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

Of infantry classes, there is 2 of 5, that can reliably engage vehicles with an actual weapon at a distance.
The 3rd, is an Engineer with stationary Turrets, Land-mines that must be deployed in advance or onto the target, or the ineffective-against-vehicles Archer Anti-material Rifle.
The remaining Medic, has C-4 if that, which has a melee-range to deploy, and costs nanites; Unlike everything but Land mines listed above.
And finally Infiltrator, has no anti-vehicle options beyond the "Explosive Bolts" Crossbow, if it carrying it.
Which basically puts a "Kill me now" sign over the infiltrator's head more often than actually helps.

So onto the 2 classes that can engage vehicles reliably:
Heavy Assault with the Rocket Launcher, and Light Assault with the Rocklet Rifle.
Of the two, the Rocket Launcher has more range but fires one shot in most cases, with it being outpaced by repair tools.
The second, Rocklet Rifle, has incredible drop, and is classified as a Finisher of on-fire vehicles not a vehicle killer.

Both weapons have a longer-reload, a shorter-range, and need nearly the entire supply of ammunition per weapon to land on target to destroy it, assuming it doesn't repair, nor has allies, nor manages to land a single hit on said infantry.

So that's incredibly not in favor of those infantry classes, actually able to Engage the targets reliably.
The Engineer is mostly defensive with their tools, and requires the most exposure time for the Turret.
Which is often called a Death trap.


So to contest the vehicle's presence, is to basically have less than 50% odds to win the combat for the brief moment.
Or evade it instead, and that assumes the infantry even has weapons capable of being used.
AA Launchers for Example, can not be dumb-fired onto, nor lock onto the Tank.
Rocklet Rifle requires the ability to reach the target; Generally while completely exposed.
C-4 requires Melee range, and has a time requirement after landing the brick, to then detonate.
Crossbow is a joke at AV, when facing most vehicles let alone a Bloody tank. (Which is logical)

Now against other infantry, every class has at least 50% or better to win a fight against singular or multiple infantry.
And is more likely to be able to fire-back in nearly all instances.
Unlike against vehicles.


Not always can you defend with Infantry & Vehicles "properly" due to lack of nanites, lack of people, or due to Enemy aircraft giving your side the middle finger.
As well, even if you pull vehicles at the next base over: What changed to allow you to win that vehicle fight?
As if you lost it the first time, and now with having infantry defend the points in said base, why can you win it now?
Unless the enemy's infantry was such a deciding factor, you can't unless something changed.
And even then, this requires the enemy's infantry to be near solely inside competing with your sides.
Which means You have less of a force, which makes it illogical to bloody win now if you lost previously.


A lot of bases, have this issue where the distance is small.
Or the whole bit about the enemy wining the exterior combat the first time.
In order for a different result, something else must change.


Just since the Enemy is or isn't firing, doesn't mean you can be a proper threat to them.
If that Sniper is quite literally requiring the most work, requires specific classes (actual snipers do not), has the range advantage, armor advantage, needs one body-shot compared to your 5-10 shot salvo, Your odds of victory are incredibly low to begin with.
For most people, that's basically a worthless venture, as it gives certs to the target and zero to the people being destroyed.

As unless they have multiple people, willing to gamble over getting any EXP for their efforts, and able to respond to it, it's basically suicide if they couldn't solo the enemy vehicle by themselves already.
Not to mention, the vehicle easily can have Radar, see behind it, has two guns independently operated, and has the armor advantage.

Comparing that kind of hard target with low odds making it a 10/90 gamble, to choosing a 50-50 gamble seems more profitable.
Let alone the time component of killing the tank, in addition to the risk factor.

Also, the vehicles can easily keep coming, and fire at a long distance.
They aren't even guaranteed to be able to be hit.
Infantry inside the base?
You have better odds, have the same range on average, reinforcements, same health, same armor, smaller risk factor as well.

