Nurf the C4's power or increase it's cost

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Battlegear2099, Jul 30, 2017.

  1. FateJH

    I can see that argument working in a game like Project Reality, where they do have limited but strong single anti-vehicular options to manage strong but limited numbers of vehicles (at a time anyway); but, this is PlanetSide. Unless you're really going out of the way to inconvenience yourself, not many situations arise where you can't get some vehicle support.
    And, yet, they fit the situations you specified. It doesn't matter if they are slow - so are vanilla Infantry. Compared to proper Vehicles, the other two may as well both be moving at the same speed. Moreover, vanilla Infantry also need support - that's what makes them inherently strong enough to tackle anything.
    I'm not certain you should be trying to frame a hypothetical weapon around specific circumstances in this manner, like arranging dolls in a certain way. It's going to end up being used whenever someone can pull it so that should be the situation to which it matters. MAXes, before anything else, are Infantry-sized sub-Vehicles and will end up in the same circumstances as their squishier cousins.
  2. LordKrelas

    Any situation where the enemy has vehicle superiority, like trying to get out of a Base.
    As in securing the outside, without praying for allies to have pulled vehicles back in enough numbers.
    As otherwise you open the door to an infantry foothold again by leaving.

    Esamir's little crap outposts, where Vehicles can drive in from places like a Bridge, but allied vehicles are exposed to the enemy from across the bridge, and need to face the entire enemy force to get inside nearly.

    Indar's Canyon area next to a Tech plant; Allied Vehicles spawn on the other side, easily exposed to the tech plant or enemy forces from two different pathways.
    While enemy or allied vehicles can use the bloody tunnel - with barely any maneuvering room in the outpost to use a vehicle.
    However the Building provides lots of infantry positions.

    The Max units, are beyond slow; They require Engineers, and Medics, in addition they are 450 nanites to use.
    With any AV max being quite vulnerable to vehicles in closer ranges, Aircraft, and being incredibly expensive to actually cert out for AV.

    Infantry can operate without a Medic or Engineer combo, via medkits, regen implant, Bio lab effects, and ammo printer.
    In addition, they are fast enough to dodge a flash, use all means of transport not only Sunderers, Backs of Harrassers or Galaxies, can drop from Beacons, and aren't required to Mount two of a weapon or be hampered.

    Infantry become stronger if an medic is available, for revives and support like healing and shield boosts.
    Engineers help other infantry with defensive weapons, fortifications, and ammunition.
    Infantry have sidearms to rely upon, and can actually engage targets at a distance more reliably than the ADS-incapable max.

    Distance, which is a friend of vehicle weaponry.
    Distance which is an enemy of Maxes - For both speed, and difficulties accurately aiming.
    Add in ammunition troubles, hitbox size and the wide range of weaknesses at a distance, and the Max is far from a reliable AV source for infantry that costs nanites.
  3. Demigan

    Just because there's a Carbine for LA's doesn't mean there's no room for an LMG somewhere else is there?

    Vehicles aren't always available, especially to the defenders of a base. Even if you do pull one from a previous base the chances of real success against the attackers is low due to their vehicle superiority. MAX's have their utility, but are slow, very costly and if they were really super-effective we would see more use out of them. We know that infantry itself is woefully underpowered when going up against vehicles, this is especially well visible in any base that doesn't stop vehicles from having LOS on both the point and the spawnroom exits. Most of the game is specifically designed to segregate infantry and vehicles because of this! And that's bad for both the vehicle players who should be able to brawl within bases as much as outside of them, and it's bad for infantry that only asks for more shelter, more segregation and bigger nerfs of vehicles.

    So rather than kicking vehicle players more and either nerfing them or segregating them more, we give infantry the tools they need to combat vehicles effectively. This makes the attacker/defender relationship more equal as vehicle superiority can be fought off more easily for example to make a safe space where the defenders can spawn their vehicles.
  4. FateJH

    If those are your conditions of uncertainty then you'll be locked into that spawn room until the base caps against you. All of your grievances are those of a person who acts alone, whether or not you play by yourself or with a communicative and cooperative group. To uncertainty like that, the difference between "some people pull nanite-powered rocket launchers" and "some people fall back a base and pull vehicles" is just that you're confident in the relatively undefined concept in your head of what you want. You're juggling person in your argument. Even your argument about the strength of Infantry is entirely focused on aspects of an individual - medkits, implants, and such - that wouldn't help that much against the aforementioned Vehicle superiority anyway, rather than on group cohesion. All that can be said for certain, in that case, is that, even if you can't bring yourself to rely on your allies, you'll never have enough nanites by yourself to knock out enough Vehicles with a launcher powered by them.

