single Sunderer not getting destroyed at an amp station or stronghold can stall an entire zerg, stopping in its tracks... It can make a key territory impossible to defend and insure it falls into enemy hands.

It is a force multiplier to the grade of 2 to 3.

Such a powerful asset needs equally powerful counters.

Cute how you left out the rest of my quote about engineers and LAs being far more effective at AV than MBTs and HAs.
As for "single engineer," an engineer is primarily meant to be a support class. Engineers even have the AV turret, which is far stronger, sustainable, and more viable—especially long-range—as an AV compared to HA's rocket launchers.
A "single vehicle driver" pays 360 to 400 in resources to spawn their sunderer and drive & deploy it as a support to allow his team to spawn. A single engineer or LA is disposable, and killing a deployed sunderer by simply running up to it and placing mines/C4 is much more potentially rewarding compared to the driver with his deployed sunderer out there....waiting?
"Needs no skill," why do you "need skill" to act as a support for your team? Isn't "skill" usually for soldiers actually aiming at stuff? Your argument is essentially "skill should counter equivalent skill" except that it COMPLETELY does not work for this situation, this mess.
If you think the proposed solutions are so terrible, why don't you add some of your own? Are things "perfect" the way they are, in your eyes? Are solo support/light assault soldiers supposed to be far more effective as AV than actual AV roles?

i actually just used that little snippet you wrote and left it uncommented, it speaks for itself.

The rest of my post wasn't referring to your post, was just showing some examples people wrote to underline their demand for minenerfs.

How unfair the engie doesn't need to spend anything at all.
I wonder why that 'single vehicle driver' isn't disposable compared to the engineer.
It's just that people use that 'single person' argument to vote against mines, but fail to see that it is the same on the drivers end.

You probably didn't read my post correctly, all that stuff in italic letters are examples of peoples arguments against mines.
So i actually weren't argumenting at all about skills and no skills, again, it were just examples or 'arguments' your fraction likes to use often.
Running for a sunderer with your mines in your hands have a really high failure rate as long there's competent people around.
Engineers are also the demolition experts in this game.
LA's go more the guerilla way.
In this context it was pretty well shaped.
I don't really have any idea how mines and/or C4 should be altered to please the mindless crowds, and i actually don't really care what comes out in the end, i rarely ever suicided mined a sundy and have maybe at last 1-200 mineskills with *drumroll* mines laid before any vehicle arrived.
I will adapt.
Will you ?

Do actual AV role classes have to get point blank to a vehicle in order to be AV?
it is a Risk:Reward ratio balance.

People that are calling for changes to be made for the sake of realism are morons using a selective slice of reality as an argument to get changed what they want. In the process everything else related to the topic, even other "Real" examples or counter points are ignored.

Mines can be magnetically triggered if a certain mass of metal gets close enough or over it. Sliding these mines under a tank does work and many devices that are triggered by sensors have a grace period after they are armed for the safety of the user. Proximity Mines are a good example of this.

Saying that mines aren't offensive tools in the real world is a joke. Any degree of explosives have been adapted to be used as offensive means against armor since WW2 and even though modern conventions have forbidden the use of typical mines in the battlefields of today mine technology has continued to advance. There is currently a AV-mine system developed by the USA that is computer controlled, able to read a large area, identify friendlies or enemies by vehicle profile as well as IFF and if a valid target is identified it is capable of launching an explosive charge that will home in on the vehicle, all through automation and without needing input by anyone flesh and blood. It has multiple charges and can be activated or deactivated by a wireless command.

But all of these real world examples have no bearing on the game as the game isn't bound by the constraints of real life.

How do mines currently work in the game? You can just toss them onto a deployed vehicle, even from above and likely get a kill with two of them. Is this a problem? In a way.