It's not like infantry are passing up winning the lotto by not engaging vehicles.
Nor are they missing a wondrous brilliance of Changing the result of the battle if they do the same thing that resulted in a loss.
Aka If the enemy won the first time, they will win it again, unless something changed to allow it to be different.

If I press a button that grants a fixed 50 points.
I can not get 100 points from the same button, unless the fixed value of that Button changed before pressing it.

Three of six. Though even I refer to them separately for the sake of clarity, whether the playerbase likes it or not, MAXes also count as Infantry. Quasi-Infantry, albeit Infantry with a handful of characteristics we associate with Vehicles. Alternately, quasi-Vehicles with a handful of characteristics we associate with Infantry.

Focus on targets of opportunity behind the enemy's retreat-to-repair line and you too can accomplish great things.
It's usually better to kill the driver while he's repairing first anyway.

I don't refer to Maxes as the classes, due to the whole only available from a Terminal, and costs 450 nanites.
Which means unless you walked out of a Spawn room, or Sunderer, with the pre-determined thought to engage Vehicles and not aircraft or infantry, You would have AI or AA weapons not AV.
To not pick dual, would be to cripple the max's capabilities in that focus.
As well, a Max is a bigger target to hit.
Needs a medic, and Engineer, followed by the Enemy in the tank easily having a ******* Archer.
Which I myself often do, allowing me to pop Maxes before they even see it coming.

Infil can not force the driver to repair, before taking 8x the time spent killing infantry for certs.
While also only getting 2 kills if that, for the work of engaging a Vehicle with no proper AV options.
Its not profitable.
And requires someone else to get the driver out.

That means the Infil isn't handling the Vehicle at all, and is working as the lesser end of a team for handling the Vehicle.
Given the Infil must be in position to kill the Engineer(s), and that the vehicle actually goes in LOS of the Infil, or a position reachable before repairs are done.
Assuming no Spitfire, if not at a grand distance.

Which again, is inferior to simply picking a spot, and being able to get EXP reliably by killing easier targets.

Which is also where you get C-4, grenades, etc.. If your definition of "Infantry" is solely something you can't get from a Terminal, and doesn't involve nanite cost, then check off those auto resupply tick marks in your inventory slots, and only change classes and nanite-disentangled equipment upon death. Hell, we're actually discussing the concept of nanite purchased stronger AV that you get from a terminal when you need it.

"If I walked out of a spawn room intending to engage vehicles, I wouldn't have AV equipment?" Isn't that obvious?

You can do this against classes that are not MAXes too. Classes that are not MAXes are even much squishier. You keep arguing this as if it was a sticking point in the logic when it's actually just commonality of the game for everyone.
You will die.
It will happen.
There is no avoiding it, just prolonging of the punishment.
And something will be responsible for it.

After all these years, I'm only now starting to understand why people have so much trouble getting their head around this game and the myraid of ways to play it. Their sense of tactics is all screwed up. They eliminate whole options from their repetoire in their head and then wonder why they have few of them (left). Stop pigeonholing.

I'm telling you to plan and ambush drivers while they are attempting to repair their battered Vehicles by identifying where they feel comfortable - something that the Infiltrator should be most effiective at pulling off one way or another. You'll almost completely remove the Vehicle from combat by killing the occupant. If it's burning, smack it once with an explosive bolt and let it bleed out (you'll get the credit). Infiltrators are supposed to hit the enemy in places where they feel safe. It's the kind of work the class should be doing. Should be rewarded doing. You don't even give a moment's pause on a tactic that the class should be perfectly suited. In fact, if you think they're not currently suited, you don't even consider "maybe [the class] should be able to pull this off." We're speculating on new things, after-all.

You really don't have any other arguments, do you? You keep coming back a few simple points and thinki they alone justify everything that will ever be the case just because you've stated them.