    Not many of your points against MAXes or Vehicles is an exclusive problem of MAXes or Vehicles over Infantry. Infantry and MAXes are both slow compared to Vehicles; both can be camped from a distance, especially if they try to operate from positions of poor footing; Infantry can be run over just as easily as MAXes. Your penultimate assertion, however:
    If we have gotten to a point like this in this thread, one that started against C-4, then Infantry are in a much worse position against both the others, and are only comparative strong against each other. Why don't - why can't - we let the MAXes become that strong AV that you are talking about? Why should we let groups of non-MAX Infantry become even more capable than they already are?

    I'm the person who believes in primary weapon mutual exclusivisity amonst the classes. (I think we've had this conversation before.)
    This is not much a problem. In a given slice of time, they don't even represent 10% of playtime on Live.
    The Warp Gate, or a few bases back. You said yourself you want to create safe spaces but pre-existing Vehicle superiority makes it impossible to do that in a current base. Another base is where it should be much more possible without having to spend developer time on something new.
  5. LordKrelas

    Well, play Connery NC.
    See how many want to engage a superior amount of Enemy vehicles, with Max units.
    And try to see how to get an NC max into a Building, without it being Shotguns.
    Given Ravens need LOS.

    The mentioned items, state how independent an infantryman is opposed to a max unit.
    Which can't on its own be useful; Given it needs an Engineer, and a Medic to operate near a damn.
    Which means, if engaged in a small group, the likely-hood of there being a Max or the Max being able to be useful is...
    Incredibly small in the first bit, and second bit.
    And given large fights, you aren't going to have the usually inflexible max unit manage to get the exterior with AV unless that was the original plan, or need to have it live long enough to then resupply if it isn't needed to keep the Enemy infantry back with the firepower of AI weaponry (which is sorta a joke for NC)

    Infantry are flexible.
    I rather not need to rely on an incredibly slow powerhouse, that is balanced via entirely different capabilities.
    All AV and AI weapons need to be balanced to match the Max's strengths & weaknesses, and each requires 2 entirely different classes to be effective.
    Nanite-based AV does not need 2 entire other classes, just to actually work.
    Given it provides more options, rather than shoehorns you into the Max style solely.

    Infantry are a lot more mobile than a Max suit.
    Vehicles are obviously faster than infantry and maxes - But maxes can't dodge worth a ****.
    Try dodging a Flash as a Max, or returning to Cover, or similar a Max - You'll need a lot more time, and will be exposed for longer.
    The longer the exposure time, the more close to death.
    Sure the max has Armor; But not against my Archer.
    Or C-4. Or Tank mines.
    And is a larger target for vehicle weapons.
    While also taking longer to revive, with less time available to begin the revival process.

    As well, unless you bring a Max, you can not rely on it being able to be pulled, or brought to bear.
    And every max needs a team dedicated to it.

    Why in hell must practical AV need an Entire max suit, that must be balanced on entirely different scale than Infantry AV?
    Why can it not be on its own level, and not be a requirement to combat vehicles, but be a superior option to infantry AV?
    As of right now, it's barely there, barely worth it, and Infantry AV is comic.

    I rather not have infantry AV be the pits, and need an Entire team around a Max while being told "Vehicles are easily countered by Max units" while they Solo a vehicle killing entire groups.
    That would be the Balance discussion, due to how Maxes are not squishy when supported.
    Which means the AV would be, and presently is, different than infantry AV.
    So how about this.

    Why not bloody both.
  6. FateJH

    Oh, no no, no no. I've played on Connery on and off since really early 2013, originally with my TR FJH.
    I'm wise to your little shenanigans.
    I know that Connery NC is hopeless.
    You shouldn't even be allowed to use "Connery NC" as an argument for anything; no matter what you suggest, it's still not going to help them as a faction.

    I'm a little more understanding where you are coming from now that you bring it up, however.
    So this superior AV you envision doesn't require line of sight?
    That's only if he dies. A squad that doesn't have a single Medic is in for a rough time anyway.
    I hesitate to ask this; but, I think you need to explain this point a bit better for me.
    First off, since you cast such doubts on the AV capability of the MAX class as it exists, or overwhelming laud the power of Vehicular weaponry against MAXes as it stands, then increasing the MAX's AV potential against vehicles shouldn't harm any arrangement between MAXes or Vehicles and will leave the other classes not having to change.
    Secondly, going to an Infantry-centric route would go the exact same route as you fear of MAXes if you granted the superior AV to Infantry. To one side, you have the same grievances for which people complain about C-4 style - excessively powerful and in too many hands; to the other side, you have single class styles - Heavyside, for example.
    Because that puts us right back to where we started with C-4 grievances.
  7. Campagne

    Sorry to interlude, just one quick comment. :p

    Infantry are only capable when a scenario is favourable. More often than not infantry become literally defenceless against enemy vehicles simply because the enemy rolled backwards fifty meters, or flew a little higher (or lower), or just placed itself in a stronger position.

