A Rough Proposal for the Functionality of Tank Mines

[CodeVertigo]

I saw the previous thread on Tank Mines (which, honestly, got rather messy), and got to thinking. As such, I've written up a short and very rough proposal for some adjustments that I hope will improve gameplay and address some of the issues that people have raised with respect to Tank Mines. Of course, constructive feedback is always welcome, but please be civil. Remember, we're all trying to find ways to improve the game, and shouting at each other won't help that end.

The first question we should ask is what problems the current functionality of tank mines causes, especially with respect to C4. To me, it seems that the potential problems are:

- Designwise, causes redundancy of C4 as an Engineer's tool - as far as I know, there are no situations in which an Engineer will choose C4 over Tank Mines. This is further worsened by the much higher cost of C4.
- On that note, the damage of each individual tank mine appears to allow one person to destroy a standard AMS-Sunderer on their own, which arguably should not be the case. See the C4 damage levels, where two blocks will allow a player to severely damage a Sunderer, but needs a teammate with at least a HA rocket to help finish the job.
- Tank Mines do not appear to adequately fulfil their intended purpose - that is, a passive, defensive explosive device that is laid in preparation for a vehicular attack in order to temporarily deny a point of entry.
- Because of the relatively low mine-count per player, using them as intended is potentially frustrating for both sides. On one hand, the players laying the mines often cannot cover a large enough area to properly deny a path unless they have a full squad. In choke points where they do, the conflict often results in stray explosions destroying many mines before the tanks actually reach there. On the other hand, those running over the mines will get frustrated due to deaths occurring with no chance to respond.


If we were to propose a solution, what do we need to keep in mind?

- Given the existence of C4 and the definition of mines, C4 should be more suited to the task of destroying stationary vehicles, such as deployed Sunderers than the Tank Mines
- That said, there is no reason why it shouldn't be *possible* for tank mines to be used in a way similar to how they are now (i.e. placed next to a Sunderer and detonated by being shot)
- If we were to increase the number of mines available to each player, how much do we need to reduce mine damage?
- Will increasing the number of mines available result in Minespam?
- Should adjustments should be made to the Mine Guard?
- If minefields become prevalent, should there be a method of detecting mines other than physically looking for them (e.g. a mine-radar)?


It's not an exhaustive list of considerations, but it's a start. Based on this, my tentative proposal is as follows:

- Tank Mines should take longer than C4 to place. I propose starting at 1.25-1.5 times the deployment time of C4, and adjusting from there.
- The number of Tank Mines available should be increased, starting at 4, with two additional cert levels that increase the maximum to 5 and 6 respectively.
- The damage of Tank Mines should be reduced. The damage of 4 Tank Mines should do the same amount of damage as 2 bricks of C4.
- Tank Mine explosions should not detonate other Tank Mines.
- However, Tank Mines should be vulnerable to other explosion sources such as tank rounds and HA rockets.

- I'm unsure about how Mine Guard should be adjusted, but I tentatively suggest making the highest rank reduce mine damage by 65%, and adjusting the lower ranks based on that.
- In addition, the introduction of an auditory Mine Detector should be considered. I suggest limiting this ability to Sunderers and Flashes. It would begin beeping if mines were detected within a certain range of the vehicle, increasing in frequency as the vehicle gets closer to the mines. Perhaps with three ranks, at 15/25/35m.


Summary:

The idea behind the proposed changes is to move the role of Tank Mines more towards the idea of how they are traditionally used, while also making them more viable for that purpose. They should still be able to destroy Sunderers as they are used now, but it will be much, much harder (though I'm sure someone will be on YouTube doing it anyway).

Retaining the vulnerability of Tank Mines to explosions should discourage their use immediately outside or in bases where they would be destroyed in a fight. That said, the increase in mines available would encourage their use in the outskirts of the base, and passes which bases do not reside in.

To balance this increase in quantity of mines, I have proposed a reduction in the damage dealt by the individual mines. This presents minelayers with a choice - do they pack their mines very tightly together, covering less area but with a more lethal explosion, or do they spread them out, covering more area, but less effectively?

These changes will likely mean an increase in the prevalence of minefields, and as such, the proposed Mine Detector should give armored columns a means of dealing with them by detecting them early. On top of this, it would give the Sunderer and Flash more utility in an armored column.

[Rumblepit]

i think they way they work now is fine. its breaking up armor columns , and those that like to pull a mbt and go solo well they have to think twice about that now, because if you have a gunner then there is no reason he cant shoot light assaults and engis as they come after you. thus its helping to cut down on the amount of armor on the field.

if you want to solo and sit still in a tank while trying to snipe from 300 ms away then you deserve to die everytime. all i can say is get and gunner, use coms, and watch all the engis and light assaults die who try to come after you.

hope this helps

[CodeVertigo]

i think they way they work now is fine. its breaking up armor columns , and those that like to pull a mbt and go solo well they have to think twice about that now, because if you have a gunner then there is no reason he cant shoot light assaults and engis as they come after you. thus its helping to cut down on the amount of armor on the field.

if you want to solo and sit still in a tank while trying to snipe from 300 ms away then you deserve to die everytime. all i can say is get and gunner, use coms, and watch all the engis and light assaults die who try to come after you.

hope this helps

If I've understood correctly, what you've mentioned is that the current use of Tank Mines means that tank pilots are more likely to need gunners to help them watch their backs. Because the tanks need more gunners, there are less people to drive other tanks, so the number of tanks around is reduced.

It's a valid argument I suppose, but arguably, the changes in the proposal still allow for this. The Engineers may no longer be able to walk up to a tank to throw down a bunch of mines, but that role can still be fulfilled by C4.

Thus in theory, the proposal I've suggested should still allow for this particular type of deterrent to tankspam, but also allow for the aforementioned changes in Tank Mine function.

[ShadetheDruid]

As a C4 user (not engie, but LA), i'll celebrate the day people have to work to destroy vehicles (like we do) rather than just suiciding with death frisbees. Plus, minefields would give a lot more tactical aspects to engie play.

We already have more than enough ways to destroy tanks, and the concept of having ridiculous stuff to counter spam (rather than fixing the actual causes of the spam) needs to die.

[CodeVertigo]

As a C4 user (not engie, but LA), i'll celebrate the day people have to work to destroy vehicles (like we do) rather than just suiciding with death frisbees. Plus, minefields would give a lot more tactical aspects to engie play.

My hopes for the Mine Detector are more focused on the Sunderer and AMS. I am hoping that it may increase the prevalence of Blockade Armor over Mine Guard, which should make AMS assassination a bit less trivial. My logic works something like this:

- Proposed changes should imply a reduction in the use of tank mines to kill deployed Sunderers
- Instead, mines are used to create minefields, and C4 is used to kill Sunderers
- This leads to teams that run Sunderers with Blockade Armor, led by Flashes with Mine Detectors
- The result is that teams that work together can benefit from being able to negotiate minefields and bring some defense against C4
- But those that pull Sunderers on their own will have to choose one or the other

It's not airtight by any means, but that's how I hope it would work.

[ShadetheDruid]

- This leads to teams that run Sunderers with Blockade Armor, led by Flashes with Mine Detectors

This would be pretty cool. The Flash driver would have to be pretty alert though, one wrong move and.. boom! :lol:

[Rumblepit]

im a huge fan of c4 myself , but if there werent so many stupid people driving around in armor allone i wouldnt get as many kills. thats the truth.

if your in a tank and you allow someone to get that close to you you deserve to die, its that simple. you have what??? 3000 ,5000 health, and you can move at 60 kph..... stop camping, get a gunner,communicate, and dont be stupid and i promise youll kill any infantry that come near you.

[Rumblepit]

My hopes for the Mine Detector are more focused on the Sunderer and AMS. I am hoping that it may increase the prevalence of Blockade Armor over Mine Guard, which should make AMS assassination a bit less trivial. My logic works something like this:

- Proposed changes should imply a reduction in the use of tank mines to kill deployed Sunderers
- Instead, mines are used to create minefields, and C4 is used to kill Sunderers
- This leads to teams that run Sunderers with Blockade Armor, led by Flashes with Mine Detectors
- The result is that teams that work together can benefit from being able to negotiate minefields and bring some defense against C4
- But those that pull Sunderers on their own will have to choose one or the other

It's not airtight by any means, but that's how I hope it would work.



then they would have to allow players to carry more c4. if you want them to be used to kill stationary armor every class should be able to carry 4 to 6 c4. but i think they got it right the first time. no gunner means your fodder for light assaults and engis.
and if this is about engis killing your suny then you should be defending it at all times. why would you allow a engi to walk up to a spawn point which could turn the tides of a battle uncontested?

[ShadetheDruid]

Personally i'm not so worried about tanks, that's the whole reason I got proximity radar (to catch people sneaking up on me with mines or C4). Since i'm a Lightning driver, I don't have the advantage of a gunner to watch my back anyway.

The thing with Sundies though is they're hell to defend. All the people clumped up around it means all the engie has to do is get in the middle of them and they win within like one second and a couple of clicks. As you probably know, it takes 10 times longer for a C4 user to do the same job, especially if they're doing the whole job themself (my favoured method being underslung grenades to finish the job).

[Rumblepit]

Personally i'm not so worried about tanks, that's the whole reason I got proximity radar (to catch people sneaking up on me with mines or C4). Since i'm a Lightning driver, I don't have the advantage of a gunner to watch my back anyway.

The thing with Sundies though is they're hell to defend. All the people clumped up around it means all the engie has to do is get in the middle of them and they win within like one second and a couple of clicks. As you probably know, it takes 10 times longer for a C4 user to do the same job, especially if they're doing the whole job themself (my favoured method being underslung grenades to finish the job).

not really , we pair up light assaults when we go sundy hunting. they die as fast or even faster with c4. and as a lighting driver you have more of a speed advantage .

[CodeVertigo]

then they would have to allow players to carry more c4. if you want them to be used to kill stationary armor every class should be able to carry 4 to 6 c4. but i think they got it right the first time. no gunner means your fodder for light assaults and engis.

Hmm, I'm not sure I properly understand. Could you elaborate on why players would need to be able to carry more C4?

[Rumblepit]

Hmm, I'm not sure I properly understand. Could you elaborate on why players would need to be able to carry more C4?

1 engi can take out a most sundys, maxed mine guarded sundy needs 2 engis, 7 mines to take it out. now you want c4 to be the only thing that can take out stationary armor" sundys" then players need to be able to carry more c4. takes 3 to drop a sundy.players who have c4 certed should get 4 to 6.

i assume you would rather the just keep it the way they have it now though?
so if a sundy parked you want those using c4 to put 2 on the sundy then run back resupply and drop another on there?
i sure most would love this,,,, because you can just leave your sundy unguarded go get kills and not have to worry about it getting blown up. if your a dedicated sundy driver, first and foremost get minegaurd,then defend your sundy at all costs . this is your job as the sundy driver. when it gets blown up you failed your faction because of lack of defense .

[CodeVertigo]

1 engi can take out a most sundys, maxed mine guarded sundy needs 2 engis, 7 mines to take it out. now you want c4 to be the only thing that can take out stationary armor" sundys" then players need to be able to carry more c4. takes 3 to drop a sundy.players who have c4 certed should get 4 to 6.

i assume you would rather the just keep it the way they have it now though?
so if a sundy parked you want those using c4 to put 2 on the sundy then run back resupply and drop another on there?
i sure most would love this,,,, because you can just leave your sundy unguarded go get kills and not have to worry about it getting blown up. if your a dedicated sundy driver, first and foremost get minegaurd,then defend your sundy at all costs . this is your job as the sundy driver. when it gets blown up you failed your faction because of lack of defense .

I think I see what you mean.

However, I don't think the changes proposed will mean that people can just leave their Sunderers unguarded, because the C4 will still do a large amount of damage.

On their own against a stock Sunderer, two bricks of C4 will bring it down to critical, and if nothing is done about it, the Sunderer will eventually burn and explode.

Against a Sunderer with Blockade Armor, the C4 will still do a ton of damage, but won't bring it to that critical state. However, from that point, the Sunderer can still be easily killed by throwing another rocket or two at it.


Essentially, what this means is that The Blockade Armor doesn't make the C4 ineffective, it just acts as a saving grace that buys them a tiny bit more time to repair the Sunderer. They still have to defend it though, because like you said, all it takes is for two Light Assaults to get on it together, or coordinate with a HA with a Decimator for the Sunderer to go down just as quickly as if it didn't have the armor.

[Rumblepit]

I think I see what you mean.

However, I don't think the changes proposed will mean that people can just leave their Sunderers unguarded, because the C4 will still do a large amount of damage.

On their own against a stock Sunderer, two bricks of C4 will bring it down to critical, and if nothing is done about it, the Sunderer will eventually burn and explode.

Against a Sunderer with Blockade Armor, the C4 will still do a ton of damage, but won't bring it to that critical state. However, from that point, the Sunderer can still be easily killed by throwing another rocket or two at it.