Giving MAX's heavier AV weaponry could be an option as infantry-centric AV to go toe-to-toe with vehicles, but I don't think it would be the best answer.
From what I know of games and design and my personal preference, it's better to allow everyone to fulfill most tasks but each with different strengths and different ways to execute them. To take aircraft as an easy example: In A2G AV, ESF could fulfill a fighter-bomber role, Valkyries a helicopter or light gunship role (It could have both options available but the loadout will fulfill only one role), Liberators a bomber role or heavy gunship role (Same as Valk), Galaxy could fulfill a carpetbomber/heavy gunship role.
Now apply those things to infantry: Different ranges by using rocketlaunchers, grenade launchers, throwing or deploying. Different effects such as direct damage, debuffs, smoke, (partial) protection etc. You can do a lot with that.
Then there's the way you apply cost: Current utilities only cost upon use. You could add a range of AV weapons that don't come as default in your loadout and need to be bought, with the drawback of losing the nanites and weapon should you die, but similar to vehicles these weapons while in your pocket would simply draw ammo from ammopacks.

My point was how rigid you want to make the system, where does it end. Do you really want only a single class with direct-damage AV and a single class with deployable AV etc? Or do you use slight nuance and put in weapon types like a rocketlauncher for one class and a grenade launcher as AV for another class? Or do you define your AV ability on how you have to accomplish your AV?

If we nerf the MAX's AI ability the game would truly become a HA fest.

You are glossing over the fact that any troop support that followed the vehicle column would have to use current AV weapons. IE those weapons that I've just explained are pretty much dirt. It's also pretty hard to organise a proper mechanized infantry group in PS2, it's already easier to create a full vehicle column at the previous base and ward of the enemy vehicle superiority... Which is as I mentioned ineffective most of the time and kind of defeats the whole "let's support it with troops!" idea.

The enemy doesnt hear your 'reload' or 'frag out' callouts.
Only your V menu and spotting.

Would be nice if the game explained the difference in my player speaking, compared to my player speaking tho lol.

Uhhm, interesting line of thought.
Personally i want my empire to have air superiority, so if i see an enemy ESF up there, duelling or not, i shoot it down.
I does create lots of rage tho from 'honour pilots' for 'interupting their duel' (the funniest rage tells considering the game theyre playing), Ive even been tkd for it LOL.
Funnily enough its not dis-honourable for them to get involved in ground fights......

So that means you feel some other class is better suited to go toe-to-toe with Vehicles?
I'm not going to address the second paragrpah as I do not inherently disagree. What's important to point out is your main argument is power. All Infantry already have options that harm Vehicles, as devastating as the C-4 of our topic, or as lowly as the explosive bolt of a crossbow; however, unless the weapon in question hits a certain arbitrary threshold, in terms of damage, velocity, accuracy, or whataver terms you'd define as a measure of output, it doesn't feel like you'd accept it. Are you evaluating these weapons in a vacuum of the individual or the cohesion of the group? what about this new AV of speculation?

Rather than "rigid," I don't want to make the system so "loose" that there ends up being no expectation at all. One of the considerations of a visual class-based system is that you intend to telegraph information to the judicious players. In PlanetSide Classic, this wasn't really an issue as that game was nowhere near class-based; but, at least you could see what your opponent could immediately bring to bear against your person should you engage them by looking at their back and their legs. Where can I look at a Heavy Assault to see what kind of rocket launcher they have?

The class with not even double-digit playerbase representation is the bastion against the class that is the most prolific non-driver class? Or, rather, are they the distraction from the pedestal of HA-dom? Shirley you jest.

Why would it exclude whatever new AV weapon we're attempting to discuss in this thread?

No, I feel that all classes should have ways to combat vehicles, not necessarily toe-to-toe depending on the ease and utility of the AV weapon.

Any and all weapons in the game have been measured in the only way possible: Comparative power. If a weapon dealt 10 damage per shot at current RPM's everyone would call it UP because even the weakest weapon after damage degradation deals around 30 or 40 damage. But if this 10 damage per shot weapon was the most powerful weapon in the game, then it suddenly means that all other weapons will be even weaker. So a weapons actual power will be defined by the other weapons just as much as by itself.