    The only time infantry is truly capable is when they have major advantages over an opponent, such as significantly larger numbers or stealth.
    • Up x 1
  8. StaHoo33

    After you nerf it I recommend to add voice pack same as when throwing a grenade like: 'throwing a brick now!' or 'catch my c4 you scrub!' - So in the end clueless vehicle driver knows that it was hero LA, who picked up his mistake by not moving and spewing HE shells at infantry's spawn point for past 10 minutes and that alone lead to his demise. Nerfside need it ! No! it demands it!
  9. LordKrelas

    See, that was the point. Now You know the pain I suffer trying to get support in the field.
    Which is why I hate being reliant on it, if I can avoid it.

    No, it's just that inside buildings there is a lot to block LOS, making them having incredibly limited firing angles, even less than rockets.
    Not to mention, I have this grand doubt that you can even fire them both at once through anything but a rooftop or doorway.
    Roof is pretty much dead zone, let alone a near stationary Max. Doorways are limited, and often death.
    A rocket launcher however can - And unlike Max arms, doesn't have to be balanced for duel-wielding \ ability to have a second primary always there.

    True, but any proper use of a Max that isn't ruined by one shot from AV (Exaggeration, it's often 2 shots.) or one Archer devil (like myself), and that Max is usually dead or needing serious repairs.
    And unlike infantry, that needs an Engineer to focus on that Max with LOS with no area-heal options etc.
    Also maxes are focus-fired on like no other, easy targets for vehicles given how big of a target, and how slow.

    Oh I will explain! I love an excuse.

    Max units have several special characteristics that affect the power of their weapons.
    • Max Resistances.
    • Max Slot upgrades to Armor vs Ballistics or Auto-repair.
    • Duel-Wielding Capability.
    • Unrestricted Duel-Wielding of identical & non-identical weapons at once.
    • Lack of ADS.
    • Large Target with twice the hit points of infantry.
    • Nanite Costs to equip.
    • Faster despawn on death.
    • Slower Revival rate.
    • Limited Implant Access.
    • Requires Infantry Terminal or Sunderer Terminal to Equip.
    • Limited Transporting capability.
    This means, the weapon(s) have to be balanced in concordance to being on a hardened target wielding two weapons at once.
    With literally no ability to aim the weapons better than hip-fire.
    The Suit itself also costs nanites to equip, and can only ride in, not drive nor gun for any vehicle - in which only select vehicles can carry them as well.

    The Duel-Wielding generally doubles the ammunition supply, DPS, fire-rate, and damage output since it is two weapons at once.
    When identical - If not, it allows two weapons to be operated at the same time possibly countering the weakness of the Other.
    As such Max weapons are designed to be used in Pairs, with the full capability only possible in Pairs.

    With Rockets, one very noticeable thing is that there is multiple projectiles at once, fired from different positions since they are from the Max's arms.
    This means, you have two or more projectiles fired at slightly different angles, or firing lines rather than a spread from a singular position - Like say angle one gun outside, while keeping the other half of the body covered.
    Infantry based AV even with multiple projectiles are from a singular position.
    Why does this matter? Dodging, and the ability to widen the spread directly.
    In addition, each arm fires independently granting more control over the enhanced firing rate. (Enhanced over singular model)
    Which means even the firing rate, and any burst-capability must be adjusted to account for two instances at once.

    With the lack of ADS, alternate fire-modes become a bit difficult without being a literal On\Off switch.
    Lock-on systems near impossible without it being only-lock-on-or-nothing situations.
    Unless you use projectiles like the Striker, which locks-on due to proximity but lacks the targeting restrictions preventing opening-fire without a lock - A 'feature' of specific Lock-on weapons.
    Infantry AV however has ADS, which also can be slowed - In addition to the much broader vulnerability those infantry have.
    You can't slow a Max's ability to ADS, as it lacks it. It also lacks a means to see at a distance.
    Which is another balancing mechanic if not a limitation of the Duel Wielding & control scheme conflict.
    Level of Zoom at times, can be a means to restrict range, as well as vision while in use.