Essentially, what this means is that The Blockade Armor doesn't make the C4 ineffective, it just acts as a saving grace that buys them a tiny bit more time to repair the Sunderer. They still have to defend it though, because like you said, all it takes is for two Light Assaults to get on it together, or coordinate with a HA with a Decimator for the Sunderer to go down just as quickly as if it didn't have the armor.

i get what your saying.... i really do, but people have spent tones of certs setting up engis to do this ........ okkk engi is the only class that can take out a sundy very very fast. 3000 certs are needed to do this and do it well, because most know better and have mineguard now. you dont like how mines work in this manner. i get that, but my point was what if they chose the other route? they allow players to carry more c4 then everyone could insta gib a sundy except infils. thats what you would get.

so i was saying was implying that they made the right decision in only allow a engi who has spent 3000 certs to do this.

GET MINEGUARD!!!!!!! everyone who runs a sundy should have it maxed.and if 2 engis happen to get you,then die knowing they had to spend over 500 resources to do it. nine times out of ten 2 wont make it to the same sundy.

[ShadetheDruid]

GET MINEGUARD!!!!!!! everyone who runs a sundy should have it maxed.

Well, that's kind of a problem in itself, isn't it? The rest of the options in the Sundie defense slot get left by the wayside because of one class with one item type.

[CodeVertigo]

i get what your saying.... i really do, but people have spent tones of certs setting up engis to do this ........ okkk engi is the only class that can take out a sundy very very fast. 3000 certs are needed to do this and do it well, because most know better and have mineguard now.

While I understand that changing the behaviour of something that people have put certs into is quite a painful idea, I don't believe that the game should be adjusted based on certs. The reason is because people are earning certs all the time, and the things that people own via certs changes all the time. What might be balanced one day might be completely unviable on another day. It's like constructing a building on sand - it might be stable when you first build it, but you can't really be sure it's going to stay that way after a few months.


you dont like how mines work in this manner. i get that, but my point was what if they chose the other route? they allow players to carry more c4 then everyone could insta gib a sundy except infils. thats what you would get.

so i was saying was implying that they made the right decision in only allow a engi who has spent 3000 certs to do this.

Well, in that case I propose that the current C4 cap remain at 2. It's enough to kill MBTs, but people still wouldn't be able to instagib Sunderers without teamwork, which is a good thing if you ask me. The C4 cap doesn't have to be increased in response to a change in the mines, imho.

GET MINEGUARD!!!!!!! everyone who runs a sundy should have it maxed.and if 2 engis happen to get you,then die knowing they had to spend over 500 resources to do it. nine times out of ten 2 wont make it to the same sundy.

Well, this is another problem that I want to address, which is that the dynamic between Tank Mines and Mine Guards is pretty static. Mostly, people equip the Mine Guards to stop Engineers from instagibbing their Sunderers. They're never used as they were intended, i.e. to save their vehicle in the event that they happen to drive over mines on the road.

By making the changes I proposed, it improves the dynamic for both the minelayers AND the drivers.

The minelayers use their mines in the way they were intended, and can set up proper minefields to take out vehicles before they arrive at their destination. The tactical decisions for minelayers are also much greater. Do they cover a larger area but do less damage, or cluster their mines closer together, covering a smaller area with a more lethal explosion? Not to mention also that this will give Engineers the option of having minefields active somewhere else whilst also being able to use C4.

On the flipside, drivers also don't feel so forced into using Mine Guard all the time, provided they have teammates to drive in front of them with Mine Detectors (which also improves opportunities for teamwork). It would allow them more opportunities to use some of the other equipment we wouldn't otherwise see. Personally, I see it as a bit of a shame that one piece of defense gear (the Mine Guard) is regarded as undoubtedly better than the others in a game that was supposedly designed around the idea of sidegrading.

All in all, I'm hoping that this will make the game more varied and interesting in this respect, for drivers and minelayers alike.

[Boomzor]

Add in a non-deployment area equal to the explosive radius of a mine and I like the idea.

If a driver is unaware and just plows through, he'll die. On the other hand if he's paying attention, he'll have time to hit the brakes and not get insta-gibbed (makes chassis with improved brakes more valuable too). Of course, he's standing still now - probably repairing too - and is an excellent target for ambushes.

[OCNSethy]

CodeVertigo, I like how you keep coming back to the team work and tactic considerations of C4, Mines and use of vehicles. I think the devs should consider this when planning their next improvements.

As a Sundie driver, I started off in a AMS / Resupply role, in support of my empire. Since the jhadi engineers started to pop up with their tank mines, Ive had to cert into a tank guard. I suspect most people are doing this too as Im struggling to see or find resupply sundies on the field.

I guess its human nature to protect your valuable asset and not risk a one hit kill on your ride.

The other night we had a protracted, combined-arms 3 way fight at Ti Alloys (Indar). Everytime a resupply sundie made an appearance, it was targeted and destroyed by every man and his dog (MBTs /LA/Engies/air). It got to the point when no one was willing to pull an ammo sundie. The end result was all the armour (including AMS sundies) has to withdraw from the fight to get resupplied elsewhere. This gave the enemy a tempory respite to regroup and hit our infanty harder. It was an epic battle but a frustrating one.

[Baneblade]

I'm hoping the new Deliverer is the less explosion prone transport vehicle.

[Rumblepit]

While I understand that changing the behaviour of something that people have put certs into is quite a painful idea, I don't believe that the game should be adjusted based on certs. The reason is because people are earning certs all the time, and the things that people own via certs changes all the time. What might be balanced one day might be completely unviable on another day. It's like constructing a building on sand - it might be stable when you first build it, but you can't really be sure it's going to stay that way after a few months.



Well, in that case I propose that the current C4 cap remain at 2. It's enough to kill MBTs, but people still wouldn't be able to instagib Sunderers without teamwork, which is a good thing if you ask me. The C4 cap doesn't have to be increased in response to a change in the mines, imho.



Well, this is another problem that I want to address, which is that the dynamic between Tank Mines and Mine Guards is pretty static. Mostly, people equip the Mine Guards to stop Engineers from instagibbing their Sunderers. They're never used as they were intended, i.e. to save their vehicle in the event that they happen to drive over mines on the road.

By making the changes I proposed, it improves the dynamic for both the minelayers AND the drivers.

The minelayers use their mines in the way they were intended, and can set up proper minefields to take out vehicles before they arrive at their destination. The tactical decisions for minelayers are also much greater. Do they cover a larger area but do less damage, or cluster their mines closer together, covering a smaller area with a more lethal explosion? Not to mention also that this will give Engineers the option of having minefields active somewhere else whilst also being able to use C4.

On the flipside, drivers also don't feel so forced into using Mine Guard all the time, provided they have teammates to drive in front of them with Mine Detectors (which also improves opportunities for teamwork). It would allow them more opportunities to use some of the other equipment we wouldn't otherwise see. Personally, I see it as a bit of a shame that one piece of defense gear (the Mine Guard) is regarded as undoubtedly better than the others in a game that was supposedly designed around the idea of sidegrading.

All in all, I'm hoping that this will make the game more varied and interesting in this respect, for drivers and minelayers alike.

we did test your method in beta. you know that right? it was reverted in 2 maybe 3 days. everyone can have a opinion.

get mineguard, get gunners, defend your armor. youll do fine. mines worked the same way in ps1.people want meta game, defend your sundys,it could change the tide of the battle.

[BIGGByran]

I think what most people are wanting is that, they want to be able to leave their sundies defenseless. They do not want to guard it agaisn't 1 or 2 or 3 rogue engies. Defending a sundy agaisn't 1 or 2 engies is boring and people don't want that. They want to get in the fight.

If people would learn to park their sundies a little further away in a slightly open area, they can leave enough open space to kill an engi before they even get close to a sunderer.

I can feel for those who don't want to go Mine Guard, and I think a slight reduction on damage would be better. Making it where 2 tank mines would put a sundy into critical and allow the sundy players about 10 - 15 seconds to repair it before it blows from fire, maybe even 3 tanks mines to do this effect, so people can't just cert rank 1 and completely own sundies, force them to cert rank 2 into Tank mines.

I think adding the effect of temp immobilization to tank mines would be awesome also, to promote "defense."

Or maybe changing the tank mines to being able to disable any vehicle it hits for xx sec, but the damage is reduce significantly. Disable AMS, Abilities, and movement, but not it's turrets, still allow to deploy under anything and blow.

Don't say Engies have an easier time killing things with tank mines as we can only walk and not fly. So we have to take the longest route to, hopefully, not be shot, or the direct route which is usually through the enemies assault path, while LA can just take short cuts as they can by pass walls and natural blockades.

[BIGGByran]

Everytime a resupply sundie made an appearance, it was targeted and destroyed by every man and his dog (MBTs /LA/Engies/air). It got to the point when no one was willing to pull an ammo sundie.

Wouldn't you call that teamwork and awesome calls by the defense team? The defense team knew that tanks do not have unlimited supply of shells and by killing your Ammo sundy (supply line) you would eventually have to retreat to resupply. I see nothing wrong. tactically the defense team was smart.

EDIT:
Seems like you were kinda pointing out Tank mines, sorry if I misinterpreted. D was smart lol, seems like an epic battle.

[OCNSethy]

Wouldn't you call that teamwork and awesome calls by the defense team? The defense team knew that tanks do not have unlimited supply of shells and by killing your Ammo sundy (supply line) you would eventually have to retreat to resupply. I see nothing wrong. tactically the defense team was smart.

Oh, absolutely. They did a great job against not one but two attacking enemies. Their defence was outstanding.

The point I was trying to make was with the perceived greater need for mine-guards, there where fewer supply sundies around.

The unfortune part was, most ammo sundies died from tanks and libs, not tank mines but the perceived threat of tank mines was large in people's mind.

[BIGGByran]

Oh, absolutely. They did a great job against not one but two attacking enemies. Their defence was outstanding.

The point I was trying to make was with the perceived greater need for mine-guards, there where fewer supply sundies around.

The unfortune part was, most ammo sundies died from tanks and libs, not tank mines but the perceived threat of tank mines was large in people's mind.

As it should be. In a large scale battle, it will be, or atleast should be, near impossible for a Engy to get close enough to a sundy to Tank mine it due to the amount of people spawning from it, but if the engy gets in close enough to mine it, then he deserves the reward of blowing it up.. But in smaller battles is where an engy generally have the easier of time.

[OCNSethy]

As it should be. In a large scale battle, it will be, or atleast should be, near impossible for a Engy to get close enough to a sundy to Tank mine it due to the amount of people spawning from it, but if the engy gets in close enough to mine it, then he deserves the reward of blowing it up.. But in smaller battles is where an engy generally have the easier of time.

Its funny how battles evolve. This started out as a small unit capture attempt and turned into a large scale, 3 way tussle seige. This demonstrated a good case for multiple loadouts for vehicles... especially sundies.

Start off with a mine guard loadout for the initial small push and have a blockade loadout for the heavy seige scenarios. The only problem with that is, you cant have an ammo option in concert with the other defence options. Assuming you want to spend the certs of course.

Choices, choices :)

[Ghoest9]

Here is a better - and simpler proposal.

Extend set up time to 3 seconds.



Now go find something else to whine about.

[BIGGByran]

Here is a better - and simpler proposal.
Extend set up time to 3 seconds.
Now go find something else to whine about.

Lol, well then no engy will go Tank Mines and instead go C4, then everyone will b!tch about that.

[Figment]

There also should be an interference radius to tankmines so they promote field creation, rather than instant kills. They should be a bit easier to spot by standing out from the background a bit. Mines in general as well as C4 are invisible as is. Sometimes under the impression they disappear into the ground. I would also say 10-20 mines, opposed to six and a reduction of mine damage of 60% to 75%. Mine guard's should of course be made less effective, but able to ignore 4 mines which would kill another vehicle.

[Gatekeeper]

Absolutely agree with OP, great suggestions.

Incorporating Boomzor/Figment's suggestions about a deployment radius would also help. I'm also inclined to agree with Figment that allowing more mines sounds reasonable, although I think 20 might be too many - maybe 8-16 depending on certs?

Might be a good idea for Engis to have some way of tracking how many mines they've placed as well, and maybe mark them on the map or something so they can see which ones are still there.

[Figment]

Rumblepit, you seem to ignore that if you get mineguard, 2 C4 will blow up the ams, since composite armour is needed to need more than 2 C4. At least, you do place C4 on the rear, right?

Personally I think people should both carry more and need more to kill.


It took four boomers (C4) or five mines to kill an AMS in PS1, never had issues with that as infil and we could only place and detonate one at a time, unless we took more time and used EMP grenades after dropping the boomer controls to set off all explosives at once. Often times you would use their own mines against them using the EMP grenades.


Of course, we couldn't repair at a stupendously quick rate either and a kill often meant more in terms of respawn time. Even then, blew up tons of AMSes, but stole even more. In PS2, blowing up can be simple, so simple nobody reacts or has time to discover what you are up to.

You say drivers should be aware, but they are not because they aren't drivers and tank commanders, but mobile gunners. You can't both aim and look at what is behind you and you can't aim at 60kph. Bit silly argument.


@Gatekeeper: you mean like the engineering overlay and map where all deployables of your empire are visible with yours in a different colour so you can plan and coordinate defenses? 20 sounds fine with me, had up to 25 in PS1 while facing far less enemies and it wasn't a problem at all. Remember, at lower damage, it would be four-five possible kills, so likely only two actual kills. Minefield must be wide to ensure one at four-five mines a kill. Sounds fair to me - even more against there not being any significant amounts of crew vehicles (MBTs count as solo vehicles).

