[Suggestion] Remove C4 from LA or buff tank HP

Point 1: You're pretty ignorant about two-thirds of the game pal, I wouldn't be talking.

Point 2: No, that's incorrect. As far as having an opinion I've been told that I'm (expletives edited out by forums) by the 12-year-old in this thread.

Point 3: As I said before, let the hate flow through, don't let it actually take hold. Smoke some pot if you can't.

Making tanks that realistic is asked a bit much, because that would make infantery totally irrelevant.
Except if you raise the nanite pool to 10k or something and an MBT comes at 6k or so.

I find the C4 guys rather cute in their selfrighteousness.
In an "awww he thinks what he does takes skill" way .
Their advice is also always hilarious - always watch out for LAs, always equip proxy radar and keep moving all the time.
Like the whole map is an open plain where tanks can freely maneuver, and there is no other threat to deal with than LAs, so tanks are basically pulled to watch LAs gracefully floating around in all their glory .

I don't use vehicles anymore except for very special circumstances. MBTs are absolutely useless so if I need to kill vehicles I use - big surprise - LA and C4, and my ESF has the problem that I need to hover 3 seconds in place before I can open fire - because infantery doesn't render before that so strafing runs are impossible. And no I dont pull ESFs for AA, there are enough free sources for that on the ground.
Its infanteryside - the only vehicle that is the exactly opposite, riddiculously powerful and sturdy, is the sunderer. And its not that way because it makes sense, its that way because the infantery guys need that to fight and fights would end too easily if it was as weak as an MBT .

There was talk last year of buffing MBT armor so 2 bricks of C-4 couldn't kill it anymore.

Guess what? It never happened. When you camping Crutchside vehicle mongers figure out why, then you will reach enlightenment.

Oh nonono. You don't have to move all the time and you don't have to keep watch all the time or equip proxy radar. These are just some of the things you can do and each is pretty effective solo.
Personally I just check where they can spawn and what their approach is, then make that hard for them and I'm set. When that approach isn't hard I have a failsafe in moving a lot. You can say "but then I can't put as much focus as I want in my tank vs tank battle" but if you really are of the "stand still in a slugfest" type then you had it coming. Tank battles are no different than infantry battles, you gotta move! It still baffles me that tankers are just sitting there like a piece of meat slugging it out, and expect to get away with it too! Strange thing is that they complain about it when a C4 fairy annihilates them, but when I crush 6 2/2 MBT's in a row in a lowly AP Lightning because I outflanked them I hear nothing. Funny that, it takes even less situational awareness to notice and react to a Lightning flanking you but more often than not they don't until it's too late.

Back to the point: Tankers in general are a decadent group of slowpokes that prefer to use the "no brain" mode on tanks because they can, but when they get killed by something they don't react with "well that could have been prevented" but with a whole smearing campaign ranging from "It's OP" to "cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese". Just look at JohnGalt asking for his solution to the "completely unpreventable 3 LA's that destroyed an entire zerg". A single AI top-gun could have prevented it! He and the other tank guys then show a video that proves how dumb the tankers are that get caught and how extremely preventable it actually was, but no one reacts to that when I point it out do they? Afraid to see the truth of it?

I just used your argument to show how irrational it was, then you complain that I'm irrational because I'm using your argument in my favor.

Good call, you just debunked your own argument!

C4 should have never been a Anti-Heavy Armor weapon.

Yet you are =\ What hypocrisy.

You think vehicles occupy 2/3rds of the game? Lol. How about one tenth? One fifth if we count Sunderers. I pull a tank when I have to. Happens rarely. Never had a reason to pull an ESF beyond just being bored or needing a taxi.

There really is nothing to do for vehicles besides farming infantry. Again, I'm good enough to not need vehicles to kill infantry. How does that make me ignorant?

Clearly you already did, since you're about as coherent as modern pop song lyrics.

Well technically they do.



Infantry

Vehicles

Aircraft.

King Robert might disagree with your math:

I completely agree with you that there are many places where alternate strategies exist and that almost all players fail to use them. Crossroads to Tawrich is a great example, especially because many players have lots of experience with these bases and the terrain there, and because it's it's in the high traffic Indar T. And I agree that players again and again miss employing available Strategy: the standard players beeline zerg in fotm, or the pockets of hardcore organized players Air Drop Infantry directly on Cap Points and then spam the same handful of tactics and hope they can hold out.

But the Original Poster indicated a frustration with Mountain areas in Eastern Amerish (you can see a large Amerish image map here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ief015/PS2-Mapper/master/out/pumpkin-amerish.jpg). And I do feel the Amerish Map is inferior design to Indar in part because of the lack of usability of the mountains (in many areas) for many units, and the lack of strategic options this creates. I personally don't know Amerish as well as Indar, but my various attempts to get creative with routes and Sundy placement through different mountain areas there has been painful. Time and again I run into terrain that requires extensive and slow climbing tricks (with Certed out Sundy), and even then I often run up against vast stretches of impassable terrain.

As far as players not using the available Strategy (which I also see over and over), I think it's in part because of (1) the horrible communication tools for the standard players of each Faction to communicate with each other, and (2) the exclusive nature of hardcore organized players who rarely attempt to mobilize or interact with the standard players and who themselves have exclusive access to broken tactics they milk instead of exploring/employing strategic depth. And (3) Air Units with very high kill power can prowl inside enemy terrain undetected, allowing them to poach players that try to push flanks on their own.