    An AV max is infinitely harder to kill than a normal trooper - Which also means this durability must be kept in mind for weapons strength.

    That's 4 characteristics entirely owned by the Max, that affects the ability to create weapons for them.
    That aren't shared by anything else in the game.

    The difference between having nanite-based AV options for infantry, and having to use MAX based AV options is quite simple.
    • One is easily balanced, and doesn't have such weapons as the go-to-default - You can more easily tweak infantry AV
    • As there is no combinations, only one launcher can be used at a time, this prevents any stacking effect or similar.

    if both become more able to be used, with Infantry having nanite-options and Maxes having effective weaponry.
    You'll see more of a damn to have Maxes in allied ranks, and not just for vehicle spam.
    But because they are worth to be used, while not making all AV that isn't Max-style be near useless.
    Not everyone is capable of playing the Max well enough, nor can you always bring a bloody Max.
    Having more options is better - It also means you can decide if the cheaper Nanite-AV is enough, or if you need a Heavier Max.

    After all, the MAX is the biggest infantry-class unit on the field.
    It shouldn't be the 2nd & last step on the Ladder of AV: it should be the last step with the highest cost (which it already does), when the nanite cost before it, wasn't enough for the Job.

    Or you want to ensure Overkill, rather than need to waste 450 nanites on singular Tanks.
    While having to support the Max, when ****, a swarm of Heavies is more effective due to the fact you don't need support, nor nanites nor Having to wait for it.
    Smaller groups, having options beyond the "Sweet Jesus of Metal" to kill a vehicle hollering "But all infantry AV is FREE"
  10. TR5L4Y3R

    all a matter of how expensive such nanitebased weapons would be i think ... weither the weapon itself costs nanites or its ammunition .. i had a thread with the idea of kinda having a cross between a bfg-esk weapon wih a railgun-esk alt fire .. or as someone said a big ole lasher combined with the lancer but its ammo would be very limited to base 1 and up to 4 with idk either grenadebandoleer or munitionpouch something along those lines .. and yea each charge would cost a ammount of nanites meaning indeed that whatever your shoot is needs to count ... this one would be of a more extreme example but nothing i can´t imagine to be in this game in some way ..

    by any interest:
  11. Demigan

    If you do, why would you want to stop exclusivity of specific AV weapons to classes? Or is a Falcon MAX suddenly too much like a Heavy rocketlauncher?

    Which is exactly why they aren't the answer to vehicles for infantry, and why infantry needs some effective AV weapons to combat vehicles.

    Again, because of the obvious problem of vehicle superiority of the attacker and the fact that the defenders have a much harder/boring time rebuilding a vehicle force strong enough to deal with the attacker's force, this isn't the answer. Pulling from multiple bases back only expedites the problem as it takes even longer to gather enough players and then drive there.
    The reason why creating a safe-space with infantry AV at the base that's under attack would work is because the infantry would be able to support those vehicles, meaning that even a small group of vehicles could stand up to a larger group with the infantry support. This can also be called "combined arms".
  12. FateJH

    ... I'm not certain if we're having the same conversation anymore. I'm asking why we couldn't progress MAX AV into the superior AV whose specifics we've been skirting around. If you have the nanites, and need the punch to armor, you pull strong MAX AV; if you don't, you stick with your standard and free HA AV. On the same hand, I'm asking why we give those options to the units whose strength is supposed to be in their ability to saturate, especially since, quoted below, you show concern about the number of MAXes, but, at the same time, ignore the that C-4 gets complaints because it feels far too ubiquitous. The same thing would be true with some other Infantry-based "nanite-powered launcher" that could be peppered throughout a faction. We'll be right back into these same infernal threads arguing these same infernal topics.
    It's the NC. Who knows what potato guns they stripped down and jammed into the sockets on their MAX's arms.
    If you're worried about the role and representation, you could take heart in the fact that we'd actually be giving a solid purpose to the MAX unit - it's the thing you use when you really need to clear out (threaten / destroy) enemy Armor. (Ground armor is specifically what we're discussing, I think.) If that didn't make more people rely on it, I'm not sure what would. Since we're already having the sort of discussion where we'd be doing something to change something else, you might even get solid points about reductions in the MAX anti-Infantry options that players find agonizing. (Even if the argument is not your cup of tea, it is someone's.)
    I'm not the person who is arguing that this counter-offensive external force of defenders would have to be without ground troop support.
  13. MrMinistry30

    If you are lazy and careless enough that someone is able to get 2 C4 on your tank YOU DESERVE TO LOSE IT!