Now an explosive bolt does deal damage. It's going to take an age to destroy a vehicle from any direction due to the refire time and teeny tiny damage. Taking that into account it can only be called an AV weapon because it deals damage. But it's actual effect in the battlefield is miniscule and only in particular niche scenario's, like the repair crews are dead and you've got time or the tank was mauled by something else beforehand, is it useful. Compare that to other infantry AV weapons which can deal enough damage to cause a tank to retreat, and even kill it if it doesn't have maneuvering space. And lastly compare it to weapons that once fired, can kill a tank without it having the time to retreat/murder you. There's a huge difference between all.

On to gameplay. PS2 has many ways to create a small victory condition, and most of it revolves around a kill. Having someone retreat is a draw most of the time, rather than a victory/defeat. The player is still in play and dangerous. So any weapon that allows plenty of time for both escape or kill-retaliation provides less fun than a weapon that actually kills, worse even many players experience an enemy escaping as negative.
On the other side of the coin, a weapon that makes you feel like you couldn't have prevented it because the moment you knew you were under attack you are already dead also gives a bad feeling to the player.
So the first gameplay scenario has all the AV weapons that can't kill before the enemy gets away in it. The second gameplay scenario things like C4 and AV mines. There might be something you can do about it beforehand, but the moment you fail you are dead. This means that both C4 as well as the other AV weapons aren't good for the game as they don't feel fair for most players, which is why people complain about things like the power of vehicles vs the power of being blown up all of a sudden.

So a middle road needs to be created. One with weapons that give you enough time to respond and try to protect yourself, but also with enough firepower to actually finish off a target if you have the skill for it.

You can't atm, but that's already in the game so no reason to complain about when I want to introduce new stuff. Also when you see a Heavy you know he's holding a launcher. You know the techniques he might use to attack you as they are pretty straightforwards.
And the same can be done for any class. You spot a Medic? You should know the exact AV weapons he has (if they aren't AV defenses) and know what kind of attack pattern he will have. Which would be again different from how an LA would attack you, or an Infiltrator. For example, an Infiltrator could have things to lure you out of your tank, like an annoying debuff that needs to be taken off the vehicle. It's a completely different approach to AV combat than the Heavy, but it is AV combat.
And that's pretty much what you are asking for from what I can see: The ability to have an expectation what you'll encounter. You don't want to see a Medic suddenly having almost the same rocketlauncher and attack pattern as a Heavy. Additionally you could change the IFF tags. You spot an enemy with AV weapons in it's loadout, it gets a different dorito to indicate this. That already solves your problem.

I don't know Shirley! I never touched her!
Ok it might be an exaggeration, but nonetheless it'll be true for a large part: Less MAX's for AI work in bases means less Engineers to keep them going means a total extra of HA's, as well as the fact that HA's would attract the killwhores that used to pick MAX's.

Because the way I interpreted it, I say that one of the thing infantry could do is open up a safe spot around the vehicle pad so the defenders can get vehicles, you are arguing against me and then mention "I'm not the person who is arguing that this counter-offensive external force of defenders would have to be without ground troop support.". But I'm not arguing that the counter-offensive would have to be without external ground troop support, in fact my idea would create the possibility of a counter-offensive with external troop support. Assuming that with "troops" you mean infantry and not "tanks&infantry".
And because of that, I assumed you were arguing that the new AV weapons shouldn't be made, since that seems the general gist of the rest of your post.

