[Suggestion] Problem with C4 spam

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Marik, Jan 3, 2020.

  1. Demigan

    And then how should infantry deal with vehicles? Vehicles in general will always have better range, better firepower and have enough speed to get out of the shorter infantry range and repair up. Most of the c4ring is done when tanks are farming infantry, and its the only tool infantry has that has a good chance of success for a kill without the target killing you or getting out of range.

    As I've remarked before that if C4's AV ability gets nerfed infantry needs something in return so they have the capacity to effectively engage vehicles without needing a dozen lives and a squad of firepower to do it. Nanites destroying nanites has always been my favorite.

    Such weapons dont even need to be high-powered weapons of vehicle destruction. With the addition of weapons that debuff the target either temporarily or untill sufficient repairs are made you could give infantry the time and range it needs to finish vehicles off without them just driving away. Other tools could have extremely high firepower but you buy it like a MAX suit, once bought you lose it on death. This gives a higher risk/reward for using such a weapon against vehicles but does give infantry the bite they need.

    I always loved the idea of making the relationship between vehicles a much closer one so we can have actual combined arms and remove many of the walls segregating infantry and vehicles. To make vehicles still feel powerful they could be filled with tools, gadgets and weapons to deal with infantry in return. Co-ax guns, mortar racks to flush infantry out of cover, the gunner receiving abilities like a directional shield or scan equipment to make its role more enjoyable etc. Too high a TTK is what breaks the balance between infantry and tanks, so if you make it easier and shorter for infantry to deal with vehicles you have to make vehicles feel like a swiss army knife with lots of tools to deal with said infantry... if you can get them before they get you.

    The option to buy extremely cheap or even costless variants of current vehicles should also help the game tremendously. A vehicle oriented player should always have the option to use a vehicle and never feel restrained. But just like infantry these vehicles just wouldnt be as good and would rely on utilities (that are persistant through death like C4 is) to be fully effective against resource costing vehicles.
  2. Halkesh

    It look like we want basically the same thing about tank vs infantry balance : no more segregation, without making tanks useless or too strong against infantry.

    IMO, it's impossible to do that unless we change these 3 points :
    1. Nerf C4 and AV mines so they no longer instant-kill tanks
    2. Make tanks much more dangerous for infantry : coax LMG and main canon OHK infantry on direct hit. So tank crew won't have that awful feeling of "my pistol is more effective against infantry than this 65t MBT"
    3. Nerf vehicles resilience : Engineer are no longer able to repair vehicles health.
    Currently, RL are useless because vehicles run to cover and come back 10 sec later at full health, with the 3rd point it will no longer be possible and I hope this other way to balance vehicle will make the balance much less frustrating for both infantry and vehicles.
    Obviously, the 3rd point will require few other adjustments, for example :
    • passive Nanite Auto-Repair
    • ammo tower repair health
    • sundy repair no longer repair vehicles health
    • found an utility for engineer repair tool and repair sunderer :
      • repairable shield that can only tank frontal damage
      • gun barrel and track can be destroyed and must be repaired (NAR works but it take a long time)
      • extinguish fire / keep the engine fully effective even on a critical state
    C4 and AV mines will still be deadly to vehicle if it can immobilize them.

    I'm note sure I've understand what you mean. If you're talking able summining a stock flash for transport, I agree.
    However, if you're talking about a cheaper but weaker variant of the MBT, I doubt it will be balanced : look how effective and cheap are Ants and Sunderer.
    IMO, the only way to balance your iea is to make engineer unable to repair them. BTW, if it's an option, you'll need a way to differentiate cheap MBT from full-cost MBT, so enemy know what he's dealing with.
  3. TR5L4Y3R

    C4 on the light assault can stay ... what could be changed about it is to be primarily antivehicle/antiarmor like AV grenades ..

    but asside from the rockletlauncher this is the light assaults only option to deal with vehicles,
    most (not all) vehicles do have access to antiinfantryturrets like the cobalt, the rest is matter of awareness in that regard ..

    for every other class that has access to C4 it means that they have to get to butttouching range to get it on a vehicle or drop it at a place were players are estimated to drive through .... and if you get C4ed that way .. well tough .... same with AV mines

    C4 spam imo is definetively a problem vs maxxes were there is no choice but to go with maxxflakarmor, it at the very least needs more default surviveability to it (among other antiarmoroptions) ..