Currently the only certed defense against this is Mine-Guard, but is Mine-Guard an always on for Sundies? Not by a long shot, despite what the forum criers will say. Mine-Guard competes with Vehicle Ammo Resupply and Blockade Armor upgrades for the Sundy, two upgrades that you do want to see in a combined arms assault. Vehicle Ammo Resupply keeps your own armor effective in combat while Blockade Armor gives the durability to take the hits expected when crashing a point. Mineguard is still desired on a Sundy, often for the front vehicles and ideally ones that will set themselves up to not be under direct fire or those brought up after the start of the conflict and are moving the front lines forward.

For Tanks it's a different story, I do not see Directional Armor to be able to currently compete against Mine-Guard for Certed Defense.

But protection against mines extends beyond Mine-Guard, awareness and positioning is very important as a general rule. Far to many times I have 'abused' mines to take out vehicles that had placed themselves in poor positions and with poor awareness. Such as Sundies that place themselves under the tower or plant that they are assaulting, allowing a careful drop of explosives to take them out or others that park themselves with a clear avenue of attack that they aren't defending: Sundy parked up against a mountain that they couldn't scale from their side, yet the slope was lessened on our aside allowing for an assault up the middle while they focused all of their attention to the sides. This was a good sprint out in the open, down a hill and exposed to everyone at the Sundy and I still got to the nose without taking a shot.

How does this use differ from C4? C4 is something any class can cert into while Mines are an Engineer only thing. So in terms of design it is comparing the Personal Health Packs to the Medic's AoE Heal ability. The reason behind the C4 change was that a class that was allowed unusual movement, like the LA, could approach from angles that weren't defensible. Such as taking a flier over your head then dropping on you, adjusting the landing mid flight and planting C4 before he even rendered in some cases. Even if you managed to kill him before the C4 armed he would still get your tank once he respawned. Before the C4 change, mind you.

For an Engineer to do anything close to that they have to drop out of a Galaxy with pinpoint accuracy onto you. This is a level of accuracy that would allow you drop troops onto other aircraft mid flight to give you a scope.

Even so, just changing the trigger for the Tank Mines to needing a vehicle to move over them will not change them from being used in the current manner they are. It will just have players adapting and throwing in Sticky Grenades into the mix, the complaints of players will not cease, poorly placed vehicles will still get Mine Rushed by engineers and it will still be effective.

Still, in their current form Tank Mines step on the toes of C4, being both far more effective at tank killing, easier to use, more reliable and cheaper. The issue isn't that an Engineer can slide a few Tank Mines under a parked vehicle and blow it up, the problem is that this is intuitively a job for C4 that Tank Mines vastly outstrip in all forms of effectiveness. If C4 did not exist in this game then this change would not have been warranted at all.

This overlap takes away the appeal of options that are available to classes and highlights a design problem that should be fixed. A line needs to be drawn to define C4 and Tank Mines further and give them both effective roles at them to excel with and be cost effective at. The real concern is that a reactionary change to Tank Mines will render them unable to be useful by their damage being lowered without changes to the mechanics behind them, number that could be carried or the cost.

Currently C4 is not cost effective in the slightest compared to the options of Anti-personal Mines, Tank Mines, or grenades. Truly attacking the root of the problem will involve a complete redesign of Tank Mines as well as an adjustment to the overall investment involved to use C4. This is why this is a change in the works and nothing something rushed out with this patch.

so the change is that if i see a un attended sunderer, sitting there and believe me i do see them. I go up to it and i drop two AT-mines on it as a engineer or 2 c4 on it, will it not explode?

Cause if people upgrade there sunderer AT-mins wont destroy it. its these stock sundies with the ams that are so easily blown up. Nothing should have been changed. The mechanics was already in place by upgrading the sunderer. Believe me its hard to do suicide runs when there is 15 people defending that sunderer. its not like it was a free-bee.