[OnyxD]

The problem with making C4 as the main way to destroy parked sunderers is that C4 is used across classes. Since Light Assault can fly, C4 will be much more powerful in a Light Assaults hands which will take away from the anti-vehicle function from Engineers.

The right way to approach the problem is definitely to tweak AT mines. I am a habitual AT mine user and combat engineer and I concede 2 seconds per placement sounds about right.

Increasing the amount of mines an engineer can carry and decreasing the damage isn't a good idea imo because 1) boring placing all the mines 2) increases server load having all these extra objects to track.

[Exmortius]

man engys in ps1 could deploy like 20 mines each.....that slows down tank columns :D drop the price of them and allow more and tanks will be more balanced imo with grunts.

[Bloodlet]

Tank mines are fine just the way they are.

[Calisai]

Increasing the amount of mines an engineer can carry and decreasing the damage isn't a good idea imo because 1) boring placing all the mines 2) increases server load having all these extra objects to track.

The problem I have is that 2 mines is hardly enough to setup a decent minefield (can you really call it a field?). You can't even cover a good road with 2.

If you find mining boring, then use C4. The question is... should mines be reactive or proactive? Do you place them before battle to take out the initial spearhead and/or slow down the advance... or drop them and destroy camping vehicles.

I believe mines should be proactive (2 seconds to place/activate), C4 should be reactive(current system is fine). And if that is the case... 2 mines is not enough (and not being able to see them on map is unacceptable)... Proactive mine fields are about area denial... redirect the flow of tanks a particular way, slow down a column by making them clear the area, etc.... 2 mines are about getting kills....

However, If its really is a server load issue.... then just come out and say they are reactive only. That can stop the debate at least.

[Kerrec]

This is how I perceive the arguments in this thread:

Mines are now so popular that vehicles, in particular Sunderers, MUST equip Mineguard.

The perception that Mineguard is now a NECESSITY implies a broken game mechanic. Therefore people want it fixed.

The proposed solution is to change mines from a weapon to a deterrant. That way drivers have a chance to react and avoid the destruction of their Sunderers (and other vehicles).

That means they'll be able to equip other options instead of Mineguard. Blockade armor being the big winner, because it protects against C4 (the alternative to mines) as well as incoming fire from all kinds of other sources of damage.


In conclusion: Nerf Mines, make them a deterrant that can be reacted to. This will mean that Mineguard is a "nice to have" but not anywhere near a necessity. This will allow people to equip Blockade, which is a direct counter to all kinds of damage, including the alternative to mines: C4!

So, defense becomes even harder since AMS Sunderers are now resistant to the only damage they have to fear.

I can't help but feel like AMS drivers want their Sunderers to be invulnerable.

EDIT: I have mines fully certed on my engineer. 3 mines total. I do plenty of AMS suicide runs. Pulling numbers out of the air based on my "feeling", I'd say I probably succeed in getting to a sunderer 1 in 4 attempts. That being said, I NEVER throw down more than 2 mines, even though I have 3. I have NEVER failed to blow up a Sunderer with only 2 mines. On my server, NO ONE gets mineguard. If they did, I'd just be wasting my resources and they'd get free repair XP. But they don't.

[ShadetheDruid]

I'm willing to bet most Sunderers get destroyed by tanks and HAs (or aircraft, even), so no, changing mines wouldn't make them "invulnerable". Assuming that engies with tank mines are the only thing keeping defense viable is stupid. Besides, blockade armour, while useful, isn't that strong.

But what you'd get if you changed mines is mineguard used on Sunderers that bash through defenses, blockade armour on the general troop transports, and other defense slot things that actually become viable because of the changes (i'm even thinking that vehicle stealth would be the better choice for an AMS here).

[Kerrec]

I'm willing to bet most Sunderers get destroyed by tanks and HAs (or aircraft, even), so no, changing mines wouldn't make them "invulnerable". Assuming that engies with tank mines are the only thing keeping defense viable is stupid. Besides, blockade armour, while useful, isn't that strong.

But what you'd get if you changed mines is mineguard used on Sunderers that bash through defenses, blockade armour on the general troop transports, and other defense slot things that actually become viable because of the changes (i'm even thinking that vehicle stealth would be the better choice for an AMS here).

Well, maybe it comes to different outfits, different servers with different tactics. From my experience, as a mostly infantry player, AMS's get destroyed by infantry. Rockets, C4 or Mines. I do see occasional ESF/Lib runs against AMS's, but no where near as often as I see infantry attack them. So my experience is the opposite to what you see.

If mines were changed to be a deterrant, I would NOT bother with them anymore, unless I got XP for the damage I do, just like the AA XP that was recently implemented. I would also cry loud and often on the forums to have the resource cost eliminated completely from Mines. Then when I play, I would automatically deploy all my mines when I spawn and just switch to other classes if I'm not driving a vehicle. LA would be my go-to class whenever I decide that an AMS needs to die to successfully defend a base.

I just don't understand how people can see that as "better" gameplay.

[Babyfark McGeez]

This is how I perceive the arguments in this thread:

Mines are now so popular that vehicles, in particular Sunderers, MUST equip Mineguard.

The perception that Mineguard is now a NECESSITY implies a broken game mechanic. Therefore people want it fixed.


I don't know about the other posters in this thread, but my gripe with mines is that they are being thrown around and dropped like C4, and therefore mostly being used as "offensive" explosive devices. Which well, we allready have C4 for.

I barely ever see a mine being deployed on the ground in a tactical position to "fortify" a base. Minefields? Nayyyy, i run up to vehicles and throw mines at them instead.

Making mines being "deployed" like ammo packs/turrets would turn them into their "original" purpose; defensively deployed fortification devices designed to damage/destroy vehicles that run over them.

I could care less what others do with their tank mines, but when i see no minefields at all (even though that should be possible now) and people throwing them around like grenades i think a change could benefit the game and add some well needed (playermade) base fortifications.

[Figment]

LA is already better at C4 placement and it always will be, because it's one of the only classes capable of reaching an AMS - aside from an infil, who can't do anything there right now aside from getting a few cheap kills before being send off in a coffin.

Engineers should have stronger roles in pro-active defense (fortification and access denial). Currently they have next to none. Kerrec, I think that's the type of gameplay that's considered "better", but hardly present.

Placing and maintaining minefields is a rewarding and fun job. What I don't quite get is why engineers currentý can't simply place shields and why they can't place a limited amount of turrets to be used by random players other than themselves.

This would make their role a lot more viable, especially in strengthening the team effort.



Of course, yes, players would switch classes regularly after placing it, but I don't really see how that's an issue, they performed their role in that suit, didn't they? If I understand it correctly, you're concerned that they perform two roles at once? Does that really matter if they can't change what's been done while not in that class? In a sense yes (can do all over time), in a sense no (can't do all in one suit). That's why BR40 (all options) in a freeform system (PS1) was a bit worse than "BR40 within classes", since it meant both could be done over time and at the same time by adapting the inventory accordingly.


Personally I prefer "can do limited amounts over time" as it is more restrictive on both, even if it allows more combinations in a suit, it allows less combinations over time.

But I mean, switching suits happens all the time to finish off enemies (at least it does for me). If placement of stationary, passive things like mines is better off being placed in Engi class and then continue to be present as you change roles to adapt to need, I personally find that more than fair enough in the current context.


Placing mines and then having them disappear because you are forced to change suit is simply a waste of time after all. But yes, it's not ideal. Hence I'd prefer an inventory system.

[Gatekeeper]

Well, maybe it comes to different outfits, different servers with different tactics. From my experience, as a mostly infantry player, AMS's get destroyed by infantry. Rockets, C4 or Mines. I do see occasional ESF/Lib runs against AMS's, but no where near as often as I see infantry attack them. So my experience is the opposite to what you see.

If mines were changed to be a deterrant, I would NOT bother with them anymore, unless I got XP for the damage I do, just like the AA XP that was recently implemented. I would also cry loud and often on the forums to have the resource cost eliminated completely from Mines. Then when I play, I would automatically deploy all my mines when I spawn and just switch to other classes if I'm not driving a vehicle. LA would be my go-to class whenever I decide that an AMS needs to die to successfully defend a base.

I just don't understand how people can see that as "better" gameplay.

I see AMS get destroyed mainly by some combination of rockets, turrets and tanks. I'd say aircraft, C4 and mines are a secondary factor. Hard to get a definite picture of this though.

I think the key point here is to define a distinct role for mines that's intuitive and feels fair. Currently mines are useful, but the way they work is wildly at odds with mines in either the real world or in PS1 and is very frustrating for those on the wrong end of them.

What we need is a way of keeping mines roughly as useful, but in a way that doesn't make other players want to rage-quit, and that is immediately logical to everyone. Hence the discussion of mines being a method of territorial denial - slowing or stopping units attempting to move through a mined area, setting up for ambushes and/or killing off careless targets. Which is what mines are for in the real world, and in PS1.

Personally I will never use mines as they are now - they're almost useless when used as conventional mines because you can't lay a proper minefield, and they're grossly overpowered when used as a direct attack - killing better than C4 with less warning. In PS1 I used mines a lot, and found them satisfying and useful. And when I was damaged or killed by enemy mines, I felt it was fair.

Moving to a PS1-style system where you can lay a proper field of mines, but they have a setup time, have to be a minimum distance apart from each other and do somewhat less damage per mine seems like an excellent solution to me and I don't see it as a defensive nerf at all - quite the opposite.

Currently mines overlap heavily with C4 and rockets as a defensive AV weapon - PS1 mines are used very differently, thus adding an extra defensive option that simply doesn't exist right now. This is a buff for defenders, not a nerf.

tl;dr Current mines are unintuitive and frustrating for everyone. PS1-style mines would buff defence, reward forward-planning, be much less annoying, make far more sense and support various interesting new tactics.

[Gatekeeper]

What I don't quite get is why engineers currentý can't simply place shields and why they can't place a limited amount of turrets to be used by random players other than themselves.

Absolutely. I would love to see turrets be something engis could place for others to use (just use the same access control menu as for vehicles FFS) - as it stands they might as well die with their owner, and the scores of pointless, unusable turrets that litter the landscape of Auraxis are jarring and scream of bad game design.

It seems to be part and parcel of some notion that PS2 players are all intensely selfish and cannot ever be expected to do something that benefits their team rather than only themselves - the same logic behind tank drivers having the main gun.

[satori]

I agree with the OP's points 100%.

[Bravix]

I don't see what's wrong with them. If anything, make it so that they actually have to be run over by a moving vehicle so that they can't be used as C4 against sunderers.

Also, if AT mines get a setup time C4 better get one as well.

People also keep talking like Engineer can only carry 2 C4, which is false. They can carry MANY more. Two more if I recall correctly.

[ShadetheDruid]

Also, if AT mines get a setup time C4 better get one as well.

C4 useage is already delayed, you have to detonate it yourself. Plus if you want to take out a Sundie solo, it's in your interest not to suicide yourself with it.

[BIGGByran]

If people are trying to make tank mines like the ones in real life. How much C4 will in take to blow up a M1A1 Tank? Not disable, but to completely blow it up, just curious, also, you do not have the benefit of optimal placement, so C4 going straight for armor.

[Figment]

If people are trying to make tank mines like the ones in real life.

Ehr... seems a bit off-topic, since who said anything about real life?

[Kerrec]

I use my mines both ways. Offensively against unguarded or supidly placed Sunderers/tanks, or defensively knowing where a zerg is going to go.

My experience from the defensive vs. zerg is I kill flashes that way. Ok, I got a kill, but I wouldn't spend my infantry resources to kill Flashes in the first place. I want to kill the dangerous vehicles.

Mines have moved away from "pressure plate" technology A LONG TIME AGO. Modern mines do not rely on "weight" as a triggering mechanism. Now, thousands of years in the future, after humans have conquered interstellar space flight, can "replicate" vehicles using Nanites, can "replicate" humans using nanites, etc... why do you think it is so out of the realm of possibility that a mine can be intelligent enough to:

1) Know when a vehicle is within it's kill radius?
2) Know a friendly vehicle from an enemy vehicle?

The whole "this is not how mines are used" argument is just a rationalization that is convienient for a specific point of view.

C4 vs. Mines:

I have used C4 to destroy aircraft. Never intentionally done so with Mines.
I have used C4 to kill a gaggle of infantry. Never intentionally done so with Mines.
I have used C4 to destroy turrets. Never intentionally done so with Mines.
I have used C4 to kill vehicles. I DO do this with Mines, and it even costs LESS.


Mines are the cheap effective tool to destroy vehicles. C4 is an expensive Multi-role tool to destroy ANYTHING.

This whole point of view that C4 is THE tool you're supposed to use to destroy stationary vehicles is a point of view that I don't agree with.

Making Mines a deterrant means everyone will just default cert into C4 and only the people that have certs to spare or gain enjoyment from making other players game time unfun will bother to cert Mines. AND vehicles will automatically dismiss Mineguard since it is no longer needed. Blockade for Sunderers will become the defacto choice and tanks will take front/side/top armor instead.

