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

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

  1. LordKrelas

    What kind of acknowledgement do you want from that \ for that?
    The Engineer gets EXP for the action in addition to the resupply? incredibly easy loop there.

    So it has to be acknowledged that they deliberately dropped it to resupply a specific person, rather than dropped it to attempt to supply allies.
    As I can't recall someone or myself, dropping an Ammo pack for the hell of it unless throwing it at the enemy by accident.
    The action of dropping one, in of itself, is an attempt to resupply another.
    Unless you want it to require direct acknowledgement to use, I can't see the wanted goal here.

    C-4 is C-4. It isn't related to AV shells, AV rockets, AV Land mines, AV Modes (Godsaw reference), or even Anti-material Rounds.
    It's not in the same field as any AV weapon, it's a 'brick' of explosives controlled by a detonator.
    It has a two-stage system; Place\Drop\Attach & detonate.
    It has a melee-range unless dropping from the sky.

    If C-4's existence or capability is preventing Infantry Held ranged weaponry from being viable..
    How is a Blade not obsoleting a pistol outside of the Commissioner-level of firepower?
    It 2 shots, with Power Knives doing better, without the need to head-shot.
    It has no ammunition, No reload, No loud sound in General (unless power-knife, excluding Vanu)
    It can be drawn, and fired in less time.

    Before you say range, Recall C-4's range, Delay between Dropping & Detonating, and the fact the User is vulnerable the entire time.
    Add in that early detonation just detonates the Explosive charge easily out of range of the blast hitting the target.
    The Explosive can be pre-detonated by the enemy, and shows on EUD.

    If a rocket can not be made better, or a new nanite-based rocket can not be made regardless of stats, since an explosive Brick is capable of 1-2 shotting a Tank..
    The one thinking the Brick must first be rendered null to allow it to exist, needs to recall once You have a more practical weapon, the Crutch-level power of C-4 in the Infantry vs Vehicle game, can be toned the hell down.

    As the likely hood of getting a proper AV weapon doesn't skyrocket, when the ability to destroy a Vehicle target for incredible risk vanishes.

    And I'd like to not have to use a Max, just to get an proper AV weapon.
    Which would have to be balanced around the Dual-capabilities, and durability of the Max.
    Which also limits the deployment of it - Which will affect it.
    Landing it in C-4 land, where the practical uses are limited regardless of the Results.

    Not to mention, A Max has this lovely situation;
    How to force the weapon to be effective against Vehicles when used, but not infantry?
    When using the weapon, only the MAX Unit can also wield a second weapon.
    A heavy sporting an AV launcher... has just the Launcher when wielding it - Following switch-time to not be wielding it.

    What can be done to prevent it overshadowing Max AI, without making it useless against vehicles?
    When every Max can be of two, or one instance of the weapon, or paired with another.
    This issue isn't present with Infantry; They wield one gun at a time.
  2. LodeTria

    For some-one who posts all about this change you can't come up with a single item? I guess you your ideal weapon was just an super decimator all along, not actually thinking about anything else other than making infantry OP. If you want to change something the onus is on you to provide proof & examples, not other people.
  3. LordKrelas

    A single item designed to be criticized, with numbers, and likely a massive list of requirements, situations and similar, that few would actually take into account when looking at the damage numbers.

    If a "Super" decimator would make infantry OP, while costing nanites... you need to recall the only difference between using a tank, aircraft and using a Max, is about which terminal was used.
    And each vehicle has a different nanite cost, yet have similar if not identical weapons.
    Yet aren't OP.
  4. Wodan

    My issue with C4 is a little different I suppose.

    One of the biggest issues I have with C4 is the opportunity cost. It costs virtually nothing for the majority of classes to carry C4, but at the same time C4 is wildly effective whenever used.

    In PS1 the equivalent item had to be deployed, needed multiple items to work, and had to be triggered by a jammer grenade if you wanted more than one to go off.

    In WWIIOL the demo packs had to be deployed, plus they would only deal real damage to a vehicle if you knew exactly where to place it on that particular vehicle. Additionally they were only available to a sapper class.

    C4 behaves incongruously with most of the other weapon systems in the game, and to my mind shortcuts many things that should honestly have better solutions.

    It takes time to pull a vehicle and drive it to the fight, but C4 is just an infantry terminal away. Additionally if a vehicle brings anti infantry weapons they cannot effectively counter vehicles and vice versa.