    C4 vs infantry on chokepoints .. well it´s as expected as with grenades or pretty much any explosive/supressionoption realy .. it´s annoying but you have to deal with it .. ... still it´s 75 nanites for a brick with the chance to not get it to detonate after a drop so these nanites would be wasted ...
    for most vehicles 2 are needed so 150 nanites and sunderers (and mbts i think) you still need to finish it off with an aditional weapon (rockletrifle, rocketlauncher, explosive crossbow) a engineer is better off using AV mines (as he can carry more without having to use a demopouch for 2 additional bricks or minecarrier for 3 additional AV mines) but manualy detonating them on a stationary vehicle is more difficult, especialy vs a deployshield sunderer ..

    C4 vs infantry in a low pop fight .... yea again my solution to that would be to make it antiarmor primarily that deals less damage to infantry, considering how all classes have access to fragrenades and some have access to stickies .... then again i feel it is a bit of a stretch ..
    the argument could be made that one rather may want C4 to be AI so to be able to use along with supportive grenades (rez, smoke or decoy f.e.) while still having some general explosive in which case having the option to chose between AI C4 and antiarmor C4 might be also okay (something a engineer could use allong with repairgrenades, though then again AVmines ..) ... i think antiarmor C4 could stay as is in cost and availability were AI C4 is limited to one brick and it costs slightly more than antiarmor C4 to not be as heavily spammed ...


    that all being said regarding infantry vs vehiclecombat i am still for the classes getting a few more ranged AV options
    be that AV grenades, rockletrifle or a AV grenadelauncher for certs or ASP .. underbarrel grenadelaunchers could also get a buff to get extraammo from a ammobelt or ammopouch ...
  4. Yavimaya

    Spitfires counter the fairies fairly well.

    The main argument I see to nerfing C4 is actually to give people a broader expectation of what LA can do. Light Assault as a class is what suffers from C4 because it consumes so much of their power budget.

    I mean, the infantry can pull armor from an adjacent base if they're organized and/or high agency.

    From inside a base, an organized MAX squad can do ok, though the main problem here is obviously how expensive MAXs are as an anti-armor option. IMO if the Devs want infantry to be able to fight armor they need to buff the MAX's anti-armor capability, because I definitely agree with you that nanites should destroy nanites. MAXs just havent been in a great place since the 3 resource pools were combined.
  5. Demigan

    Forcing infantry to buy a vehicle is a terrible option. It means that infantry is virtually defenseless against vehicles. Also the option to spawn vehicles at another base only really works if the enemy vehicle column is tiny and it takes barely a handful of people to outnumber their vehicles. But it also takes more effort, time and teamwork than the enemy requires to build up a suitable vehicle force, which is why this tactic is never really used: it sucks. Worse is that the moment the enemy realizes a vehicle force is assembled they'll fall onto them like vultures trying to score a kill, meaning you never really have the time to get a large enough vehicle force. Worse still is that in the time it takes to get your counter-column organized the previous base is often already captured.

    Infantry should be able to go toe-to-toe with vehicles without needing their own vehicles or MAX's. That way we can remove the ridiculous walls on most bases to get the full mayhem of mixed infantry and vehicle battles that this game is supposed to be about. It would also allow vehicle pads to be positioned inside the base protected by the buildings and infantry, meaning vehicles can be pulled inside the base and support it without needing equal numbers. The vehicle pad is so exposed on most bases that a few infantry or a vehicle at the pad is all you need to stimy the flow of vehicles of that base, its ludicrous.
    • Up x 2
  6. Yavimaya


    I would go so far as to say that this is all, if not originally intended by the devs, at least accepted by the devs and has been supported by them for years. Gameplay does have to reward both initiative and organization. If one's opponent couldnt score points from being more organized and prepared then the game might as well be COD or some such brainlet fps.


    This is your own highly subjective opinion.