But Honestly even with my HA i have the decimator. I cant destroy a sunderer with my basic rounds with out running back to reload, and it suppose to do great damage against armor. Again I should eat up a basic sunderer. But one that is fully upraded should have the advantages.

as far as tanks and other armored vehicles. suicide runs on them are almost pointless with mines. you need a light assault to fly over them and drop them from above and detonate them. Tbh that is harder to do than said.

Try thinking out of the box. We have counters against the placing of C4, not against C4 itself. This problem is solved in real life, you know? Careful positioning, guarding, repars, minefields, etc.

Trhe following things work for me, but they require beind not stupid and not lazy:

1. Place a sunderer where it cannot be easily discovered.
2. Place a sunderer where it cannot be easily reached by a light assault. Like away from the walls, etc.
3. Equip a mineguard.
4. Place AP landmines where enemy soldiers have to walk to get to your sunderer.
5. Have 2 "Bulldogs" or "Bulldog" + "Cobalt" with NV or thermals manned by 2 engineers. Have enough space around your sunderer to shoot those guns.
6. Have an AA MAX there.
7. Have a radar Flash there.
8. Have your team be ready to respond.

Oh... too smart for CoD-kiddies? Requires too much organization and effort? Well, smart positioning, 2-3 landmines + 1 man operating a "Bulldog" is enough 90% of the time.

This game is all about organization and logistics. This is not CoD. I understand the pain of dumb kids, who don't want to organize, who won't want to guard their vehicles, who want just to deploy and leeroyjenkins. but I don't want this game to be dumbed down just because a lot of dumb kids happen to hang around.

The counter to attack is defense. Try defending your sunderer instead of demanding nerfs.

How to defend your sunderer from a light assault:

1. Place it where light assault can't just jump off a wall or a building.
2. Have a "Bulldog" and a "Cobalt" with NV or thermal scopes operated by a dedicated engineer.
3. Place a sunderer so you could have enough space for shooting a light assault. Don't place it where enemy can just jump out of cover and C4 you.
4. Use landmines.

It requires being smart and dedicated.

The problem with C4 LA's being allowed to have their C4 stick after death and respawn was that an LA could drop from orbit and aim their descent. If you were aware you'd kill the LA that dropped out of the sky before he detonated the C4, but it would just blow up on respawn.

First time I detonated C4 I placed on the past life I felt dirty and I could recognize the design flaw there.

So when I say unusual, I mean -Unusual-

Why are you implying that I play CoD in the first place? I've never played CoD before, nor do I even own a console.
So essentially you're supposed to prepare a small organized squad's worth of work for one or a few potential suicide bombers for each and every sunderer spawned? You do realize that it's much harder to defend a stationary vehicle than a specialized offense vehicle? Compared to the suicide bomber himself (or themselves) who only needs to know the sunderer's position and swap setups at a terminal? Somehow because you're supposed to defend a sunderer, that justifies being able to kill it almost instantly?
And I previously said, stop trying to sound so snide in a discussion. It makes you look and sound stupid.

Yes and no. Except that engineers don't have to go "point blank" either to devastate a sunderer. Refer to what I said earlier about them potentially being much more effective than a heavy with a AV turret. There is practically no risk when you can "snipe" the sunderer, with greater damage and often even around corners.

You mean equally powerful counters such as pulling your own sunderer to spawn your own army of soldiers that can fight the enemy sunderer's forces? Oh, wait..it'll simply be instagibbed by the enemy''s AT mines or C4 right?

God forbid that it actually takes a team effort to kill a sunderer that's surrounded by several infantry.
Or should 1 suicidal nutcase really be able to run up and destroy a defended vehicle so easily?
May as well just implement anti-anything bomb vests if players want to resort to such tactics.

Yes, he should, that's how things work.

That's how it works. Yes, you have to protect your assets, instead of demanding nerfs to what's killing you. As a player who has destroyed >3000 enemy vehicles (and I play almost 99% infantry), I can tell you that it is nearly impossible to destroy a properly guarded sunderer. Also, when I am guarding a sunderer, it is nearly impossible to destroy it.