    It costs significantly to roll a max, in resources yes, but also in opportunity costs as you are highly specialised, slow, require two support classes to maintain and lose the ability to interact or capture objectives.

    In a world without C4 as-is some things would happen naturally:
    People would have to first adapt to situations in an indirect fashion. Chokepoints would be flanked, alternate tools would see more use.
    Secondly if existing tools are insufficient then devs would have to rebalance or introduce *effective* tools to deal with issues.

    Lastly, many of the things C4 can counter with luck are actually things the game *should* be rewarding.

    Managed to setup an effective mixed class defense in a choke point despite opposition?
    Rolled a vehicle squad and have a region locked down while having sufficient support to remain repaired and rearmed?

    How about instead of suiciding with C4 people organise max crashes, use EMP and shielded heavies? You know, like in PS1. Outplay.
    Flank the armour column with your own, bring air vehicles or a squad of AV with support to keep them resed and healed. If the vehicles have AP they will have issue with inf and air, if they have HE they will have issues with vehicles and air.

    I'm not saying C4 doesn't have a place, I'm just saying it is too available and the skill ceiling vs reward is FAR too low.

    In summation: If removing or changing C4 from its current state would break the game? Good, obviously there are serious issues that C4 is blocking from having fixed.
  5. LordKrelas

    If you think C-4 is widely effective on a Heavy, Medic or Engineer, beyond highly specific instances where they easily do absolutely less than had they used their other cheaper options..
    You need to tell me where, and how.

    Every attempt to use C-4 costs nanites.
    Imagine if every shell you fired from a Tank, to a Sunderer had a Nanite cost.

    Presently, only Vehicles have options to destroy a Vehicle quickly without being in the Vehicle's favor severely.
    C-4 is the single weapon capable of destroying a Vehicle quickly, and has a massive risk factor, followed by ease of stopping the delivery.

    C-4 is a terminal Away, same as a Vehicle.
    However a Vehicle can fire off at a distance of Miles, without incurring further costs.
    C-4 requires Melee proximity unless above the target - With the falling time caused by said height adding to the time required.
    So you have to move the infantryman with C-4 as much as the vehicle, but at a slower rate, and needing to get closer to begin using it.

    Not every chokepoint can be flanked from a Practical Angle.
    Inside bases, the chokepoint on the Defender side being used by the Attacker requires the Defenders in order to flank, to engage the base from outside, coming in, assuming the Attackers don't have the exterior locked down.

    Bio Lab chokepoints, usually include most if not all directions inside a structure.
    So you face one regardless of "Flanking" another.
    C-4 is only useful in said places, with clusters nearby each other, or at least near the point of Entry.
    Otherwise it explodes doing nothing.

    Alternate tools to C-4 such as?
    Rockets , already used.
    Land Mines, already used.
    Archer fire? Already used, some times to comic effect.
    Maxes? Already used.
    Rocklets? Already used.

    What AV isn't in use? Even the Explosive Bolt crossbow is in use.
    None of them, don't have the vehicle at a severe advantage, with time, distance, and armor in their favor.
    None can destroy the target without easily being repaired away.

    Max Crashes are usually killed by C-4, Tank Mines, and Rockets.
    When C-4 actually works, A Max Crash would've done better; or follows it.
    EMP has been nerfed to only drain shields, and Heavies don't gain a benefit from C-4's absence in storming.
    Outplay, by swarming with a Force Multiplier, or spamming Heavies paired with Anti-shields to bask in the glory of dakka.
    Rather than needing the Defense to not cluster in a doorframe.
    Yes, apparently outplaying is Spam not more tactical positioning.

    Flank the armor column, implying that the Attacking force doesn't notice the equal or larger vehicle force.
    Or is faster, more heavily armored, more damaging or has enough forces to actually see, let alone handle that attack.
    And of course, assuming the terrain allows it.

    Aircraft. The more tactical solution than managing C-4 among a massive amount of vehicles.
    You do realize Aircraft is the solution to everything but a base cap right? C-4 is inferior in killing power if you can fly.

    A squad of AV.
    For every vehicle, you're gonna need like 3-4 heavies, and an Engineer + Medic.
    Or die off quick without a single tank down.
    While C-4 wouldn't work unless from a Valk that didn't get spotted, shot down, or similar already.

    As if AP doesn't one-shot most infantry.
    Tanks can bring Anti-air weapons (even if ineffective), and any proper armor group has Sunderers.
    Which can mount multiple AA or AI weapons to help the tanks.