    Personally as someone who plays 99% infantry I would be extremely well served if I could just wreck vehicles with impunity by myself without having to invest or organize, but I dont actually think that would be good for the game.


    The fact that its so easy to suppress most bases once an attacking force is in position, and the fact that 8 years of updates have only reinforced that paradigm, really really clearly shows that the devs intend it to work this way. What you're saying amounts to the suggestion that the sum total thats required to defend a base is for the brainlet population notice at the last second and zerg it, spawning unlimited vehicles that they dont even need because infantry are just as good if not better at everything. I've seen this game called Zergside 2 but that would be a new level.

    Its simply not supposed to be stupidly easy to repulse an attacker, a modicum of thought and planning is required, and that's not a bad thing.
  7. Demigan

    Well since the government of North Korea has been punishing generations with starvation and forced labor it has to be good right? Just like the fact that the devs cannot make a mistake and condone the wrong thing for years upon years!

    Gameplay does have to reward both initiative and organization. So why do the attackers, who barely need any initiative or organization to form a vehicle column and attack the next base, get such a massive advantage against the defenders who need several magnitudes more initiative, organization and skill to perform the counter to them? Or are you truly saying that the defenders somehow have it just as easy as the attackers to form a vehicle column? Keeping it as-is means that the attackers get to keep the COD brainless mode on while the defenders require much more to just counter them.

    Not just subjective, but also plain intelligent design. While there are games where asymetrical balance with infantry not being able to deal with tanks properly can work, PS2 is definitely not in that category. With the way tanks are massed and no limits to how many and what kind you can bring or how they are used you have to give infantry some way to push them off properly and with equal skill. Unfortunately they decided that the tanks require less skill to operate than infantry and have it even easier in infantry vs tank combat simply because they are more resistant, have more range, can dictate almost every part of the battle due to their speed and maneuverability and can OHK with most common weapons.
    Again, intelligent design would make sure that vehicles and infantry would be closer to each other in functioning and costs.

    So you have to hide behind hyperboles to form your arguments? I don't ask for infantry to wreck vehicles with impunity, and if you've followed any of my posts on the subject you would see how I want to shift their capabilities. Tanks lose their ability to just tank shots while OHK'ing infantry and then get out of their range to repair up, but they get multiple weapons, abilities and gadgets in return to make sure they still feel like tanks that can potentially destroy entire squads but can just as easily be wrecked by infantry in return.

    Also how much of a moron are you to think that infantry has to organize while tanks require less skill to operate and kill the infantry right back? Just because they went up to a terminal and clicked "Yes I want to buy this cheap-butt weapon of annihilation that doesn't require half as much thought and care as infantry"? Seriously? And that in PS2 that lacks pretty much any good method of organizing said infantry in the first place? And don't say we have squads and platoons, that's like saying a wet paper bag is good enough as a water bottle because someone has been trying to sell it to you for years.

    Yeah! And how's that intention working out? Keeps people entertained does it? Yeah we see how people just flock to those battles when they go for Biolabs and the Crown and bases like that over and over. Oh wait those bases are exactly the opposite of the developer "intention" aren't they?
    Oh and their intention definitely is to make it easier for the attackers. That's why they added those walls that make it harder for the attackers, and keep trying to figure out the (pretty easy) solutions to how spawnbunkers are supposed to work to make it easier for the defenders and failing all the time. And have to keep changing bases to make the flow work properly (and failing time and again)...

    Well if PS2 is Zergside 2 then it has to be the intention of the developers right?!?! Yeah!

    Also no that's definitely not what I'm suggesting. Get your head out of your butt and try to understand. Don't try to hyperbole everything you see and don't defend the least skilled and most effortless part of the game under the guise of "the other side shouldn't become brainlet country".

    How about this:
    It is simply not supposed to be stupidly easy to repulse the defenders either. A modicum of thought and planning should just as much be required for the attackers as the defenders.