[BIGGByran]

C4 vs. Mines:

I have used C4 to destroy aircraft. Never intentionally done so with Mines.
I have used C4 to kill a gaggle of infantry. Never intentionally done so with Mines.
I have used C4 to destroy turrets. Never intentionally done so with Mines.
I have used C4 to kill vehicles. I DO do this with Mines, and it even costs LESS.

Making Mines a deterrant means everyone will just default cert into C4 and only the people that have certs to spare or gain enjoyment from making other players game time unfun will bother to cert Mines. AND vehicles will automatically dismiss Mineguard since it is no longer needed. Blockade for Sunderers will become the defacto choice and tanks will take front/side/top armor instead.

AGREED!

I made this argument on previews Tank Mine threads, I guess it has yet to kick in.


Ehr... seems a bit off-topic, since who said anything about real life?

People who are complaining on "how tank mines should work." Tank mines in the "real" world work by pressure plates and everyone on Tank Mine Threads keeps bringing this up in a Fantasy/Future World Settings.


A quote from me in another Tank Mine Thread.

I wish the dev's would release a description on PS2 version of Tank Mines: If they said that Tank Mines works This way, it would stfu on all these tank mine threads.

This is how people who complain about Tank Mines want it to work:
- Cannot detonate unless ran over.

-- By this logic, friendly tanks, of the TR and NC faction, will get blown up by friendly tank mines. Due to the fact that running over tank mines detonates them.
-- Magriders will not detonate tank mines as they don't touch the ground.


This is the how PS2 Tank Mines work (Just to let you know, I have tested this in game):
- They detonate when in proximity on an ENEMY tank (Not friendly), touching the ground or not. (This is how Magriders detonates tank mines.)
- They have a 2 second arm time.

Let me hear someone complain that it isn't called "Proximity Tank Mines."

I do feel for Sundy people, I hate the fact that most sunderers are "forced" to go mine guard because they don't know how to place sundies very well and they never defend their sunderer, I wish these people would treat their sunderer like their child instead of saying, "Eh, my 5 year old son will be fine playing in the busy streets. Lets go party!"

I also did not like the fact that engies only has to do Rank 1 Cert into tanks mines to 1 shot sundies. I think they should change that. Engies should have to cert Rank 2 in to tank mines and when they deploy 3 tank mines, it should take the sundy to critical and give the sundy person 15sec to repair it before blowing up from fire, so its not insta-kill.

15 sec is plenty of time to DEFEND your sundy unless your that father I explained above.

[Figment]

People who are complaining on "how tank mines should work." Tank mines in the "real" world work by pressure plates and everyone on Tank Mine Threads keeps bringing this up in a Fantasy/Future World Settings.

Why do you assume this is based on "real life"? Because if that's really what you think, you're entire argument is just rendered completely void.



It is based on the wish for pro-active passive defensive area denial use (for which there is currently nothing), rather than offensive throwing device use (for which there is currently C4). That's simply a 100% game context based gameplay argument.

Yes, people would cert C4 for the offensive role (as they should, especially if they're going to use alternative stuff in the exact same way: that just makes people use mines instead of C4 - same argument!), but they cert C4 anyway and all you're trying to do here is to maintain a redundant type of weapon that does the exact same thing as C4. While denying everyone from an incredibly useful defensive option based on what?


Not gameplay reasons, but the assumption others aren't basing it on gameplay reasons!


So what exactly is your point?

Btw, you can always apply C4 to the bottom if there's armour applied to the sides.

[Rumblepit]

lol everybody has a way they want mines to work...... but none of you use them, you just get killed by them and then complain about it. in beta we tested increased deploy time for mines, increased radius for mines, and with that patch we also tested that mines could not destroy a stationary armor....

any of you guys guess what happen after we tested everything in this tread?
they reverted mines back to the way they are now.
were any of you even in beta? this is really really old news, we have been there and done that so to speak and it dont work... sorry. mines work fine the way they are now.


lol you know what we did when tank mines couldnt destroy stationary armor..... we laid down the mines and shot them :)

come on connery sometime ill show you my claymore tank mine death trap..... i can clear a entire room full off people with 1 claymore and 6 tank mines...... death everywhere..... also i know how to blow up any armor in this game using only 1 tank mine ... thats if they dont have mine gaurd.

and someone in this thread said it only took 2 c4 to take down a sundy,,,,, thats wrong.... takes atleast 3.

[Satanam]

No matter how many times people say that "it's fine this way", it's not. What CodeVertigo said seems really better, both for making C4 more useful and making tank mines, yes, useful too but not better than a C4 like it's now. C4 should be the worst thing against a deployed Sunderer or any other standing still vehicle.

[BIGGByran]

It is based on the wish for pro-active passive defensive area denial use (for which there is currently nothing), rather than offensive throwing device use (for which there is currently C4). That's simply a 100% game context based gameplay argument.

Yes, people would cert C4 for the offensive role (as they should, especially if they're going to use alternative stuff in the exact same way: that just makes people use mines instead of C4 - same argument!), but they cert C4 anyway and all you're trying to do here is to maintain a redundant type of weapon that does the exact same thing as C4. While denying everyone from an incredibly useful defensive option based on what?

So what exactly is your point?

Tank mines are used as Defensive Denial Use. Just because they are not commonly seen doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The people on my server use Tank Mines for Defensive and Offensive purposes. I love getting random sunderer kills. The best thing happened to me last night. I went to land my reaver and got killed by a tank mine. I lol'ed my a$$ off and message the person that killed me how funny it was.

Can we create a thread for C4 if they are used defensively? As people seem to say they are meant for Offensive purpose.

Redundant type of weapon? Does the same thing as C4?
-Whoa! I never seen an Eng run by a group of people, drop Tank Mines and then run away detonating it killing a whole group including Maxs. (I have seen a LA do this with C4, it was pretty amazing)
- Or someone use a tank mine infront of a door and get about 50+meters away and when a max or inf runs in, detonate it by trying to shoot at the mine. (C4 can be used this way and is much easier)

Tank Mine is a VERY specialize weapon, highly effective as killing vehicles. It's effectiveness drops significantly when used at killing anything else other than vehicles, while C4 is the Jack of All Trades and kills everything very effectively.

I wish they would change the amount of Tank Mines you get at Rank 1 to only 1 tank mine, and 2 more(3 total) at rank 2, so they aren't as abundantly ready. Or do multiple ranks so that no one can just easily 1 cert into it and have insta-sundy kill.

C4 Kills with ease:
-Vehicles
-Aircraft (nothing better than placing a C4, waiting for pilot to get back in and BOOM! Get the plane and the pilot!)
-Infantry
-Max
-Turrets

Tank Mines kills with ease:
-Vehicles
-Aircraft (if they land on it)

I guess the reason why they aren't used as a defensive weapon is because:
1) Your part of a zerg and your winning bases. You just keep pushing forward and forward. Makes it to where you put mines down, but then you cap 2-3 major bases and have to either keep re-laying them to keep the mines at the most recent based captured or have your mines be a base or 2 behind which would then serve no purpose.
2) Your zerg starts losing the battle and are getting pushed back. You can:
i) stay in fight and try to push the enemy back or
ii) retreat to the preview base, lay mines and hope that you lose the base that you retreated from and hope that they come to the base that you just mined

EDIT:

How about this:
-A tank mine (1) will dealt a random 90-100% damage (roughly 70-80% chance of living if your quick) to any vehicles without mine guard, HOWEVER it will ONLY detonate if an enemy vehicle moves over it, so deploying a tank mine under a sundy will not cause the tank mine to detonate and shooting to force it to detonate will do damage, but only like 25% damage instead of 90-100% (this damage reduction on forced detonation will prevent insta kill on inf and max and assist with tank mine clearing)
-with the change of damage then add the proximity and deploy limitation on tank mines.

I think if people with Tank Mines know that they have a chance of 1 shotting a vehicle (without mine guard) with thier tank mine, they would be more used Defensively, especially since any parked vehicle will not detonate it.


@Satanam
TANK mine aren't better than C4. Tank mine ARE better at killing tanks, because they are Specialized at killing tanks. C4 is the "Jack of All Trades" therefor should not be better than a specialized item.

-snip- both for making C4 more useful and making tank mines, yes, useful too but not better than a C4 like it's now. -snip-
It is like you want C4 to be the best at everything.

[Obstruction]

read OP. needs less butthurt.

i play engi main and i very often lay out my passive traps (AT mines, AP mines) then change to C4 in case i need to set a remote triggered trap as infantry.

on my sunderer i have mine guard maxed and often use it as bait to lure in and murder engi and LA with the piston.

i swear if there was a forums for chess it would be full of crying babies saying they need to nerf white because white goes first and wins too often.

eventually planetside will become so nerfed that everything fails at its intended purpose except whatever newest toy has been introduced to generate sales (before it gets nerfed for a new toy that everyone wants because it works really well.)

[Figment]

lol everybody has a way they want mines to work...... but none of you use them,

We don't?

you just get killed by them

We do?

and then complain about it.

That so?


Three wild character attack assumptions, typical.

in beta we tested increased deploy time for mines, increased radius for mines, and with that patch we also tested that mines could not destroy a stationary armor....

And then complaining and whining by you occured? ;)

See, I can make random character attacks too based of wild assumptions. Drop the presumptious attitude. Discuss merits only.

any of you guys guess what happen after we tested everything in this tread?
they reverted mines back to the way they are now.

Actually no, they didn't do "everything in this thread" and they never applied the mines appropriately with reduced damage and significantly larger numbers.

were any of you even in beta? this is really really old news, we have been there and done that so to speak and it dont work... sorry. mines work fine the way they are now.

Status quo self-interest argument, no actual gameplay argument, no actual reasoning why something didn't work. :rolleyes: Brilliant, that's going to convince someone!

lol you know what we did when tank mines couldnt destroy stationary armor..... we laid down the mines and shot them :)

You know what happened in PS1 when you shot mines? They were destroyed and deconstructed without an explosion. Has that been tried in beta? No, no it hasn't. Oh dear.

come on connery sometime ill show you my claymore tank mine death trap..... i can clear a entire room full off people with 1 claymore and 6 tank mines...... death everywhere..... also i know how to blow up any armor in this game using only 1 tank mine ... thats if they dont have mine gaurd.

Exploit based on poor design: anti-tank mines have no purpose being deployed inside, combi traps are an exploit to bypass the damage level of a single explosive.

and someone in this thread said it only took 2 c4 to take down a sundy,,,,, thats wrong.... takes atleast 3.

Actually, it takes two on the rear and some preventing repairs so fire destroys it if it survived in the first place. Try it.

[JesNC]

A few notes from an avid combat engineer/AT mine user (aka me):

- AT mines as they are right now are fun because can be used in a variety of ways, but they are of very limited defensive value. You cannot effectively mine a facility entrance or a courtyard, even if multiple engineers with Utility Pouch 4 are present.

- using AT mines as a means of area denial is incredibly unrewarding and expensive resource-wise

- the only places where AT mine 'traps' are effective atm are bridges, garage entrances and possibly some of the narrower roads in SE Indar

- deployed AT mines are very vulnerable to damage, a few bullets will kill one, a well placed HE round will take out an entire 'field' of 5.

- IMO to make AT mines workable as a defensive tool their capacity should at least be doubled, their damage at least halved and their resource cost reduced from 75 to 25 per mine, while increasing their resistance to explosive damage

- IMO, proximity fuses are ok - the 'abuse' stems from the massive damage inflicted per mine. If they only did half the damage there would be not nearly as many engineers doing suicide runs. Maybe add a short delay between placing mines to combat that sort of behaviour even further. Proximity fuses are IMO beneficial because they eliminate some possibly frustrating issues like near misses, mines not going off due to lag etc. But tbh I won't mind much if they went away.

- I wish there were 'smart' mines aviable as a sidegrade, like the ones in BF2142

That's all I can think of atm. I do like the current AT mines somehow, because they allow the wielder to be creative in their use and aren't as 'static' as the ones in PS1. They're also very effective at taking out vehicles, unlike the ones in PS1 - honestly, I've been driving assault buggies for most of my time in PS1 and I can count the times I've actually lost a vehicle to mines on one hand.
On the other hand, PS1's mines were exceptional at area denial, because you had tons of them and they still caused enough damage to unsettle any driver.

It is my opinion that we need to find a middle ground between those two extremes, where mines are still effective AV tools (although not as overkill asthey are atm) AND very effective defensive assets.



PS: It takes 2 bricks of C4 and an AV grenade/underbarrel grenade to blow up a stock sunderer. Also, stock sunderers (no blockade armor) do not have directional armor differences.

[Figment]

Ps1 buggies were given increased resistance to mines compared to other vehicles to give them an edge over the others aside from speed. They used to die to four mines before they were buffed. That was common. At least, I killed many LLU buggies with minefields pre-buff. :) Sunderer took 12 btw.

Trick was to use a diamond formation opposed to a square formation (diagonal distance as interference radius creates a more compact field with the second line of mines).

Anyway, to create minefields of 30m wide, you needed six or so, for a single line. A single line could be breached with ease. The poor player was punished by driving into a second or third line without responding. A good player could break or steer clear after discovering the mines. I would say less than half did, since most were top speed and minefields placed with flanks to compensate for evasive moves.