    HE is comic unless spamming a building or spawn, but Top-guns are also not HE.
    Or are we forgetting the Top guns are mounted on Tanks?

    I'm sorry a small explosive is available to Engineers, Heavies, Medics, and LA.
    Where beyond the LA, the likely hood of it actually being AV is luckier than hell.
    In addition while the LA drains nanites for every attempt while floating as a perfect target for any AI or AV weapon on a tank, which can have radar.
    Also C-4 Armor is coming.

    We have nothing practical in the AV department that isn't a Max (barely is that practical if that).
    Which costs 450 nanites.

    And half your situations you basically solved with Spam more.
    Outnumber more.
    Rather than tactical use of anything, or measures against C-4.
    The only exception being where "Aircraft" is used, as Top-Guns are not going to always Mirror the Main cannon(s).
    And in number, the likely hood of all of those weapons missing is slim.
    AV is also a One-shot for Vehicles against Infantry; They need only 1 shot near any range., C-4 takes two bricks at melee range.
  6. Ziggurat8

    Oooo pick me pick me! I have 1 thing to say Mr. PS1 was all that is holy in combined arms.

    Plasma Grenade Thumper.

    PS1 had huge holes in its play style. I could bounce grenades down a corridor around a corner and through a doorway and completely obliterate a choke point hold. C4 is absolutely better balanced than that AOE spamming machine was.

    That was before the insanity of core combat brought the maelstrom, radiator, spiker, flail and router.
  7. Campagne


    • Up x 2
  8. LodeTria

    No weapon is free from criticism, from the tramp m1 being **** for so long to the Release gate-keeper being over powered to the GD-22s being a "okay" gun being neither op nor up. Why should these so-called middle ground weapons be free from that? I guess we'll never now if these weapons would make infantry OP or have no effect at all, because you lot can't make a single one.

    It's interesting that your response to someone asking what these middle ground weapons would be is extreme hostility though.
  9. LordKrelas

    Since the Devs build the actual models, which can be criticized properly due to the Devs actually putting them in.
    As then not only is there a point in the criticism, and the exact Data presented for the weapon, but a proper goal;
    Balanced & functional integration of the weapon into the game, By the Devs, with player-feedback on something they released.

    What you wanted, was someone who described a weapon in-between 450-nanite maxes, and free infantry AV, with exact data, with the express idea of You seeking flaws in the design to ***** about.

    As well, any such data from anyone outside of the Devs is worthless on the grounds of "Op or not" unless the Devs use the exact same data.
    Making it a literal waste of time.

    Implication begets implication in response.
    You didn't ask for details, you demanded exact stats to criticize over to see if it was OP.
    Every implication of that review process, was to be a one-sided witch-hunt to aplease your unlisted requirements.

    So if you want Data that appeases your requirements, list them at least.
    To be useful in the discussion, theoretical requirements & details of said weapon's creation.

    So here's mine, to start, and give an example.

    • I personally, would love such weapons to not require a Terminal visit while alive, so it can be used while drop-podding into a battle, aka via Squad Beacons. But also from Squad-spawn due to the nature of it.
    • I have no issue with Nanite-costs per deployment and \ or Per shot \ projectile in addition.
    The Latter while sounding insane, can help mediate extended use of the weapon system by singular users in a short period.
    IE preventing the saving of Nanites to Chain-pull the weapon, requiring both an Upfront cost & a Per-use cost.
    Which would mean the weapon's strength is kept in check by constant need for Nanites.
    Unlike Vehicles, which would have the advantage of a singular Solid cost, ensuring it is a Counter-weapon, not something you resupply constantly or often without a damn. (Consumables, like Medkits, Special Grenades, Tank Mines)

    Aka a Weapon you don't pull lightly.
    • In addition, we could buff the Max's AV weaponry to match the increase. - and vehicle Anti-infantry capability.
    This ensures the Max is the superior option, for larger battles, when mixed with the constant nanite costs of the new weapon type.
    The Max is a singular Purchase, with more firepower.
    And to ensure Vehicles can keep up with the heightened firepower, Vehicle AI can be buffed to compensate while infantry maintain the "squishy" factor.
    Lethality raises on both sides.
    That concept is from Demigan, as he believes if Infantry firepower against vehicles is raised, vehicle firepower can also be raised.
    Stronger infantry, leads to stronger vehicles - with all the armor that is logically on them, but still practical counters.
    Infantry die easier, but can destroy tanks if used properly; Vehicles can nuke infantry but must recall infantry are a threat.
  10. LodeTria

    I already asked for that but you seemed so intent on not providing it and dodging it that you think it's some witch hunt. The damage stats of a supposed weapon, we'll call it NS Goobler, to the target vehicle of the sunderer. You can also included reload time if any, the costs of said weapon if any, the velocity (we'll ignore gravity if you wish) and the damage table it is on from the wiki I already linked.