Which HE nerfs? If you're talking about the ones that stopped the Prowler HE spam long ago, then I disagree. That HE was a monster and terrible for the player experience in general.

I think many (most?) "sidegrades" in the game are messed up. They seem to have been abandoned balance-wise since forever, and often you'll have all players using one dominant "best" option. In some ways I think this is ok, because it at least limits the Cert/SC cost to get geared out. But in other ways, it just makes for a much smaller game with lack of real depth in choice or different viable playstyles.

And in many (most?) cases, the users of the dominant options don't WANT to have the sidegrades balanced (or their "best" option nerfed): they want to just use a powerful jack-of-all-trade Loadout. And because SOE/DBG has neglected balancing these sidegrades since forever (and because DBG has no refund policy for changed stuff), players have gotten used to it and don't like the idea of being pushed off their "best" option. What ESF pilot wants to lose Fire Suppression? What Lib wants to lose Tankbuster? What Infiltrator Flash wants to lose Wraith Cloak?

Air:Armor:Infantry. Read the game's description before you download you lil child.
Two/Thirds is what the game is supposed to be. It is combined arms.
I main infantry unless I am playing with TENC. Infantry is easier to farm with, at least for me.

Don't forget, you also pull esfs to crash into bridges to make a video intro.

Learn to play the two-thirds of the game that you don't play, then we'll talk.

We hear the lamentations of their women.

We don't play game description and we don't play what the game's supposed to be. We play what we have, and what we have is an open world MMO FPS with a 3-way deathmatch and some vehicles sprinkled over poorly incentivised territorial conquest system.

Vehicles don't occupy 2/3rd of the game. They are not needed. Remove all vehicles except Sunderers, the game will get a bit more dull, but it's gonna be the same Planetside, because that's what planetside evolved into: infantry deathmatch on a huge map.

There is no combined arms because there's no goal. Capturing territory is meaningless, you can't use it as an excuse to pull a vehicle for combat.

Doesn't count, because the crash wasn't intentional. It was one of the "i was bored" cases.

What makes you say I don't know how to play vehicles? I've proven that I can on numerous occasions.

Air vehicles there's no even reason to pull, they're too fragile and weak to do anything besides picking off single targets, and takes too much time flying around looking for a suitable fight to farm.

And talk about what, exactly? What are you trying to accomplish by picking on me in this thread?

Man stop feeding that troll. He's not even fit to rinse the Nanites out of your jockstrap.

Let's stay a bit more practical here.

Tanks currently can kill infantry much more safely than infantry can kill tanks.

This is fine. That is what a tank is designed to do.

C4 is one of the few solid counters infantry has to tanks. Add to that it is risky, easy to counter in said tank (hello AI secondaries...) and often unsuccessful. It is fallacious to say that C4 is more powerful than a tank cannon. It is not impossible to argue that a tank cannon isn't op due to nanite/travel time costs coupled with tank target prioritization.

But a nerf to C4? Again -- when I drive my lightning (and I run exclusively a skyguard) I have NO problem killing infantry with my silly inaccurate flak cannon and NO problem avoiding C4. If C4 was any weaker than tanks would run roughshod all over infantry and we would see a HUGE spike in Lib/Gal presence (in an attempt to counter the armor.)

I'm really glad you brought this up.

How DO you wash the nanites out of your jockstrap? I'm having a terrible time getting them all out myself.

Most times when i've c4'd a tank its because he/she got too greedy got too close and wasn't paying attention which lead to me deciding to end his infantry dominating kill streak.

You do realize one of the points of a tank is to be able to, well, "tank" hits from infantry. This whole idea is blown out of the ground when it comes to C4 in this game.

The ability for one infantry man to destroy a MBT virtually undetected in most cases is simply absurd. The difference between C4 and most other weapons is that C4's alpha damage can immediately destroy a MBT, whilst other weapons require subsequent shots such as your little Lightning, Demigan. And combine this with the fact that a MBT costs more nanites than C4, most players come to the correct realization that C4 is overpowered.

What is the point of having armor when your MBT can immediately die to one hit by C4? It completely fails the function of providing protection against infantry. The current MBT in Planetside 2 isn't even qualified as a tank. People play this game because of real life influences, such as the military, and if the MBT in game doesn't live up to people's expectations... Well there are other games that can such as War Thunder, Arma, Heroes and Generals, and World of Tanks; three of which are real combined arms games.

Basically, if Planetside 2 wants to be a combined arms game, C4 needs to be nerfed and many other changes need to occur to improve MBTs so that it actually does feel like playing an MBT; otherwise Planetside 2 poorer version of many FPS games.

Whenever you losers start talking about what an MBT should "feel" like, it's like you think tanks are meant to be indestructible...

Give it up. You aren't going to EVER get to "feel" like that in a multiplayer game.

A game set FAR in the future, where death itself has been eliminated?? Yeah umm...I call BS that people are looking for a modern day military shooter here.

You're not fit to lick what's under the jockstop, what now, oh 12-year-old?