    And yes I am insulting you, because someone who defends the easiest and lowest skill part of the game with "but it shouldn't be so easy and low skill for the other side" is insulting everyone else's intelligence if they think others will accept that.
  8. Exileant

    :( While I will always prefer the old C4 Bricks power and swiftness to break a relentless Armor Line coming at you like both sides of the Red Sea after chasing someone you should not have been; your suggestion is the next best thing. C4 as it is now, feels just short of a waste of Nanites, especially on a Sunderer... :eek: Wow.... You said something I agree with.... :confused: I... I may need to go lie down.:D


    :( The obvious solution for me was not to Break what did not need to be fixed in the first place.
  9. Yavimaya

    Does demigan always get this mad when someone disagrees with him?
  10. Demigan

    There's several reasons to get mad. Extreme hypocracy and very open attempts to keep one group in power at the cost of good gameplay is another one.
  11. LodeTria

    Yes, it's best to just scroll past his pollution.
    • Up x 1
  12. Demigan

    Ah yes because any set of words beyond pure wants and needs should be ignored, especially when some thought has gone into those words.
  13. TR5L4Y3R


    you are investing in a loadout that is made for fighting vehicles over infantry

    a HA equiping C4 and AV grenades to his rocketlauncher of choice is an investmeant into AV duty

    a engineer getting himself AVmines, AV turret and archer is a clear investmeant into AV/antimaxx duty ..
    why does it need to be other vehicles?

    (im gonna repeat myself from other threads)

    give the medic a grenadelauncher as Primary, or rockletrifle (maybe archer as well against maxxes) so to be able defend himself or give AV firesupport instead of being limited to rezing engineers and maxxes only ..

    give infils access to AV grenades (generaly to all non LA classes) MAYBE rockletrifle as ASP ..

    engineer should get ASP access to rocketlaunchers and rockletrifle as primary or turretslotoption


    why? so there is more interaction between infantry and vehicles, so infantry has more ways to fight vehicles or hunt them in the open, heck actualy being capable to provide infantry support to vehicles other than repairing ...


    give me a good reason why infantry should not be able to defend themselfes against vehicles ..
    or why they need to rely on vehicles to get fire support against other vehicles ..
    why should infantry have to hide within bases from vehicles, why should vehicles be walled out so only infantry can fight in captureing points?


    obviously infantry doesn´t need to be godlike in takin out vehicles with their AV primary or AV toolslotoption
    but they should at least be capable or at least be able to scare them off ..
    the way current infantry vs vehicle ballance is allong with most bases design simply isolates the two .. ... were is the combined arms aspect in that?

    tanks do not even need infantry support against other infantry as most vehicles besides the lightning have clear antiinfantry options with the kobalt being a prime example .. infantry might be able to take out light armored harrassers if they hit them ..
    but against any other heavy armored vehicle they can´t do anything if they aren´t a heavy assault or commandostyle LA ..

    and chances are even if you are a HA you likely lose against said heavy armored vehicle if you don´t outnumber it like 1 to 3 or even 1 to 5 at minimum .. any lightning or mbt with AI rounds can butcher infantry with their AoE ... mbts can equip said cobalt or other additional AIturret while not needing to fear infantry small arms at all ... and they dont need to get close to infantry either ..

    tanks that equip AP rounds can oneshot any infantry from range ... and AP rounds are faster than rocketlaunchermissiles and a tank has many more of them ..

    why should it be super easy for tanks to wipe out infantry but infantry themself have to be supercoordinated to take out one tank?
    • Up x 1
  14. Johannes Kaiser

    Short answer: Vehicle likely costs more nanites, so the infantry has to make more of an effort to account for the price difference. Ironically, the vehicle I found hardest to destroy as infantry is the harasser, that is about the same price range as AV grenade + 2 C4 on a HA,, but good luck catching up with that loadout...
  15. Onical

    I just got back recently so things may have changed I play engineer/max/MBT for NC (150AP with halberd secondary gunner)

    in my opinion I would just make MBT start with AP cannons as default. (and I would consider making it the only choice)
    i would remove c4 from light assault and replace it with a different type of explosive that works the same mechanically but give them 2 choices. anti max/harasser (goodluck getting it on a harasser but goodjob if you do) or anti infantry (bigger splash but does little to maxes)
    this would make it that the only way infantry dies to tanks is if they get hit by a direct hit. and C4 fairies would no longer be the number 1 danger for tanks.