So show us this middle ground weapon then. Give us the stats you want to give to this weapon and see if other people think it's OP or not. For simplicity sake, we'll use the sunderer as the target vehicle so we don't have to mess around with directional armour, and you can use it's damage resistance types from here: http://planetside.wikia.com/wiki/Vehicle_armor_and_damage_resistance

**** you. Seriously. If I did that you'd still be nitpicking about this and that, it's always been that way, people telling me I should come up with the evidence while not coming up with their own and even if I did come up with it they would still ignore it. Why don't you prove that the status-quo is A-OK instead? If you can, great! If you can't, we need another system, and let's let the devs decide the exact values because whatever I propose won't have the exact stats anyway.

Expect, that You also refresh these as you spawn in regardless of method.
You don't have to go find a Terminal, when spawning from a Beacon, a Valk, a Galaxy, and the only time in the field you can get a Terminal, is a Sunderer.
Only in an allied base or PMB can you get a Terminal that isn't attached to a Sunderer.
In the selection screen, you know where you can modify your class load-outs, do you need a Terminal? No. Only to apply it if still alive.

Can you spawn as a Max? No, you need a terminal.
Can I select Nanite-costing weapons, tools, and equipment only from a terminal? No.
I can put them on via the map screen, but won't have them until I resupply at a terminal, or die.
Which means I can get them while spawning in, from a Beacon, Valk, Galaxy, or whatever.
As unlike a MAX unit, such weapons would be practical to carry in addition to the flexible arsenal of infantry.

Rather than "I am a Slow MAX unit from a terminal, that needs support"
I can pick up a Nanite-based weapon system, that doesn't prevent me from entering half the vehicles, slows me down, makes me unable to ADS, increases my despawn rate, slows down revivals, gives me a massive hitbox, and has two dedicated weapons only.
Which are balanced around having two instances of said weapon, rather than being a singular instance per unit.

Do you know how much of a waste it is, to pull a 450 Max unit, to slowly wander over to where you can get a bead on the vehicle, being the largest target, that dies quick as well to said Vehicle?
Since it's either 450 nanites, or incredibly ineffective Free weapon, to engage a single vehicle costing less nanites.

Do what? Need support to operate?
Or do you mean Kill them easily.
As unlike the infantry outside of Maxes, the Max is a bigger target, that is slow.
You run over a max easier than you can any other class, if you want a specific bit.
And Max units take 2 head shots like infantry from an Archer sure -
But no other weapon outside of a Rocket Launcher does that to a Max unit.
And these are only carried by Engineers, whom can fire off two shots quicker and more accurately than a Rocket Launcher.
Engineers whom are the logical choice to drive tanks.
Engineers, who's archer is Free.

The Problem isn't death.
It's the literal fact, you are more likely to die than succeed, and only success brings any value to the encounter.
And if you play this game solely for the gamble of fighting a Tank with a 1-2 shot kill against you, while having to land 5-10, Don't try to say the Rest of us should enjoy that kind of exchange over a 50-50 Against infantry.


So once a Vehicle arrives, my entire game should be to hunt that vehicle.
To Dedicate myself entirely to hunting the vehicle that I notice.
You sound like the Pilots whom literally say AA should sit around, and focus solely on finding, planning and attacking aircraft & nothing else, since they once saw an aircraft.
Aka Dedicate your entire gameplay to attacking one single thing, and nothing else.

Which is again mirrored, by the whole "Vehicle can engage itself or infantry as it likes, but Infantry must make it their Job to focus solely on the Vehicle that can one-shot them since it appeared"
Unless I want to kill that vehicle to reduce the firepower for a minute or two, I have no motive to engage that vehicle for zip reward.
That usually goes for the majority, who would rather not spend minutes attacking something for zip, while the opponent rolls in EXP.

Considering that the motive to attack vehicles is either to delay such Vehicles, or gain EXP from killing it, returning to the reason Infantry that can engage, do not engage, seemed pretty logical.
Since that was the Logic I was defending in the first bloody place.

Unless that Table was updated to the new resistances, it means ****.

In addition, you want him to make stats for a hypothetical weapon system that is in the middle of the road.
To then criticize if the stats are OP or not.
Compare MAX AV, to Infantry AV, compare this to the Cost of using them, now compare the cost of weapons on the Vehicles that are designed for AI.