    We'll ignore the combined arms update since it's not actually in the game yet and actually has a chance to be in the game unlike these theory-crafted weapons.

    The ball is in your court to make these dream weapons without making them over-shadow every other infantry based AV currently in the game.
  11. Ziggurat8

    There's idea people. Then there's statisticians, there's coders and finally there's testers. Just because someone has an idea doesn't mean they have any idea of how to make it work. (Not saying Demigan can't make it work but he's already stated he'd rather have someone else (the devs) figure out the ?)

    Demigan is right. If he did post stats and mechanics and formula someone would pick it apart and say this is wrong, this is too good, this sucks or whatever. Which is exactly what other members of a team are for!

    You're not onboard as a member of the team though and just want a fight (I assume, the tone of your posts don't sound like you would want to help) so he doesn't want to talk to you anymore.

    It's much easier to be an *** and say "your idea is no good and won't work" than it is to say, "well I'm not sure how that will work, let's see what we can come up with". See with the second statement if it turns out it really can't or won't work, then the owner of the idea is more inclined to let it go at. "Yeah, you're right...maybe not right now".

    I don't know. Maybe I'm totally clueless. I didn't really read much of the thread, I'm tired of constant criticism of every little thing.

    I like this game. A lot. I also like C4 and all the little nuances around it. It's super strong, but so what, it's not broken over powered and has some pretty steep limitations. Only victims of C4 that have never used it consistently could honestly claim otherwise. It's a weapon of oppurtunity. Absolutely. When you've got C4 and the opportunity presents itself is amazing. If you try to force the opportunity you could die horribly.

    Here's a couple of hypotheticals for anyone reading this thread to ponder.

    1 guy carries a medkit while 1 guy carries C4. Who wins in a fight? 1 guy has a tank 1 guy has C4....Who wins? 3 guys have C4 3 guys have MAXs. Who wins? If every player carried C4 at all times. Would you suddenly be unable to kill anyone without using C4 yourself? You're in a fire fight. You're outnumbered and you've taken almost enough damage to kill you. You don't know where the enemies are flanking from but you know they're closing in. Would you rather have C4 or Medkits or something else entirely?
  12. FateJH

    We might as well just wrap this thread up, then, unless we can redirect the topic again. Anyone still in this thread most likely is only here for proposals of the yet-still vague "nanite-powered anti-vehicular" weapon either from other people or from the original source.
    The person who damages the other guy more than enough first.
    • Up x 1
  13. Demigan

    Wrong, I do have idea's for such weapons, but there's no reason to tell you since you aren't going to be constructive about it.

    If you want me to put up some numbers on my idea's, then you first have to put in some effort to disprove that such a thing isn't necessary. You are already convinced it isn't necessary, so convince me! If you can, then there's no reason for me to put effort into creating the numbers, right? If you fail, then there's reason, and you've put in enough effort to actually listen.
  14. LodeTria

    The proof that it isn't necessary is that in the whole time the game has been around, the devs have only kept 1 long range infantry AV weapon and that's because no-one uses the damn thing, the Lancer. Every other high powered long range infantry AV weapon was correctly (although sometimes too far) nerfed so they could actually be fought against, rather than do good to ok damage at long range with little to no counter-play. For examples see: Original striker, The Av mana turret, Original annihilator.

    The devs also have no problem catering to infantry-side, so should the weapons have been needed, they would already exist or remain in their OP state in the case of the AV mana.
  15. LordKrelas

    You do realize the rest of the post existed right.

    VS specific Weapon, the Lancer is, and is actually used.

    TR Specific weapon; Striker.
    AV mana turret's infamy is the whole fire while user is unloaded \ loaded in for a mere second or two.
    Annihilator: Acted the same as... Any Tank Cannon, minus the Armor of the Tank.

    Now to return to the First quoted post.