It was about smart placement (using your brain to plan). Typically you would predict movements: typical empire paths, flanks of an ams or infantry assault you wanted protected or delay enemies reaching so your side could prepare a counter-counter attack. Doesn't mean that mines were never placed on vehicles, sure, killed a dozens of BFRs with mines as infil at own risk: needed five. Killed even more stationary AMSes. But people could stop me in the act, you can only stop engineers in PS2 if you see them coming, which depends on the size of your group, location and a lot of other things. I don't mind them killing the ams or any other unit: but it should take effort, should be counterable in the act (competitive) and stimulate use for defense.

In contrast, I feel C4 should stimulate offensive use. Then you have meaningful variety. Note that c4 could do with the "shooting is deconstructing" mechanic, since there is nothing you can do to undo placed c4: even if you kill the LA, the bomb is placed. Killed many Sunderers with c4 placed earlier.

[BIGGByran]

I don't mind them killing the ams or any other unit: but it should take effort, should be counterable in the act (competitive) and stimulate use for defense.

Do you feel that Tank Mines doesn't take any effort at all?

In contrast, I feel C4 should stimulate offensive use. Then you have meaningful variety.

Meaningful variety... do you believe that C4 doesn't have as much variety as Tank Mines?

[JesNC]

Ps1 buggies were given increased resistance to mines compared to other vehicles to give them an edge over the others aside from speed. They used to die to four mines before they were buffed. That was common. At least, I killed many LLU buggies with minefields pre-buff. Sunderer took 12 btw.

The problem was that every decent driver used Adv. Targetting and could see minefields from 20m away or could at least stop his ride after a max of 2 mine hits due to the minimum distance between the mines.
I'm not saying that's bad, or poor implementation, but AV mines in PS1always felt rather toothless to me.



Do you feel that Tank Mines doesn't take any effort at all?



Meaningful variety... do you believe that C4 doesn't have as much variety as Tank Mines?

1. It depends. In their defensive role placing AT mines take too much effort to be worthwhile atm. It just takes too many engineers/resources atm.
Using them offensively takes hadly any effort atm. Scout a target, run/hotdrop/jumppad/teleport in (you know they like to put their AMSes right next to those things...), drop mines and gtfo.
And this is actually one of the core problems with AT mines now - the effort required should be at least equal IMO.

2. C4 is unique because you an stick it to vehicles and walls. Aside from that, you can use any explosive to blow up anything in PS2, and IMO C4 feels clunky with its placement/detonate mechanic.
AT mines, on the other hand, only require a vehicle in proximity or a few bullets to set them off - I've killed Liberators, MAXes and swathes of infantry with them. It's cool, sure, but it simply devalues C4 for the Engineer class when you can use the cheaper AT mines as your multipurpose explosive solution.

[Mietz]

The problem was that every decent driver used Adv. Targetting and could see minefields from 20m away or could at least stop his ride after a max of 2 mine hits due to the minimum distance between the mines.
I'm not saying that's bad, or poor implementation, but AV mines in PS1always felt rather toothless to me.


I actually don't see that as a problem the same way I wouldn't see a weak AOE AA as a problem.

Not everything needs to outright murder people, sometimes all you need is to do enough damage to be perceived as a threat. Its a tactical tool to deny an area by creating a risk-reward scenario that must be assessed and evaluated.

Right now the whole of PS2 doesn't have this, everything is incredibly lethal to give everyone sweet XPs and KD, but that makes the game shallow and the tactical depth non-existent.

I would find it more useful to introduce more tactical variety into the game instead of staying with the current extremely shallow gameplay of extreme lethality of -everything-.

Why not keep the high-damage mines and then additionally add lower damage mine-fields? Area denial is something that is still missing from PS2 and it should be implemented.

I was saying the same about AA, there are too many direct damage solutions without weaker but tactical versions (low damage, large area effect, air-burst AOE).

But then we hit the core of the matter, current low TTK (yeah sorry, but thats a part of the game mechanics) prevents the damage-granularity necessary to make low-damage AOE weapons to be tactically effective but not OP. (see the Lasher/Flamethrower dichotomy)

[WarbirdTD]

It's simple really... To protect a Sunderer from being murdered by mines, use a Mine Guard.. It already takes 7 mines to kill a maxed out Mine Guard Sundy, which is more than any single engineer can carry. Sunderers are extremely tactically important. Their placement and defense should be at the very forefront of your attention when attacking a base. If your main spawn sundies are not equipped to withstand the attention of the enemy, you haven't prepared yourself appropriately. Engineers breaching your lines, running up to your Ammo Sundy, dropping Tank Mines and getting the kill is not a failure of the implementation of tank mines. It's the failure of your force that didn't bring the proper equipment, and didn't provide the proper defense.

Now, if we're talking about engineers dropping out of the sky in drop pods to tank mine a Sundy, you might have something there. Steerable Drop Pods are impossible to defend against, and I would assume that the majority of people destroying your Sundies are using beacons/instant action deploys to get behind enemy lines. Therefore, I would go so far as to say that most of you are barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn't that Proximity Anti-Vehicle Mines blow up in the proximity of a Sunderer, but that the Engineers can drop next to a Main Spawnpoint Sunderer with near pinpoint accuracy. The easiest fix to alleviate this newest trend of nerf demands would be to simply make Drop Pods land within a 5 meter radius of a Spawn Beacon. After all, Spawn Beacons should be last ditch respawn location, not a tactical bombing tool.

[JesNC]

But this isn't about nerfing AT mines to keep AMSes alive - it's about tuning them to fit a more defensive role.

Because that's what is lacking atm, an area denial tool versus ground vehicles. There's really no shortage in weapons/explosives that can take out vehicles, but infantry is lacking a way of keeping vehicles from entering an area in the first place (an AMP station courtyard for example).


Not everything needs to outright murder people, sometimes all you need is to do enough damage to be perceived as a threat. Its a tactical tool to deny an area by creating a risk-reward scenario that must be assessed and evaluated.

And that is IMO exactly what flak AA does in PS2 right now - it's dangerous enough to deny pilots from lingering around its position, but a good pilot can work his/her way around it most of the time. If they manage to tune AT mines to that power level I will be more than happy.
But in PS1 a good driver could work his way around minefields all of the time, they really only ever caught those who were not paying attention - thus, I refer to them as toothless.

[Rumblepit]

ahhh there is it folks ...... we dont want mines to be effective ,we want them to be a deterrent.

all im reading is how peopel dont want to defend spawn points/sundys. sure it suucks to be the guy who has to watch the car,but you guys love the xp a primary sundy brings in.right? so if you want that xp to keep coming in you need to defend your spawn points.

i dont think the mines are overpowered, i think people in this thread crying about av mines are incompetent , and refuse to defend and forward spawn point.....

what i suggest is, if you see any sundys that belong to the people in this thread that cry about av mines you need to blow that sundy up ASAP. even if they are apart of your faction blow up their sundy. allow players that know how to defend a sundy to get that primary spawn point.

you guys want to rely on a sundy driver thats goning to deploy and leave the sundy unattended ?

av mines kill me because im incompetent, or i refuse to defend a sundy because im incompetent, i dont have gunners in my sundy to help me defend because im incompetent.

PLEASE NERF MINES BECAUSE IM INCOMPETENT.

BRAVOO........

[JesNC]

ahhh there is it folks ...... we dont want mines to be effective ,we want them to be a deterrent.

[mad rant about mines and Sunderers]


I guess you missed the point.

'We' - or at least I - want mines to be effective as an explosive AND as a deterrent.

'We' want AT mines to be useful as a strategic asset and not just as another way to blow up tanks.

If you're looking for a 'NERF MINEZ OP' thread to counter-rant, I'm sure you'll find one over here (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php).

[Epidemic]

I laugh at tank mines, 75% reduction makes them a resource sink for any engineer that thinks they're about to cash in.

edit; The only effective counter to my strategy is to have tank mines set, detonated by C4.. which takes 2 coordinated people to achieve. In which case they deserve the kill.

[BIGGByran]

Using them offensively takes hadly any effort atm. Scout a target, run/hotdrop/jumppad/teleport in (you know they like to put their AMSes right next to those things...), drop mines and gtfo.
And this is actually one of the core problems with AT mines now - the effort required should be at least equal IMO.

2. C4 is unique because you an stick it to vehicles and walls. Aside from that, you can use any explosive to blow up anything in PS2, and IMO C4 feels clunky with its placement/detonate mechanic.
AT mines, on the other hand, only require a vehicle in proximity or a few bullets to set them off - I've killed Liberators, MAXes and swathes of infantry with them. It's cool, sure, but it simply devalues C4 for the Engineer class when you can use the cheaper AT mines as your multipurpose explosive solution.

1) Using them as an offensive weapon hardly takes any effort:
-I would completely agree IF they don't defend their sundy at all AND do not have mine guard. It is their fault for leaving a sundy undefended without mine guard
- I would disagree IF
i) They guard their sundy (even without mine guard)
ii) unguarded sundy but with mine guard (as a mine guarded sundy cannot be blown up with 2 tank mines or even 3 if you have max mine guard)

2) There have been a few times where I wish I had C4 instead of Tank Mines, as I run up behind the target, kissed it in the @ss and whisper "sweet dreams my prince" as I laid down 2 tank mines. He rolls forward. "Sh!t" I said, "Now roll back, come on you can do it." waited there for roughly a minute and got spotted, killed and didn't even get a kill with my tank mines. While C4 on the other hand would have done the job much better.

The ONLY reason why tank mine are effective is because Engs work their ass off to get to the target (if defended) or took his precises little time picking flowers on the way to the sundy because it was undefended.

C4 is available to ALL Classes (except Infl, i think), while Tank Mines are ONLY for Engineers. And again C4 has more uses than Tank Mines. How about we eliminate C4 from the engineer's class and let them ONLY have tank mines or Inf Mines?

[Satanam]

@Satanam
TANK mine aren't better than C4. Tank mine ARE better at killing tanks, because they are Specialized at killing tanks. C4 is the "Jack of All Trades" therefor should not be better than a specialized item.


It is like you want C4 to be the best at everything.
No, I want C4 to be better than tank mines against deployed/stationary vehicles. Tank mines should be, yes, damn powerful and deal more damage than C4 against vehicles moving around, but as a 'tank mine' is supposed to be a trap against vehicles in this situation, they shouldn't be also useful and so powerful against deployed/stationary ones.
Otherwise C4 will be useless. And it's not described as "Jack of All Trades", that's only how you (and other people may) think it is. Anyway, what you said about some changes on tank mines would make C4 more useless against deployed/stationary vehicles, so I don't see why we should be acting like we're not defending the same thing.

[BIGGByran]

Anyway, what you said about some changes on tank mines would make C4 more useless against deployed/stationary vehicles

What did I say?

[Satanam]

What did I say?
My bad. It was supposed to be "useful" instead of "useless". ;)

[BIGGByran]

so I don't see why we should be acting like we're not defending the same thing.

Well I am not defending making tank mine a deterrent. I would hate tank mines to be abundantly annoying, but would rather be more of a minimally effective.

[Obstruction]

since this thread is all a bunch of people repeating the same tired things i'll repeat too.

if you don't like people walking up and blowing up your sunderer, stand by it with a shotgun and kill them.

this has been a public service announcement.

[Satanam]

Well I am not defending making tank mine a deterrent. I would hate tank mines to be abundantly annoying, but would rather be more of a minimally effective.
Neither do I. I just want it to be less effective than C4 against vehicles at 0 km/h.

[Figment]

Wow Rumblepit and Obstruction, talk about selective reading. :rolleyes:

*No word on Sundies specifically as primary reasoning for change by JesNC or anyone else -> cue Rumblepit and Obstruction with rant on how it's all about Sundies*

Sounds like some people are obsessed with using it AGAINST stationary vehicles, particular AMSes. Interestingly, without any critique on the ease of their own playstyle. Hmm. Vested interest bias per chance?



@WarbirdTD: moot point that one should be able to defend from engineers etc, because it isn't a given that you can prevent arrival. You can't see nor control all routes. Sure, you can ward off a lot of attacks, but there are no guarantees you had a chance to see the attack coming. Placing the blame solely on the defending party is highly hypocritical, because you might as well say an attacker that isn't capable of breaching a defense or make use of a number of seconds surprise attack or being able to stay alive long enough for placement of X amount of mines is the one to blame for potential failure.

Nowhere does it say it has to be 2 mines on a stationary AMS and nowhere does it say it has to be 7 on a mine guarded AMS. Both are somewhat extreme and it's rather weird, wouldn't you say, that a mine guard (designed to stop damage from driving over minefields) is more useful on a stationary vehicle than on a troop insertion transport that does NOT have an AMS utility slot? It would make a lot more sense to have AMS and mine guard interchangeable, so you could have a clearly role defined armoured blockade runner troop delivery transport into the heart of an enemy defense, than to have it sit back and having to setup a porcupine defense downwards, instead of to all the threads around it.

Basically, it's a rather ridiculous design situation that doesn't make sense whatsoever. Besides, you're argueing using status quo arguments like current damage, carried numbers of mines and absorption levels against people who have a future vision with clearly differently defined context and tool specifications. Hence the present day stats are only relevant to demonstrate the current situation, but irrelevant in a different future setting as they could be tweaked to anything appropriate to changes to the tool in question.