That's 0 for Infantry, with 4+ rockets, to 4~ Magazines of Rocklets.
450 Nanites for Maxes, with dual weapons , 2-6 on estimate (I don't use AV maxes enough to memorize the average)
(Also Max AV is split between the arms, which means twice the projectiles regardless)

Vehicle AI, and AV includes Grenades, Rockets, Shells and Ballistics.
Vehicle AV is a one shot.
Vehicle AI is often 2-3 for Grenades, 6-12 for Ballistics.
These are the Top-Guns of course, and not even the ES ones, being averaged here.

Each Infantry weapon must be reloaded, 1 shot per launcher, 6-12 shots per rocklet rifle.
Vehicle AV has 1 shot in general, but Vehicle AI has 12-100+ rounds \ projectiles.
Reload speed can be improved for Vehicles.

So in the end, we have Free, and 450 (Liberator) costs for infantry AV.
And the baseline Nanite costs for Vehicles.

You either have a Free crap weapon, or Spend 450 nanites to become a slow small tank with only slightly more effective AV.
There's no middle ground presently between 450 nanites, more than a Bloody tank, and Free.

That's enough to say we need one, rather than it's 450-or-nothing.
As that's what it'll be due to adjustments to armor, based off of the Max weapons solely.
Same situation with NC's Max AI, only 1 shotgun is ever used for comparisons; Mattlock.

-- I was plotting to leave it to Demigan's posts.
But dear mercy.

Some things that must be considered any time the subject of balancing or changing C4 comes up.

1. EVERYONE loves blowing **** up with C4. (If you don't love C4 it's because you haven't unlocked it or you only ever play infiltrator; which is silly. Unlock C4 and have awesome fun and put aside your cloak for a bit!)

2. EVERYONE loves killing the guy trying to C4. (Watching that guy charge with the brick in hand (essentially helpless until he gets within 3m) and mowing his *** down is AWESOME! Killing him after the toss but before detonation is one of the very best feelings in the game. Like making a half court shot that wins the tournament but available to everyone)

3. EVERYONE including infiltrators hates dieing to C4. (Whether you saw it coming and couldn't stop it or never knew it was there; C4 makes everyone groan deep inside when it takes you down)

Changing any of those three truths would remove far more from the game than it would add to it.

Whatever else changes don't ruin C4.

You used to be able to, at least as far as being able to redeploy and keep your MAX suit. I forget if it was ever available on the deployment screen icons, or if this change happened long before the deployment screen icons were updated that one time. They disabled it, if I recall, because you used to be able to get a MAX suit for free by going to VR then warping back to a continent of choice.

I already said this. We are on the same page with this narrative. I even greenlighted this.

"Practical" went out the door with "instant wall, just sprinkle nanites." All we're debating is distribution.

Making deployment non-trivial sounds like a reasonable method of keeping such superior AV weaponry in check and actually justifying cost-efficient utilization, especially if you intended to go that "affordable" direction.

Just as much a waste of pulling a tank just to die as easily as if you weren't in one in the first place.

Four letters: BASR.

If the tank shoots any other class, it kills you in one shot (maybe two; resistances are crazy these days), and, since having a Medic is so passé, your encounter as a non-MAX would also relatively short.

You do whatever floats your boat. I'm insinuating that your initiative is poor.

I see that. I don't care about experience points, so I'm not arguing from that position. It's rather a pointless thing, arbitrary not only to spontaneous bad luck but wavering all over the place depending on the individual and their current mindset.
Since you brought up AA, I am that person who has pulled the AA MAX and is watching the sky long before enemy Air has been spotted (if they will be spotted; it's a rare enocunter when they're not, but I usually hold off unless our own Air support is low).

Please, please, please, cut down on the lengths of your posts. I dislike cutting up other people's posts into comment pieces because it feels petty but it also bugs me leaving out so much because then I worry that I'm not identifying the parts of the arguments to which you want more attention drawn.