    Sigh, all those crying tankers that start screaming for a nerf as soon as they get their camping butts blown up by C4 are really annoying.

    Radar + moving = not getting C4'ed...
  14. FateJH

    Generally, that's not much of an anti-vehicle warfare combination, the latter mainly for the reason that tank-on-tank warfare can rely a lot on being relatively sessile but gravitated around a source of cover. I can't imagine how pushing up is going to look when the rear is not just considered a weakness but a fatal weakness.
  15. MrMinistry30

    Sure, you need cover - just like almost every other unit in fights - but when you get too connevient there you will die there when someone is really pissed off and is going on a mission just to kill you in your well known position - just like almost every other unit in fights.

    So why the hell should tanks be an exception here?

    Should camping snipers cry for stalker/LA/aircraft/everything-else-that-gets-them-in-their-camping-spot - nerf?

    If you are too lazy to move and not even smart enough to get radar or even a turret YOU DESERVE TO LOSE THAT TANK!

    (besides that, if you were really stupid enough to camp in the same spot for such a long time that someone could get pissed, go to another base, spawn a vehicle/aircraft, get to you and blow you up you should REALLY have gathered the ressources in the meantime to get another tank instantly so please stop complaining over the loss of that 1 stupid tank...)
  16. FateJH

    Because a tank that is constantly on the move while in combat is a tank that gets stuck exposing itself and taking fire for no reason (and hopefully it can even aim like that). Good cover is precious for a target that big. Sdies from their size, Infantry have levels of subtlety on their side. Tanks have "yes, stealth module;" and "no; they can always see us."
    Why are you yelling?
  17. Campagne

    Well I'd imagine most C4 fairies wouldn't go out of their way to C4 something that wasn't attacking them or other infantrymen.

    I know that I at least don't immediately target ESFs if they just do their hover-duels and leave the grounded alone.
    • Up x 2
  18. Lord_Avatar

    My LA is a certified "killwhore"... :(
  19. Pelojian

    that's part of the problem, infantry see enemy vehicles and ignore them and focus on the base fight, then they rage that a vehicle killed them and suddenly they have to kill that vehicle (and some of them whine that vehicles are OP because they did not contest the vehicle's presence before it killed them).

    not only that but when they are defending properly with a mix of vehicles and infantry and the base gets taken, when they redeploy down to the next base they dig in the base and don't pull any vehicles(as a result attackers have uncontested vehicle superiority), yet when they are the attacker and are winning and take a base they pull vehicles to exploit success, if anyone pulls vehicles after the attackers arrive uncontested it's already too late to counter them at the base being attacks and as usual some whine about 'vehicles OP' when they should realize 'reaction' to an enemy is a better strategy then 'inaction'.

    it's not that hard to realize when you lost a base and the enemy didn't have alot of vehicles that they will pull them to push the next base, it takes almost the exact same time to pull a vehicle force as a victor of a base fight as it does for the losing side to pull one from the next base down the line.

    just because an enemy isn't shooting at you at a particular moment doesn't mean they aren't a threat, for example if there's an enemy sniper at long range killing allies i will try to sneak up and kill them. (and not just because they are a threat to me)
  20. Campagne

    Personally I'd say that's a symptom of the problem: If it ain't C4, it's not gonna kill. Why shoot a rocket at it when the estimated TTK is about a minute for the heavy, (assuming he's got a rocket pouch or an ammo pack nearby), and instant for the tank? Especially when there are other hostile infantry the heavy can actually kill with a degree of ease and relatively guaranteed success.

    Hence why in my quoted post I said I "don't immediately target" an ESF whom is not attacking me or others in position. If there are no other enemies around nor any important objectives nearby of course I'd whip out my Hawk to try to assist an ally in the sky/whichever faction I hate the least at any given moment. :p But the fact of the matter is that it is objectively much more likely to be favourable for me to engage other infantry with my primary than it would be to fire a rocket at the enemy ESF. In theory, I could engage and kill three other infantrymen in the time it would take to even lock on to the aircraft. --Done it before and I'll do it again, all the while I kill more ground vehicles & MAXes with my Hawk than I do any type of aircraft.

    Attackers most often have vehicular superiority because there isn't anyone shooting players at terminals, mining pads, or guarding the only locations from which defending vehicles can spawn or arrive from. And for why infantry would choose to dig in? Because capture points literally translate to which side is wining the fight and shield/SCU generators are what allow defenders to protect them. If one is not playing offensively, there is no point in meandering about the base.

    As has been said in this thread already, until infantry can get access to more powerful AV weapons it's C4 or go home.
    • Up x 1