@BIGGByran: Do I feel they don't require any effort at all? Yes and no. Yes in that you have to get within range. No in that this is actually exceptionally easy. It is far too easy to say "you should have been situationally aware" or "you just want to leave the AMS alone" or "someone should have prevented him from getting there in the first place". If "getting there in the first place" is sufficient reason to have something die, then that saddens me greatly. Why shouldn't someone first establish some sort of dominance in an area before they get to determine what blows up or not?

I feel that getting there isn't the sum of actions that should be considered skill. Staying alive while placing them should require effort too and this effort should be key IMO. I believe it should be possible to thwart the engineer WHILE placing the explosives, since often times you cannot become situationally aware until something has already occured.

This is a huge problem in PS2 mind you and is not limited to engineers, but devs thinking in completely rushed gameplay on everything. Everything has super-low TTKs and that's a huge problem IMO. So yes, there should be a chance the engineer would be shot before completing placement after initiating it. It simply should take more time. Mind, I'm of the opinion placement of C4 also takes too little time and provides too little warning and I should know, since I got pretty much all C4 medals.

I prefer a slightly slower gameplay where action can cause a reaction, not just a consequence.

I perceive mines as a form of explosive that one places with care and planning, with low quality but therefore allowing for high quantity, where one expects a threat will occur later (passive future expectation). If it is primarily used as a spontaneous, limited quantity, high quality suicide bomber rush tool on an object that's already there (active, present reactive)...

Then something is horribly wrong because it's the exact opposite.


I can fully understand people like blowing up AMSes, but isn't that exactly why engineers can cert into boomers (C4)? Boomers after all are placed to "rig certain things to explode in a controlled fashion".

As for meaningful variety, I believe tank mines to currently be too poorly designed to be used for anything but suicide rushes and throwing them down from a top cliffs and buildings at vehicles. It currently doesn't have any meaningful variety, because you can do that with C4 as well. Stimulating a passive defensive role and prior placement gives it a far greater variety in usage. You could still try to place them on stationary vehicles, but you might need a few more. And hey, it'd take you a second or three-five more. Big deal, I regularly walk around enemy AMSes for 5-12 seconds with my LA - as soon as you get within the dead angles of the guns, you can use the Sundy as shield against opponents trying to hunt you. In PS1 you'd use your stealth and that AMS as a shield.

But can you say that there's currently any meaningful variety of explosives that enable you to create minefields that control strategic areas like roads, flanks, hills or field approach routes? Meaningful variety doesn't mean being able to do a wide range of the same things, it means you can do more diverse tasks with diverse types of objects.

Is C4 a jack of all trades currently? Yes, it is. But it also requires very specific placement on vehicles (top/rear!) to suffice as an AV weapon and tbh, I'd rather they blow up one at a time (like in PS1, where you could select the explosive to blow) and that you'd have a way to destroy them without setting them off after you killed the wielder. Currently I can destroy anything I placed a C4 on in my next life. In itself, fine, but I'd rather require one to first get back to that C4 to pick up a new detonator or having to set it off with a grenade or other explosive.

See, if I see something is too powerful or used wrong, I'm not going to defend it even if I use it myself extremely effectively. :/

@JesNC: You didn't need enhanced targeting to see them (ET didn't do anything for detecting mines). A bigger problem was that people would disable graphic options (vegetation) so they would not obscure mines.

But why a lot of minefields failed to take out good drivers (which is good btw, it rewards the aware driver), is that a lot of engineers were just crap at placement. Most minefields were placed in square straight line formations instead of diamond formations in a \__/ trap (expecting evasive action) and a lot of people didn't take into account line of sight when placing the mines. :) Me I always placed mines behind little differences in ground inclines, so the crest of the incline would hide the mines. I also always looked for entry routes into battle of vehicles, because most experienced drivers take the same route out of the battle: they knew there were no mines there, so they will presume it is a safe route to return on. I literally killed hundreds of tanks that way.

Another thing is to mine there where they don't expect it, for instance, I'd set up a CE field with Spitfire Turrets, which leads players to go AROUND that area, expecting more CE (including mines) in the turreted area. I'd leave a clear, deliberate, but not too obvious trap (less Spitted area) as an opening and mine that, or mine the area just out of the detection reach of the line of Spitfires.

Basically, you must plan your field by knowing how players can or would react to interacting with your field. And since you know the direction they come from (otherwise you wouldn't place your field in a particular way), you can set up shop ahead of your minefield, thus behind them, to finish them off in case they do stop and try to turn back or repair. For instance with a Fury, AMS/HA, etc.

Another thing you'll recall we often did was setup a minefield as a checkpoint to retreat across, in hopes of luring enemy units over them. Killed tons of tanks that way as well by having them be preoccupied with a pursuit. And must say a lot of Skyguards got my Fury ATV that way as well.

[Rumblepit]

Wow Rumblepit and Obstruction, talk about selective reading. :rolleyes:

*No word on Sundies specifically as primary reasoning for change by JesNC or anyone else -> cue Rumblepit and Obstruction with rant on how it's all about Sundies*

Sounds like some people are obsessed with using it AGAINST stationary vehicles, particular AMSes. Interestingly, without any critique on the ease of their own playstyle. Hmm. Vested interest bias per chance?



@WarbirdTD: moot point that one should be able to defend from engineers etc, because it isn't a given that you can prevent arrival. You can't see nor control all routes. Sure, you can ward off a lot of attacks, but there are no guarantees you had a chance to see the attack coming. Placing the blame solely on the defending party is highly hypocritical, because you might as well say an attacker that isn't capable of breaching a defense or make use of a number of seconds surprise attack or being able to stay alive long enough for placement of X amount of mines is the one to blame for potential failure.

Nowhere does it say it has to be 2 mines on a stationary AMS and nowhere does it say it has to be 7 on a mine guarded AMS. Both are somewhat extreme and it's rather weird, wouldn't you say, that a mine guard (designed to stop damage from driving over minefields) is more useful on a stationary vehicle than on a troop insertion transport that does NOT have an AMS utility slot? It would make a lot more sense to have AMS and mine guard interchangeable, so you could have a clearly role defined armoured blockade runner troop delivery transport into the heart of an enemy defense, than to have it sit back and having to setup a porcupine defense downwards, instead of to all the threads around it.

Basically, it's a rather ridiculous design situation that doesn't make sense whatsoever. Besides, you're argueing using status quo arguments like current damage, carried numbers of mines and absorption levels against people who have a future vision with clearly differently defined context and tool specifications. Hence the present day stats are only relevant to demonstrate the current situation, but irrelevant in a different future setting as they could be tweaked to anything appropriate to changes to the tool in question.


@BIGGByran: Do I feel they don't require any effort at all? Yes and no. Yes in that you have to get within range. No in that this is actually exceptionally easy. It is far too easy to say "you should have been situationally aware" or "you just want to leave the AMS alone" or "someone should have prevented him from getting there in the first place". If "getting there in the first place" is sufficient reason to have something die, then that saddens me greatly. Why shouldn't someone first establish some sort of dominance in an area before they get to determine what blows up or not?

I feel that getting there isn't the sum of actions that should be considered skill. Staying alive while placing them should require effort too and this effort should be key IMO. I believe it should be possible to thwart the engineer WHILE placing the explosives, since often times you cannot become situationally aware until something has already occured.

This is a huge problem in PS2 mind you and is not limited to engineers, but devs thinking in completely rushed gameplay on everything. Everything has super-low TTKs and that's a huge problem IMO. So yes, there should be a chance the engineer would be shot before completing placement after initiating it. It simply should take more time. Mind, I'm of the opinion placement of C4 also takes too little time and provides too little warning and I should know, since I got pretty much all C4 medals.

I prefer a slightly slower gameplay where action can cause a reaction, not just a consequence.

I perceive mines as a form of explosive that one places with care and planning, with low quality but therefore allowing for high quantity, where one expects a threat will occur later (passive future expectation). If it is primarily used as a spontaneous, limited quantity, high quality suicide bomber rush tool on an object that's already there (active, present reactive)...

Then something is horribly wrong because it's the exact opposite.


I can fully understand people like blowing up AMSes, but isn't that exactly why engineers can cert into boomers (C4)? Boomers after all are placed to "rig certain things to explode in a controlled fashion".

As for meaningful variety, I believe tank mines to currently be too poorly designed to be used for anything but suicide rushes and throwing them down from a top cliffs and buildings at vehicles. It currently doesn't have any meaningful variety, because you can do that with C4 as well. Stimulating a passive defensive role and prior placement gives it a far greater variety in usage. You could still try to place them on stationary vehicles, but you might need a few more. And hey, it'd take you a second or three-five more. Big deal, I regularly walk around enemy AMSes for 5-12 seconds with my LA - as soon as you get within the dead angles of the guns, you can use the Sundy as shield against opponents trying to hunt you. In PS1 you'd use your stealth and that AMS as a shield.

But can you say that there's currently any meaningful variety of explosives that enable you to create minefields that control strategic areas like roads, flanks, hills or field approach routes? Meaningful variety doesn't mean being able to do a wide range of the same things, it means you can do more diverse tasks with diverse types of objects.

Is C4 a jack of all trades currently? Yes, it is. But it also requires very specific placement on vehicles (top/rear!) to suffice as an AV weapon and tbh, I'd rather they blow up one at a time (like in PS1, where you could select the explosive to blow) and that you'd have a way to destroy them without setting them off after you killed the wielder. Currently I can destroy anything I placed a C4 on in my next life. In itself, fine, but I'd rather require one to first get back to that C4 to pick up a new detonator or having to set it off with a grenade or other explosive.

See, if I see something is too powerful or used wrong, I'm not going to defend it even if I use it myself extremely effectively. :/

@JesNC: You didn't need enhanced targeting to see them (ET didn't do anything for detecting mines). A bigger problem was that people would disable graphic options (vegetation) so they would not obscure mines.

But why a lot of minefields failed to take out good drivers (which is good btw, it rewards the aware driver), is that a lot of engineers were just crap at placement. Most minefields were placed in square straight line formations instead of diamond formations in a \__/ trap (expecting evasive action) and a lot of people didn't take into account line of sight when placing the mines. :) Me I always placed mines behind little differences in ground inclines, so the crest of the incline would hide the mines. I also always looked for entry routes into battle of vehicles, because most experienced drivers take the same route out of the battle: they knew there were no mines there, so they will presume it is a safe route to return on. I literally killed hundreds of tanks that way.

Another thing is to mine there where they don't expect it, for instance, I'd set up a CE field with Spitfire Turrets, which leads players to go AROUND that area, expecting more CE (including mines) in the turreted area. I'd leave a clear, deliberate, but not too obvious trap (less Spitted area) as an opening and mine that, or mine the area just out of the detection reach of the line of Spitfires.

Basically, you must plan your field by knowing how players can or would react to interacting with your field. And since you know the direction they come from (otherwise you wouldn't place your field in a particular way), you can set up shop ahead of your minefield, thus behind them, to finish them off in case they do stop and try to turn back or repair. For instance with a Fury, AMS/HA, etc.

Another thing you'll recall we often did was setup a minefield as a checkpoint to retreat across, in hopes of luring enemy units over them. Killed tons of tanks that way as well by having them be preoccupied with a pursuit. And must say a lot of Skyguards got my Fury ATV that way as well.

solve all your problems with this.


http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/minegaurd-needs-balancing-crazy-overpowered.95734/

[Babyfark McGeez]

When you are running around as a max and a bunny hopping engineer is tossing mines at you like candy on st. patricks day you know something is not right here.

...or was that a cheat?

[Kerrec]

I perceive mines as a form of explosive that one places with care and planning, with low quality but therefore allowing for high quantity, where one expects a threat will occur later (passive future expectation). If it is primarily used as a spontaneous, limited quantity, high quality suicide bomber rush tool on an object that's already there (active, present reactive)...

Then something is horribly wrong because it's the exact opposite.

There's nothing "horribly wrong". You have a vision of how mines must be used, and the game plays out in a different way. Other people accept the way AV mines are now, and if the gameplay was switched to your way, they would think something is "horribly wrong".

[Babyfark McGeez]

There's nothing "horribly wrong". You have a vision of how mines must be used, and the game plays out in a different way. Other people accept the way AV mines are now, and if the gameplay was switched to your way, they would think something is "horribly wrong".

Read my post above yours. Now i admit i still don't know if i was just being the victim of a cheater there, but if that is the vision of how tank mines are supposed to work, then yes, that is "horribly wrong".

[Figment]

solve all your problems with this.


http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/minegaurd-needs-balancing-crazy-overpowered.95734/

Thanks. Now go play please while the adults debate design merits, unintended usage, abuse and design vision.

There's nothing "horribly wrong". You have a vision of how mines must be used, and the game plays out in a different way. Other people accept the way AV mines are now, and if the gameplay was switched to your way, they would think something is "horribly wrong".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mine

Warfare

In military science, minefields are considered a defensive or harassing weapon, used to slow the enemy down, to help deny certain terrain to the enemy, to focus enemy movement into kill zones, or to reduce morale by randomly attacking material and personnel. In some engagements during World War II, anti-tank mines accounted for half of all vehicles disabled.