No, no. My arguments in this thread are about distribution (access), not outright feature denial.

Sorry if I only comment on this last bit. I'm far too drained editing my comments towards LordKrelas.

Exactly why you can't use Maxes as reliable AV.... You have to have Logistics just to bring a Max, just to have AV that isn't in favor of the Vehicle nuking the entire Group.

So how exactly is a Max helping in those situations then.
How it is practical AV.
It can't be there unless the Squad or Platoon, goes and gets it outside - Any use of the beacon is completely useless for max deployment; Which means no practical AV unless you fly a Max over.


Practical AV is still there. After all, a Vehicle is sprinkle nanites over a Terminal.

The weapon if on a Max, must be Balanced to the Max's capabilities. Which are different than other infantry.
Like a Proper shotgun on an Engineer is different than on cloaking Infiltrator.
After all, why must a Max unit at 450 nanites be used to engage a Vehicle at cheaper costs, that can also have a second dedicated weapon, drive faster, and has better utilities?
Or have the ineffective Rockets for free, which also must be balanced to that Freely available cost.

I don't think the Launcher is going to be 450 ******* nanites.
As with that, I might as well get a Liberator, unless going inside.
Since, at least then, I don't need an Entire team, need specific vehicles to carry, and be the biggest target of any infantry group.


I take it you hate C-4.
But 450 nanites to engage a single tank, capable of laying waste to you, with only 450 nanites or Free-ly-impractical AV to use.
I think that's pretty comic; As C-4 as well requires Melee range, something pretty bloody fatal to the C-4 user.

My initiative when engaging a base, or Fight, should be as an non-AV capable class should be to focus on the single target type
Rather than the Infantry I am designed to be capable of engaging.

Focus on the thing I can't directly engage, since I saw it, for zero certs in comparison to the effort needed to actually achieve a result.
Ineffective.
No value compared to engaging easier targets.
Which is the same of AV vehicles attacking Infantry targets rather than trying to actively find other vehicles to kill.


If I reduce the length of my posts, I leave out details, explanations, and more.
Which leads to more confusion, more posts having to explain the very things I said in the original due to lacking details, and explanations to make it shorter.
Saving time then, to spend it all twice more due to the "time saving" method used. Illogical.

Edit; your typo made this problematic.
Lovely.

Sorry about that. Judging by where you replied, I was in the middle of my usual after-post editing.

Well, you've posted comments that mirror comments in a previous post that mirror comments in a previous post before. Some cutting back shouldn't be an issue after you've laid down the foundation of your idea. I'm hardly the one to talk about it but short and simple ideas with only focus paid to the most important and most egregious of concerns after the main idea is presented is usually the easiest to digest.
If speaking to the devs this is definitely important. You get the feeling, after a while, they only see a compact notion of any grand scheme you painted out before them. And then you grind your teeth.

Logistics is my favorite word. I wish all sorts of interactions in this game required more logistical consideration, Infantry, Air, and Armor alike. Also I wish things paid more attention to smaller details that would make it seem more meaningful when we do things: the time and motions it takes to get into vehicles; ammunition that has to be actively resupplied from rather than passively shlurping through the ether into your pocket; the presence of environmental water being a meaningful, yet workable consideration that may hinder or may help an assault; actual interaction to contest bases rather than just showing up; and, so forth, and so on. I do want the gameplay to be a more complicated and engaging affair.

I'll actually jump off this train here since we're not getting anywhere coming to terms with our disagreements and disconnects, especially since you've pulled out the "you must hate C-4" card without even asking me whether I actually hate C-4 or not. The " 'you must hate C-4' without even asking whether I actually hate C-4 or not" card? Call it a corollary of Godwin's Law or something, but find a name for it. It's similar to the "complaining about what killed you" card Omen keeps invoking.