    Overshadowing the present infantry-based AV.
    That's the point, I've been talking nanite-based - with those as a fall-back, since the nanite isn't to be pulled lightly.

    The Damage table of the wiki, unless updated to the new one, and accounting for the new armor, makes it useless.
    NS LRDNL (Long-Range-Disassembly-Nanite-Launcher)
    The Disassembly Nanite launcher, while costing 225 Nanites to equip, uses specialized rounds composed of solid nanites that consumes the User's nanite flow to reload.
    These Nanites as well, designed to destroy mechanical devices have issues when combating organic tissues.
    As well, the Built-in Scope, while designed for further ranges, does hamper firing up-close.

    TYPE Rocket Launcher
    DAMAGE 100* / 500m / 25* / 700m
    RELOAD SPEED 10ms / 5
    AMMUNITION 1 / 1*
    VELOCITY 325m/s
    HIP ACCURACY 3 / 4 / 4.5 / 5 / 2
    AIM ACCURACY 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
    FIRE MODES Single Shot

    Damage* : Damage listed is against infantry, when hitting Vehicles, damage is raised by 750 at 500 meters, and 575 at 700 meters.

    Ammunition* : Each shot after the first incurs a 80 Nanite price. Reload must be manually triggered.

    That lacks the availability, the sporting updates to MAX weapons, and Vehicle weapon strength.
    But there, now you have exact stats to ***** about.
  16. LodeTria

    I remember when Tank cannons would lock on at 500m and fly around terrain to hit you. Yeah that happened. Oh wait it didn't, unlike how it actually did happen with the both the striker & anni.

    The AV mana turret infamy was this ****:
    They had notorious render issues & had decimator level damage at ludicrous range. It was absolute cancer when it was around. I'm not sure if you remember how OP that was when it launched.

    See this isn't that bad, the reload speed is fine although the velocity could use slightly less velocity, as this is as fast as deployed prowlers. 275m/s would make it match the titan AP, which is more than fair enough.

    The damage needs to taper of faster though. You will not be rendering to anything at 500m let alone 700m. I would rather increase the damage to 1000 at 100m, but taper down to 250 at 500m so vehicles aren't getting hit hard at ranges where the damage indicators are broken. The nanite re-load is a bit steep though, maybe 60 per instead. Or make it 100 nanites, but you get 2 shots back, the 1 in the mag and then the reload if the game can handle such things.
    • Up x 1
  17. LordKrelas

    I knew the Striker was a proximity lock, however I forgot that thing was a lock-on.
    I did mean however in terms of Damage.
    I did state the render issue.

    Based the velocity off of the present VS weapons, so yeah I just amped it, seemingly way too high, lol.
    Yeah the Ranges need work, or to render further out - Was a general idea for ranges of the target.
    Some weapons do that I think. (render the unit further out)
    Was pairing the cost to C-4's present basically. Yeah that's an interesting idea there.

    This is more Civil than I thought.
    My apologies for prior hostility, usually it is a witch-hunt, not a discussion.
  18. LodeTria

    I would honestly never put any aspect of balance on the rendering. It has always been spotty and varies enormously based on the size of the fight and the unit in question, be it tanks, both base and mana turrets, infantry and aircraft. We've all seen anti infantry & tank mines render right underneath you, or spear turrets of all kinds not render 50m away.

    It is far better to just not give units that have the lower priority render extreme range weapons. They are also far smaller targets in general so hitting them is a much higher skill requirement.
  19. LaughingDead

    So I was at howling pass couple of hours ago, and saw 2 things, 50 prowlers and one render distance valk that dropped C4 based light assaults, guess who won?
  20. Movoza

    Dude this is a really bad tactic as Demigan is right. When I create mock-ups for demonstrations, I always use wire frames and such, bringing visuals and more back to the basics. Why? Because else a CEO or an executive director is asking about moving it one pixel, or asking a tiny shade different, while at that conceptual stage it isn't the point at all. After the wire frames I can decide to include a full detail version which I rarely allow discussion for, but in the end we focused on what is important.

    So asking for full details and such is simply a dick move to "disprove" someone easily, as there is always something to nitpick about and magnify the problems. An example? Look at the stealth implant. We got all details about the implant and people ignored most stats, simply to call it OP because anyone could get stealth. Now that it is out of the concept face people finally realised that the thing is practically useless due having to stay stationary so long, making it more of a fun implant for creating weird situations than a "stat booster".
    • Up x 2