Land mines aren't suicide bomber material that use a person to deliver it at the vehicle, the vehicle comes to the mine. C4 on the other hand, is.

So yes, it's used horribly wrong. Don't pretend just because something is possible or best used in a specific manner in a game, it is intended to function PRIMARILY that way.




Note the usage of the word primarily. I don't mind suicide mine placement as a tertiary or quartiary technique. This being the best and most frequent way to use them suggests they're not suited for use in minefields.

The primary and secondary applications we want to have for mines are these:

Slowing down an advance giving you more time to lay down fire:
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/pics/minefield.jpg

Funnel traps:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32/fig2-3.gif

Various enemy movement control strategies:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32/fig2-2.gif

For more detail, look here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32/chap2.html

Both tactical and protective usage was possible in PS1 and highly effective.

Here's what I mean by a diamond formation btw:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRGh99SlKFHly1xi3giboGELA1D0fJoj 6qxZvkQfKcuKosJvaMX


Currently we have suicide vest bombers instead of mine layers and we can lay only three mines which requires resources, forcing us to use ourselves as a delivery system to ensure the mine and target meet up. That's not how mine fields work and all the above is impossible even if you work in a normal sized team to lay a field. That's a severe issue. It currently takes 7 engineers (3 mines per player assuming no extra mines) to lay a minefield equal in number to that of a single engineer in PS1. It takes 9 to lay the 25 a single fortification engineer in PS1 could lay.

I'm sorry, but this is a huge devolution of the professionality of the engineering class and equates their sophistication to suicide terrorists. I'd be insulted if I was a military engineer, tbh.

[Rumblepit]

Thanks. Now go play please while the adults debate design merits, unintended usage, abuse and design vision.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mine



Land mines aren't suicide bomber material that use a person to deliver it at the vehicle, the vehicle comes to the mine. C4 on the other hand, is.

So yes, it's used horribly wrong. Don't pretend just because something is possible or best used in a specific manner in a game, it is intended to function PRIMARILY that way.




Note the usage of the word primarily. I don't mind suicide mine placement as a tertiary or quartiary technique. This being the best and most frequent way to use them suggests they're not suited for use in minefields.

The primary and secondary applications we want to have for mines are these:

Slowing down an advance giving you more time to lay down fire:
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/pics/minefield.jpg

Funnel traps:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32/fig2-3.gif

Various enemy movement control strategies:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32/fig2-2.gif

For more detail, look here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32/chap2.html

Both tactical and protective usage was possible in PS1 and highly effective.

Here's what I mean by a diamond formation btw:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRGh99SlKFHly1xi3giboGELA1D0fJoj 6qxZvkQfKcuKosJvaMX


Currently we have suicide vest bombers instead of mine layers and we can lay only three mines which requires resources, forcing us to use ourselves as a delivery system to ensure the mine and target meet up. That's not how mine fields work and all the above is impossible even if you work in a normal sized team to lay a field. That's a severe issue.



you want the devs to change the game because you dont want to use mine guard? thats what this is all about. get mine guard, dont drive around solo,use coms to communicate with your gunners . thats all you need to do.
i know its hard to figure out.you dont have to have mineguard, but mines will kill you alot..... youll get it one day kiddo buckup :).

you could also just lay mines on a stationary ams in ps1;)

[Figment]

you want the devs to change the game because you dont want to use mine guard? thats what this is all about.

Yes, I'm sure that's why I posted an extensive post about wanting to use them for protective and tactical placement prior to enemy arrival: Because I don't want to use mine guard. You're on to my secret, bawdy, lewd, dastardly, naughty, subversive, satanical, mischievous, wanton, perverse, rascally, wicked, wayward, tea-drinking European, special plans without looking like a complete an utterly "special case", well done. :rolleyes:

(Disclaimer: there might be some sarcasm in the above post)

get mine guard, dont drive around solo,use coms to communicate with your gunners . thats all you need to do.

Actually, I believe I said that I would like mine guard used, just not for the primary protection of stationary vehicles. And I quote:

so you could have a clearly role defined armoured blockade runner troop delivery transport into the heart of an enemy defense

Hmm, why, would dashing through a minefield per chance be a proper usage of a mine guard? Why, yes, good sir, it might have a very distinct and useful purpose there!

i know its hard to figure out.you dont have to have mineguard, but mines will kill you alot..... youll get it one day kiddo buckup :).

Watch your grammar please: your enthusiasm while attempting to troll is getting the better of you. I can see you sitting behind your pc all giggling and gleeing with teen joy after posting another flamebait bit of nonsense, fapping at the prospect of a response, but at least have the decency to clean up after yourself and fix your grammar.

you could also just lay mines on a stationary ams in ps1;)

Have you actually READ what I said about that, oh I don't know, 4-5 times: ie. that I have no problem with that if you need to place 4-5 mines OVER TIME and spaced out, rather than 2 instantly on the same spot? So basically, that your entire premise of us not wanting engineers to use anti-tank mines to blow up stationary targets is utter bull? Rather than us not wanting it to be so easy, nor the only useful way to use them? Hmm?

[Rumblepit]

compete and utter bias bs coming from a driver with a agenda is all you have posted. you even went as far as doing research on av mines,,, faceplam....


with mine guard maxed out 1 engi cant kill your sundy with mines.... you do know this right? it takes 7 mines...... that means 2 engis are going to have to run all the way from their spawn to your sundy drop 3 to 4 mines each and then youll die. this will take the engis 3 to 4 secs to do once and if they make it all the way to your sundy.lol 2 guys on foot running towards the massive guns you have on top of your sundy..... if i was in the sundy i would be very scared.

do i have you all wrong??? are you a engi who is looking to improve how mines work? a engi who is looking to improve the overall gameplay?

nahh your a fing driver, that wants to let everyone know how engis and av mines should be used in ps2.

we understand you want the game to be very very easy for yourself, but that just suckss for people who have skill.

[Figment]

compete and utter bias bs coming from a driver with a agenda is all you have posted. you even went as far as doing research on av mines,,, faceplam....

LOL. Are you channeling Mike33 by any chance?

Obsess much over things? That why all you do is use strawman argumentation and put words in people's mouths? :)

And my gawd, I "went as far as doing research on anti-vehicle mines (application in defense and tactical manners)" while discussing anti-vehicle mines. EGADS. That's like... so far out! Who'd do such a silly thing?


"Complete and utter bias bs". Ever read one of your own posts objectively?

with mine guard maxed out 1 engi cant kill your sundy with mines.... you do know this right? it takes 7 mines...... that means 2 engis are going to have to run all the way from their spawn to your sundy drop 3 to 4 mines each and then youll die. this will take the engis 3 to 4 secs to do once and if they make it all the way to your sundy.lol 2 guys on foot running towards the massive guns you have on top of your sundy..... if i was in the sundy i would be very scared.

I know. You also know its current design is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, as it'd be adjusted according to changes in design right? In fact, you realise that in the new design vision one engineer might carry five mines (or even more) by default, right?

do i have you all wrong??? are you a engi who is looking to improve how mines work? a engi who is looking to improve the overall gameplay?

Yes.

nahh your a fing driver, that wants to let everyone know how engis and av mines should be used in ps2.

Aaaah prejudiced strawman paranoia wins after all.

Alright then. How about I'm both AND a fortification engineer?

But if I'm both, then please admit you are an insolent, prejudiced troll who is extremely afraid his prefered exploitable method of super-quick kill attack as engineer might get a little bit more challenging and wants to let everyone know how he feels engis and av mines should be used in ps2, BUT while also making anti-tank mine users look like selfish sobs who only want cheap AMS kills and obsess over it to the point they'll deny engineers in general extremely useful fortification forms of gameplay?


Deal?

[Rumblepit]

LOL. Are you channeling Mike33 by any chance?

Obsess much over things? That why all you do is use strawman argumentation and put words in people's mouths? :)


"Complete and utter bias bs". Ever read one of your own posts objectively?



I know. You also know it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion, right?



Yes.



Aaaah prejudiced straman paranoia wins after all.

Alright then. How about I'm both?

But if I'm both, then please admit you are an insolent, prejudiced troll who is extremely afraid his prefered exploitable method of super-quick kill attack as engineer might get a little bit more challenging and wants to let everyone know how he feels engis and av mines should be used in ps2, BUT while also making anti-tank mine users look like selfish sobs who only want cheap AMS kills and obsess over it to the point they'll deny engineers in general extremely useful fortification forms of gameplay?


Deal?

funny thing is, i use mines as they were intened to be used. ask anyone on connery if they have had their sundys blown up by my c4. myself and a few other light assaults focus on taking out sundys at bases... thats all we will do for hours........

but i do have a bag of tricks that do involve av mines. and the av mine vest that you like to call it is really only useful on n00bs.... im sorry to say.most people know better and have mine guard.

as for you being a driver that wants the devs to change the way av mines work in the game..... all i can say is good luck to ya :rofl: i think your gonna have a better chance of seeing a elivs face on the character select screen in ps2.

didnt think you could add it up so ill explain. the reason i posted this link http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/minegaurd-needs-balancing-crazy-overpowered.95734/ to you was to prove a point. it goes both ways. if you refuse to see it ,then go on dying and crying........

[OCNSethy]

Oh Fig, I do so enjoy your posts :)

[Babyfark McGeez]

"Cert mineguard" - "spawn elsewhere" - "follow the zerg and farm at the crown"

Gotta love these dolts lol.

Still though, what about MAXes and mines?

[BIGGByran]

Lets also nerf Anti Personnel mines, as I get no warning when I step on one and get 1 shotted. Same with Grenades! 1 shot. Tank guns also, I get 1 shotted. I shouldn't have to cert into Flak armor! Nerf people also, cause when they run up behind me, I get no warning! They should run in front of me first then shoot.

[OCNSethy]

"Cert mineguard" - "spawn elsewhere" - "follow the zerg and farm at the crown"

Gotta love these dolts lol.

Still though, what about MAXes and mines?

What is your concern here?

Lets also nerf Anti Personnel mines, as I get no warning when I step on one and get 1 shotted. Same with Grenades! 1 shot. I shouldn't have to cert into Flak armor! Nerf people also, cause when they run up behind me, I get no warning! They should run in front of me first then shoot. Tank guns also, I get 1 shotted.

Oh you :)

[Figment]

Rumble, just give up with the trolling, it's not working and you're making a fool of yourself with your self-delusional behaviour.

Lets also nerf Anti Personnel mines, as I get no warning when I step on one and get 1 shotted. Same with Grenades! 1 shot. Tank guns also, I get 1 shotted. I shouldn't have to cert into Flak armor! Nerf people also, cause when they run up behind me, I get no warning! They should run in front of me first then shoot.

Strawman much with off-topic things? :p

[Kerrec]

Oh Figment! You've WIKI'd me. My argument is destroyed! BOOM, like a tank rolling over a landmine.

Ok, seriously now. Here's a link right back at you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_mine

And I quote, "The Hawkins mine was a British anti-tank device that could be employed as a mine laid on the road surface for a tank to run over setting off a crush fuze or thrown at the tank in which case a timer fuze was used."

So there's historical precedence in the Real World for exactly what happens in the game right now. Are you happy? It existed in the 1940's, so it can therefore exist in the far far future where humans can replicate anything including themselves...

I guess the commanders in the previous world wars never got around to telling their troops that blowing up tanks that way is "wrong".

[Kerrec]

Read my post above yours. Now i admit i still don't know if i was just being the victim of a cheater there, but if that is the vision of how tank mines are supposed to work, then yes, that is "horribly wrong".

I don't know Babyfark. Does a MAX set off a AV Mine? (I'd really like to know this, many times I've run away thinking there was nothing I could do against that MAX) Was he using AV mines or AI mines?

Did he put down an AV mine and shoot at it instead of you?

Did he put down an AV mine and have it set off by someone else's grenade (or some kind of other explosive)?

Did he throw an AV mine at a vehicle beside you? Like a Flash, or something else?

I don't know what happened. All you've stated is you were in a MAX suit and an engineer was jumping around throwing mines. You seem upset about it since you bring it up here, so I'm assuming he killed you?

[Obstruction]

less butthurt forum posting, more playing game.

can we lock this thread already? i'm tired of seeing it and sun tzu up there thinks planetside is like actual war.

if it was like an actual war the real stategy would be DDOS against opposing faction player IPs. or finding their addresses and setting their homes on fire.

but it is just a game. so with that in mind i'll just do my best to help control the middle of the playing field (crown/indar ascent/amerish eisa/esamir) and get my points efficiently.

just keep in mind while you guys are doing your butthurt whining here many other people are earning certs for when the game matures.

[Figment]

I guess the commanders never got around to telling their troops that blowing up tanks that way is "wrong".

And there you go again by ignoring how I phrased it: PRIMARY use.


PRIMARY use of mines should be defense, not offense!

And I never said it shouldn't ever be used offensively by placing it under stationary vehicles, ever, which is what you're trying to make of it. All I said was it should take more and it should have some restrictions in stacking placement by interference radius and time between throws so the C4 and mines have more defined roles and less direct overlap.

FFS. Kerrec, those nuanciations are there for a reason! Don't ignore them!