Heck, if you think, for no good reason, that I hate C-4, also for no good reason, then look to Demigan who also doesn't think C-4 should be where it currently is. I'll leave him to construct his own sentencs, though. None of that changes the fact that the three of us are in relative agreeance about the existence of stronger AV weaponry. We're quibbling over the squishiness of the platform and the give-and-take of the representation.

Ok, before we get into more discussion. I want to be clear on what you mean by distribution or access, and how you would like to see it? Otherwise I'll just post my views on what I think of distribution access while you have some different goal in mind with it.

As the original didn't apparently work, I double down on explaining it.

Well actually, the ammo does logically work out: It's a nanite container, designed to provide the supplies to allow the allied forces to assemble their weapon's ammunition.
Nanites.

I state the possibility that you hate C-4 due to:

C-4 is the literal only Infantry-based weapon that kills you just as fast if you are in a vehicle or not.
So I get the idea that since you seem to dislike this idea, it means you dislike C-4 as it is the only way that happens outside of a BS Liberator.

Just to mention it, I would love some complexity, but not to simple field AV.
Given that the vehicle has less to do, to achieve their potency, and less to achieve AI than I need to achieve AV?
With the Classes designated to even have AV, I must spend more nanites, more time, to engage singular Vehicles than the vehicle operator.

Aka same field as ESF, a one man aircraft, takes 3-12 people to focus fire apparently.
In One-man Tanks, to dedicated AA maxes, to Dedicated AA launchers.
But Solo'ing aircraft is bad; But Solo'ing ground forces with any weapon as Aircraft is fine.
That Logic.

I've justified it like that too. (Even held my hands apart from each other like ancient alien astronauts guy.) What I don't like is how disconnected and impersonal the whole process is. Instead of an actual acknowledgement system of some kind, it's just some vague LAN that never stops as long as the same Engineer is alive to drop a new package each time the old one goes away.

You aren't being given credit as an Engineer because someone used your Ammunition Package to resupply someone, which actually shows your effort at accomplishing something positivistic like keeping yourself well-supplied or such. You're being given credit because you just happened to drop your Package in the vicinity of someone whose ammo pool eventually wasn't topped-off, and they don't even have to be using your package at all, or acknowledge that their ammo pool isn't topped-off. Ammo resupply areas, where dozens of packages are almost laying on top of one another, are just pity point stations.

If I have to be incredibly succinct with my words: "it wouldn't matter if C-4 is the Infantry weapon that it is, or if it was attached to or projected by Vehicle as a weapon. I exclude the concept of suicide flashes from that phrase, though I am not disregrding their existence either. It does an obscene amount of damage after multipliers in a way that is entirely out of wack with the damage of any other kind of weapon that has to consider resistance values in the game."
Another thing I used to assert is my belief that C-4 is holding back every other source of Infantry AV in the game, and it ties into that. "Compared against the proximity-style of massive damage C-4 currently does, you would never be able to convince into existence a(nother) weapon that does anything that even approaches that level of damage from a greater distance."

In general, I wasn't here in this thread because of the C-4 topic. Those are tired and drab. I'm here for the talk on new Infantry AV.

Who gets something, where do they get it from, how do they use it, who else gets to use it with them (which isn't a terribly common situation for us ), and what other considerations are required to get from A to B. In my mind, this is a strongly cooperative game so we benefit more by designing around groups of people doing the tasks they are suited for and the combination of the varied tasks lead to advances. I only frame bean counting posts, where I show math, usually, around hypothetical "on your own" situations. I don't denigrate truly lonewolf players but I don't cater to them.

Since we don't even have anything specific on the sort of new AV weapon that we've been fabricating in our heads, other than it costing nanites in some way shape or form, then I can only return to my original intent.

I'd like to see MAXes inherit this new weapon.

With more wordiness, I'd like to see MAXes inherit this as their formalized role, breaking away from the "three categories of weapons, two arms, not one reason to want one over something else" mire.