    tanks have to spec into anti tank unless they want to die to other tanks.

    anti tank MBT with a gunner can be stopped by 1-2 heavy assaults hiding behind a rock. if they ignore them they will get killed. yet trying to play wack a mole with heavy assaults that are not using lock on (so they can peak and shoot before you can retaliate) feels fair. they keep you spotted so your constantly worried about being flanked by a tank/harasser/air support coming in.



    tanks are naturally weak to air and that fine and feels fair. you could always equip the AA gun and hope for the best.
    the flak gun for top gun does not feel like it does much vs air but whatever it at least makes it so they cant just sit on top of you where your main gun cant take pot shots at them for 3 minutes.

    landmines and c4 (non c4 fairy) feels fair to die to. goodjob you guessed where I was going to go or managed to somehow sneak up on me. (probably busy playing wack a mole with those pesky heavies hiding in that building/in those rocks/cliff)


    in terms of threat (what most likely going to kill you)
    C4 fairy
    Liberator
    moskito/reaver/scythe TR harasser
    MBT
    non TR harasser
    Lighting
    anything else infantry can trow at you. (note a mob of infantry will insta kill you if you somehow end up mobed by one)




    actually I just want planetside 1 with planetside 2 graphics/pop limit I miss mandatory tank crew. I miss tetris inventory. I miss logistics being important. I miss bases being design with the defenders having the advantage but having to sneak in supplies by breaching the siege once in a while or lose the ability to spawn there (also having command room to defend or suffer penalties if the enemy caps it)
  16. TR5L4Y3R


    a vehicle may cost more nanites but has much MUCH more capability in firepower and surviveability ... compare to that every single nanite cost for consumeables, mines/C4 and grenades you can waste quickly, and still have to get close to a vehicle with .. ...
    while by default they may be free out of 5 classes only 2 have immidiate access to AV weaponry .. 4 classes in total can get access to closerange AVoptions but only 3 in total can have access to ranged AV weaponry ... meanwhile mbts and lightnings have defaultweaponry they can fight both infantry and other vehicles with ..
    a vehicle can be repaired by the pilot (who most of the time is an engineer) that spawned it and with rather little effort rearmed if need be ..
    compared to that most infantry classes are reliant on other classes helping them in their shortcommings or they need access to a terminal ..

    just to reiterate:
    one class more or less can´t do anything if it doesn´t memesquad with explosive crossbow

    4 classes have to get in butttouching range or preemtively deploy explosives and pray their target comes close to their explosive
    only 3 classes have actual ranged AV weaponry of which one is pretty slow, one requries to be stationary and lead the projectile of its option to the target ... and the last one still has to get rather close to target to effectively damage armored vehicles ...

    annnnnnd not to forget the one "infantry"class that has a severe nanitecost on a level to the most expensive groundvehicle to it starts with supobltimal capability in any role if it doesn´t have its second weapon unlocked for said role ..



    while this is a different topic ... no, it´s not fair .. while tanks are strong vs infantry ... air to ground aircraft pretty much DOMINATES EVERYTHING ... and it´s BE ESS ... like this game´s ground to air game for vehicles and infantry vs aircraft is just totaly wack ... heck ESFs themselves can do little vs liberators in AA but vs ground both rip vehicles and infantry apart like nothing ..
    • Up x 1
  17. Onical

    see i would disagree. i don't see why everything needs to be able to kill everything. i see it as the whole point of having specific classes.

    all you need to ruin a airforce day is to have 2 AA max or 1 AA max 1 skyguard. or 2 HA with AA heat seeking rockets and enemy aircrafts won't stay nearby for very long. same thing with tanks 2 HA with heat seeking rockets or 2-3 HA with half decent aim with normal RPG's can deter it. if everyone can counter tanks or aircrafts then what the point of HA/MAX? or why have combine arms?

    i don't play air i mostly play tanks(tank hunter config) /engineer/MAX for NC. and i dont really have a issue with air. you can normally see them coming way before they can see you. find somewhere to hide or go down your escape route and let your allies deter them away. or if in max swap to double AA loadout with extended mag. you can 1 on 1 ESF if your aim is decent let them come close before lighting them up and you can usually kill them before they can escape. libs your unlikely to kill without help but you can deter it. just have to take out 30%~ of it health and it will run away.

