To every light assault upset about the upcoming C4 changes.

it doesn't exactly take that much teamwork to acquire or run a tank at the moment, so i'm not sure why thats a huge issue.

this is how C4 should act IMO, it preserves the OHK but makes it more controable from the tanking side of the coin

why do people keep talking like light assaults are the only ones with c4?
light assaults have jump jets, probably the best offensive ability in the game,

They should take c4 away from light assaults, and give them some thing else, some thing useful to the team, some thing shiny and new, like a flare gun. light up the battle field, or some thing else,

Cool, so no more 1/2 tanks. Lightnings should also now requires 2 people to operate.


Oh, another thing we should bring back from PS1 is all of the fun engineering deployables such as:



Deployable vehicle barriers!

Base turrets that automatically shoot at enemy vehicles... the ability to carry WAY more mines... so many fun options

Will it take 2 C4 to kill a lightning, or will a lightning now survive 2 bricks?

If C4 should not do dmg to heavy armor and it takes 4-7 people to take a tank down. Then you should only be able to spawn another tank after a 1-month timer.

If you are stupid enough to be taken out by C4, then you deserve it. There are plenty of tankers out there who farm infantry with anywhere up to 100++ kdr per tank spawn.

no idea on lightnings

Okay, but again you seem to have no issue with necromancy and magic nanites, and that shoots the whole RL argument in the foot (like, if you accept the fact that you can bring back the dead, even if they were killed by a direct hit from 155mm cannon, or 2 bricks of C4, then why wont you take the same amount of effort to find SOME a justification why 2 bricks of future explosives can take out a tank, right?).

And once again, you say the issue is that C4 is cheap, tank is expensive so tank should > C4, which is a 100 times better argument. But then let me ask this: if the price is the issue and that one man can kill a tank, then why isnt the default rocket launcher a problem? Its free, and without even a single cert, one person can take a tank out with it, right. So I guess it also has something to do with the amount of effort needed to do it, right? And thats where basically the disagreements are: you (and others) imply its easy, others imply its not. But still has nothing to do with realism.

It's called C4 but it probably isn't, it's some high tech space C4 that has nanites in it that eats tank armor.

Also The Auraxium version of the Deci creates a BLACK HOLE. I think that should one shot pretty much everything.

If you dont have issue why this thread? If you are stupid enough to be c4 by one person then deal with it or go play WoT
I also dont like op non-realistic tanks shield or super non-realistic tanks speed but i'm not whining.
Also tank should not be mean to play inside bases, farming infantry and in open field no c4 fairy will kill you.
You want to play tank? go out with a friend or two with wheel in one hand and your other around eachothers shoulder and make some tank battle.

Btw maybe in your country marines are so stupid to put c4 on armour. Congratulations, but normal one with brain would put it on track making this tank piece of junk or steel coffin for people inside.

The two bricks of future C4 argument is not as valid as people think, because if youre saying its future c4 against future tanks taht have been in the works for hundreds of game years, they should be able to defend against them. And as for the HA rockets, yeah theyre free and can kill them but its much harder to do without the lockon rockets, even then its harder because travel time, aiming, leading, hoping it doesnt duck and cover or return fire, compared to insta gib. I find it incredibly easy to sneak up on tanks as any class, much easier than when im playing heavy assault. Good examples of which are since on this character im more certed on my engy, i just walk up to prowlers and vanguards using cover and timing with their shots, drop tank mines, frag grenade, run, laugh

First off ive stated im not a tanker, i play infantry mostly, but can understand why instagibbing is kind of BS on anything thats easy enough to do if you have the IQ of the average potato. Also i was making the example, i never said such a thing could happen in real life nor anyone would. Well, maybe US marines but theyre the bottom 0.1% of your high schools

Some twiter info:

Tanks:
MBT:
20-30% HP buff, with same resistance values
-2 bricks of C4 won’t kill a MBT anymore

Lightning:
30-40% HP buff, with same resistance values
-2 bricks won’t kill a lightning anymore (still not confirmed, still a rumor)

And using logic is pointless if you still stick with bringing people back from the dead and magic nanites are okay, because then its still arbitrary exceptions from your argument.

As for the rest: you have this experience, others' may differ, so from this point on the argument depends on multiple factors (do you have tunnel vision as a tanker, do you have an extra set of eyes (gunner or spitfire turret), are you near an enemy spawn point, are you close to a base, are you on a terrain in which it would be easy to sneak up on you, do you use proxy radar, is your enemy patient etc etc) and is quite subjective and opinion based, and I usually dont bother with those anymore.

Video game != Real Life

IMO it's just makes the game less fun.

If your in a tank you have the tools to avoid C4. Yes sometime I get blow up by C4 and go DAM IT. But it almost always my fault. I stop moving, I stop paying attention usually because I busy farming kills like a mad man and was too greedy to leave the spot .

It also makes take driving more intense because you always have to be thinking about where danger could come from.


For LA, It just makes the game worse. Oh good more things I have no chance of killing. I can't kill planes, I can't kill any tanks I can just hide and hope they go away. So any time there is any vehicle in the way of what I want to do I am totally screwed which will be frustrating.

Also 200 nanites for maybe getting an assist??? No thanks

Tbh 2x C4 should kill a lightning, but killing a MBT like that is too much.
On the other hand, I think that constant re-deploying in a galaxy that drops infinite amount of C4 fairies is something else that should also get fixed.

To be fair the link you have is to anti-infantry AP rounds, or rounds that are designed to pierce modern infantry armor. All those rounds you listed would still be ineffective against MBT armor.

However we do have the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger, which I think is what the Vulcan and Tank Buster is based on. It uses DU shells and has a maximum armor penetration of 69mm RHA at 500m. In most cases that would be insufficient to penetrate contemporary MBT armor, but against particularly weak areas of a tank (an M1 tank only has about 20mm of armor on top) there might very well be catastrophic damage.

Tests against older T-62s showed that frontal hits essentially all failed to penetrate. Out of all shots that hit the target tank, only 18% penetrated, though obviously even a handful of penetrations might have been lethal to the tank.

Then again the GAU-8 is huge, and would probably be about the size of a Harasser itself. So no way you could mount it to the poor little buggy (or a MBT or maybe even a Liberator):



So can you have 30mm weapons that are effective against certain parts of an MBT? Yup. Can you give that to infantry? Nope. Mount it on a dune buggy? Heck no. Throw it on the roof of an MBT? Not if you want that MBT to be able to move.

On the other hand though it's not like vehicle armor is going to stay at a 21st century level while AP-shell based weapons advance to the 29th century. Armor technology will also improve, and probably at a faster rate than what you can do with small caliber AP-shells. And given the velocities of 30mm weapons in PS2, those wouldn't even work against 21st century MBTs (the GAU-8 has a muzzle velocity of 1,070m/s compared to the Tank Buster's 300m/s). Non-explosive AP shells rely on mostly velocity to achieve penetration, and most things in PS2 are laughable in this regard. I think I once ran the calculations and if PS2 MBT AP shells are as effective as modern AP shells, then each shell would have as much mass as a baby elephant.

C4 needs a deploy-timer of 5 seconds, like hacking a turret or panel. No more tossing.

Trowing is for GRENADES.

Placing is for mines. See what i did there

Placing is for mines and C4?

Not like we should only be allowed to place one item in the game and no others.

thats currently the background image on my desktop, one crazy *** feat of engineering. regardless we have no idea what the weight of projectile is or what it is made of to figure out the total energy delivered to target and effectiveness vs armor at that velocity. that and its a game, gotta give a little take a little. its doubtful we would even have tanks as we know them in the 29th century.