    same thing with MBT. there slow and no one wants to drive from the last base (or warpgate if the enemy does not have a tech plant) all you need to do is take out about 20-35% of it health and most of them will disengage and start to retreat in a attempt to get cover and heal. or just locking on to them is enough sense they don't know how many HA are locking on.

    tanks are also inflexable. once the spawn they can't swap build to adapt to the situation. and if there anything but duel anti tank guns they will lose vs any other MBT.

    this is why i don't like C4 fairies they overshadow HA as the main deterrence to armor for infantry. armor will avoid cliffs/buildings in fear of C4 fairies. if armor gets to close it not anti tank grenades/mines//HA bazooka swarm/max that kills it. it the 6 guys with a jetpack and C4 racing to see who going to be the first one to land his bricks. to me this is silly. the class design to flank infantry is the best anti armor.
  18. TRspy007


    There's only 750 nanites, C4 costs 75, you have 2 bricks, assuming you use both each run you can "spam" it for 10 runs. The time it takes to then have another brick operational is 2 minutes, since you earn 50 nanites a minute, it will take 3 minutes to have 2 bricks once more. That is assuming the person doesn't use grenades, had his nanites full in the first place.

    Basically, it's impossible to spam C4 unless the person is running boosts. Also, splash was nerfed, a 1 second delay time and flanker armor for vehicles means C4 isn't nearly as effective as before.

    Also, you can't use ambushers into a crowd without instantly being shot down.

    If anything, try being an engineer and place the spitfire turrets to alert you of las when in a vehicle camping or in a fight you expect kamikaze ambushers.

    Or simply wear flak armor or the response jacket implant.
  19. Yavimaya


    Yup, specific to C4 I find this very awkward.

    I also agree that not everything needs to kill everything. There's nothing wrong with comps and counters. You actually address many of the weaknesses of armor in the rest of your post which amounts to the concept that since armor is expensive and inflexible you actually need to comp to be particularly effective, at least vs a half competent opposing force.


    Hey you know those are half-decent examples of investment. Idk how much value though you are going to get by taking my words out of context or misinterpreting them, I dont think armor should be the exclusive answer to armor, I was merely addressing Demigan's hyperbole, wherein he apparently wants infantry to go "toe-to-toe" with tanks. IDK about you, but im not going to be pulling 450 nanite vehicles if a single infantry player can just toe my toes for considerably less investment than that.

    To be fair to Demigan, though I already question the value of that principle, I dont think its a bad idea to give infantry the option to invest more heavily in killing vehicles.

    I just would limit how easy it is to defend a base on the spot with no planning. An armor column generally involves a platoon leader yelling at all his scrubs to redeploy, waiting for the vehicle queue at their designated base usually a bit behind the front lines, forming them all up, and shepherding them for several minutes across dangerous terrain. Thats sometimes 10 minutes of effort involved in getting that oppressive armor force on your doorstep, it doesnt just appear out of thin air. The idiot Zerg shouldnt be able to defend a base without comparable effort, infantry or not.

    Explicitly, what I'm saying is that its not even just about nanite costs; organization, travel, and time investment are costs too.
  20. Demigan

    While technically true you do have to consider the time it takes to c4 a tank. C4 fairies dont teleport on top of their targets! With a few exceptions it takes time to avoid the enemy infantry, move from cover to cover while avoiding the vision of the vehicles you are stalking, getting close enough to the vehicles to make the last dash and then hoping you arent spotted by radars, spitfires, infantry or the vehicle itself as any one of those things almost guarantees a failed attack (unless the driver is completely oblivious).
    It is possible to continuously c4 tanks. But just like running out of nanites for new c4 its because it takes time before you can c4 someone, especially if they are situationally aware, move once in a while, use spitfires, sit around infantry paths (who have better situational awareness out of necessity) or just plain equip the anti-c4 armor and laugh at your attacks.
    • Up x 2

Share This Page