And just to complete the point, that type of mine come down to the design of the HA's Anti-Tank grenades, not the throwable mines in game: fused, throwable AT weapon, compared to proximity/pressure sensitive mines that are dropped. But that's rather irrelevant to the debate, just an observation.

[Kerrec]

I'm sorry, but this is a huge devolution of the professionality of the engineering class and equates their sophistication to suicide terrorists. I'd be insulted if I was a military engineer, tbh.

I can't believe you still expect people to read your walls of texts. If you can't make your point in a concise paragraph, I stop reading. I quoted the above, because I happened to catch it as I was reading the post below yours.

Here's my reply to what I quoted above:

If I was in the military, I would do EXACTLY what those military history books explain, because I value my REAL WORLD LIFE. However, in a game, I DO NOT want to spend 15 minutes laying out a well placed mine field. I want to play a GAME.

Here's another thing: In the REAL WORLD, that minefield that contain hundreds of mines would cause all kinds of headaches for an advancing enemy force:

1) It would render the first vehicle inoperable (IE: 1 mine = 1 kill).
2) That vehicle would REMAIN there, blocking the path. It would not deconstruct, leaving the way open for the next vehicles to move thru.
3) There's no magical repair tool that allows a real world vehicle to hit a mine, back up, repair, move forward over the next mine, back up, repair, move forward over the next mine, back up, repair, etc... Yet the game HAS IT. And it renders real world mine warfare irrelevant.

So stop throwing REAL WORLD at me. I'm playing a GAME.

[Figment]

If you don't read my walls of text, just put me on ignore. I'm not interested in hearing your bullshit that consistently comes down to "I haven't read it, but I'm going to respond directly anyway". But at least you're consistent I suppose.

I'm also not going to post concise for you. Deal with it or ignore it.


Who's telling you to place them in 15 minutes? Where do you get that number from? Did you read we said 20-25 mines per player, possibly 15 due to the amount of players? Are you such a slowpoke it takes you fifteen minutes? Think 1 minute: one mine every 3-4 seconds. Minefields can be layed very quickly and the more experience you have with smart placement, the less time you spend planning.

If you want to place 15, that's 45 seconds to 1 minute time. Walking to the other side of a Tech Plant takes longer! If you don't want to do that, then don't.

It's a GAME, WHERE TANKS DRIVE AROUND EVERYTHING, so mines would help people PLAY THE GAME. If it's not your style, or you're too lazy, that's not the problem of the people that arn't that lazy.


And no it doesn't render it irrelevant: it stalls that unit if he drives over it, making it a stationary target. If the occupant gets out to repair (must be engi), the engineer becomes vulnerable to sniper fire and HE as infantry. Don't make such presumptious statements as "it not mattering", just because you haven't actually thought about it enough to realise it matters, lots. One of the primary purpose of minefields is stalling. If the enemy does that, then the mines served their purpose.



PS: Kerrec, your PS1 inexperience is flaring up again. You should get that sorted when (if... :() PS1 goes free to play. Again, that's not an insult, but you're spouting bullox by continuously making assumptions without realising you've been proven wrong ten years ago.

[Kerrec]

You can count on my being consistent. Deal with it, or ignore it.

[Hamma]

Ok guys seriously.. how many times to I have to tell people to utilize the ignore feature? Otherwise infractions get handed out and people get banned. I try to avoid bans even though everyone thinks I love them. :p

[Figment]

You can count on my being consistent. Deal with it, or ignore it.

I'm dealing with it. :/ Look if you don't want to read it, great. Don't reply.

Ok guys seriously.. how many times to I have to tell people to utilize the ignore feature? Otherwise infractions get handed out and people get banned. I try to avoid bans even though everyone thinks I love them. :p

Don't you sleep with your finger on the trigger? :lol:

[BIGGByran]

PRIMARY use of mines should be defense, not offense!

Ok ok, I will only deploy it under sundies that are attacking the base I am defending :P

[Sturmhardt]

It's baffling how many people don't seem to be able to follow a real argument :(

.sent via phone.

[OCNSethy]

Something that higby wrote the other day,,,

"Most people can't accept facts which disagree with their opinion"

That seems appropriate to most threads on this forum lol

[Brusi]

I like the idea about mines taking longer to deploy, but how about them just taking longer to arm?

deploy speed is still super fast frisby, but now they take 5 or 6 seconds to arm! in the meantime, if a tank drives over them, the just *poof*.

In addition to this, if they are shot (buy enemies, friendlies, or hit with explosives) then they also just evaporate, doing no damage.

So now, if your Sundy defenders are not paying attention, there is still the possibility of deployed mines going off and killing the sundy, but it now gives defenders the opportunity to "defuse" the mines.

It also doesn't punish people who want to just chuck out a couple to defend the base they just too, and switch back to another class before moving on.

[Figment]

Ok ok, I will only deploy it under sundies that are attacking the base I am defending :P

Why the troll attitude? Is it that hard to defend your preference that you don't have any arguments to defend the merits of the current design? I mean, the only argument I've heard from your side is "we are lazy" (Kerrec), "we like using this on AMSes just like c4 so you should use mineguards". An argument that is completely irrelevant because under the new system that would be the same, it would just take engineers a bit longer than if they would use c4. That is it.

Not a single argument regarding larger pro-active minefields, which is the core suggestion here.

Not even a single argument to why the ttk of an engineer has to be like this. Only refering to how it is, which we all know and is irrelevant if you don't say why this is good design.

Come on. If you don't have any arguments, then you know you are just coming over as protecting a status quo "because it is the way it is" and you know how to abuse it so you fear having a greater challenge. Your mind is closed to new options that would net you far more kills if used properly. What we suggest is a huge buff to engineers. But it requires some compensation in damage per mine. That, I find really sad about these discussions.

You lot are like the people proclaiming a ground ams wouldn't help the gameplay. Honestly I don't see why anyone should listen to you if you don't have any argumentation aside from strawmen.

[Kerrec]

Defense is already very difficult. Attackers will pin defenders in their spawn rooms and camp it, because it is a strategy that works to win the base. If we flip the tables, and the defenders push out to the Sunderer, are they expected to damage it slowly to be fair? Or should they just camp it until the base is "defended"?

Seriously, AMS Sunderers are the source of the attack. Want to win your base defense? Kill the Sunderer. The best tool to do that? Mines.

If you nerf mines, what will happen? People will move on to the next best tool. HA with 2x C4 and a dumbfire rocket. Sunderer owners will not realize they are under attack any more than they do now, with Engineers running up to them trowing mines. They will think everything is fine and then BOOM. Dead. No time to "react". Instead of seeing Engineers running at Sunderers, you'll see those Engineers become HA instead. So what then? Nerf C4? Nerf how C4 is triggered by explosions?

And lets be honest. AMS Sunderers are a dime a dozen. There's often AT LEAST two attacking a base. Kill one, move on to the next. By the time you died, respawn, died, respawned, killed the next Sunderer, another came and took the place of the first one you killed.

People will move on from mines once they are nerfed to the next best thing. They'll find another way to reliably kill Sunderers and we'll be here all over again, discussing the same true underlying topic: "We don't want our Sunderers dying".

How about this for a "novel" idea. Instead of changing the way something works now, so you can have it work the way you think it would be "more fun" to use, how about you suggest ADDING a new kind of mine that does exactly what you want. Less damage + carry more = minefields.

Now there's a constructive idea, that is not game altering, that caters to both kinds of players. I don't have an issue with the ideas proposed for an expanded set of options for using mines. I have an issue with forcing what is fun for you into a game at the expense of what is fun for me.

Hamma, if you read this, I am barely refraining from responding to Figment's attack on my character by calling me out as being lazy.

[Babyfark McGeez]

I don't know Babyfark. Does a MAX set off a AV Mine? (I'd really like to know this, many times I've run away thinking there was nothing I could do against that MAX) Was he using AV mines or AI mines?

Did he put down an AV mine and shoot at it instead of you?

Did he put down an AV mine and have it set off by someone else's grenade (or some kind of other explosive)?

Did he throw an AV mine at a vehicle beside you? Like a Flash, or something else?

I don't know what happened. All you've stated is you were in a MAX suit and an engineer was jumping around throwing mines. You seem upset about it since you bring it up here, so I'm assuming he killed you?

He was jumping around me indoors and killed me with a tank mine in a 1on1. I'm not upset, i just don't know how that's possible indoors without any vehicle around to trigger the mine. I'm pretty sure no other explosive triggered it aswell (allthough with michael-bay-PS2 you never know).

Assuming he didn't cheat and no explosive set it off it felt like he was exploiting the mechanic. And that was the reason why i think mines should be rather deployed than dropped.

Overall there are much more important problems this game has though. :p

[JesNC]

Defense is already very difficult. Attackers will pin defenders in their spawn rooms and camp it, because it is a strategy that works to win the base. If we flip the tables, and the defenders push out to the Sunderer, are they expected to damage it slowly to be fair? Or should they just camp it until the base is "defended"?

Seriously, AMS Sunderers are the source of the attack. Want to win your base defense? Kill the Sunderer. The best tool to do that? Mines.

If you nerf mines, what will happen? People will move on to the next best tool. HA with 2x C4 and a dumbfire rocket. Sunderer owners will not realize they are under attack any more than they do now, with Engineers running up to them trowing mines. They will think everything is fine and then BOOM. Dead. No time to "react". Instead of seeing Engineers running at Sunderers, you'll see those Engineers become HA instead. So what then? Nerf C4? Nerf how C4 is triggered by explosions?

And lets be honest. AMS Sunderers are a dime a dozen. There's often AT LEAST two attacking a base. Kill one, move on to the next. By the time you died, respawn, died, respawned, killed the next Sunderer, another came and took the place of the first one you killed.

People will move on from mines once they are nerfed to the next best thing. They'll find another way to reliably kill Sunderers and we'll be here all over again, discussing the same true underlying topic: "We don't want our Sunderers dying".

How about this for a "novel" idea. Instead of changing the way something works now, so you can have it work the way you think it would be "more fun" to use, how about you suggest ADDING a new kind of mine that does exactly what you want. Less damage + carry more = minefields.

Now there's a constructive idea, that is not game altering, that caters to both kinds of players. I don't have an issue with the ideas proposed for an expanded set of options for using mines. I have an issue with forcing what is fun for you into a game at the expense of what is fun for me.

Hamma, if you read this, I am barely refraining from responding to Figment's attack on my character by calling me out as being lazy.

- Defense is diffucult, yes. That's why this thread is about changing AT mines to better support defensive fights. Imagine AMSes/tanks not easily being able to drive into a courtyard because of an actual minefield there ;)

- Nobody's talking about 'nerfing mines'. It's about altering them, about spacing out their damage potential to a greater area. So what if it takes 4 mines intead of 2 to kill a Sunderer, when you can carry 10 of them in exchange. (disclaimer: this is an example)

- An alternate set of AT mines or a minefield dispenser could work, too. But IMO this will add too much clutter to the already cluttered Engineer class. Are you going to take C4 to take on anything, AP mines vs infantry, AT mines No 1 to take out stationary targets or AT mines No 2 to put down a defensive minefield?
IMO an alternate set of mines just shoehorns the existing AT mine into the C4/assault explosive role. A sensible change to the existing one on the other
hand will simply shift its battlefield role towards defensive use with only minimal effects on its 'AV-in-a-pinch' effectiveness.


Because that's what this thread was discussing before all the screaming began: How to sensibly alter AT mines.

[Kerrec]

I've made this point already in this thread. I use AV mines. In both ways. Defensively and offensively.

When I deploy my 3 mines across a road, or in a garage, or some other high traffic area, MOST of the time I get Flash kills.

That is a monumental waste of resources. I can kill a flash with my weapon, which is replenished from an engineer ammo pack or a terminal for free. I cannot kill a tank or sunderer with my carbine.

If you think that having a big mine field is going to increase defensibility, then OK fine. I won't contest that. Lobby to have new mines added for that purpose.

However, I don't agree that mines as they are should be removed from the game. An AMS-Sunderer driver has to make a choice. Blockade armor protects against all kinds of incomming damage, including C4. It's a huge improvement in the survivability of a Sunderer. The catch is it is weak to mines. The other option is Mineguard. It renders mines a non-threat.

By neutering mines so they get spread out more and each does less, the driver has time to react after the first hit. Hit the brakes, maybe hit another 2-3 mines before coming to a full stop, reverse. Get out and repair. Mines are a non-threat to someone with half decent reflexes AND the driver has Blockade armor to protect it from everything else. It's a WIN-WIN proposition for Sunderer drivers gamewide.

If Figment and outfit buddy JesNC just want a different playstyle that reflects how they think mines "should" be used, there's room for that in the game. I really can't believe that the suggestion to ADD content to a game is being shot down because it would make it too complicated and "clutter up the engineer class".

[BIGGByran]

You lot are like the people proclaiming a ground ams wouldn't help the gameplay. Honestly I don't see why anyone should listen to you if you don't have any argumentation aside from strawmen.


Dude, I was just joking. Lighten up. Trying to get some people to laugh at this "serious" matter.

Reducing the damage on mine would not buff the eng, and a mine field would be more of an annoyance than anything. Plus if you leave those on the road, once 1 is hit, "smart" drivers will just stop, repair, and drive around the mine field that took you 5-10 mins to place. Or if you leave them as choke areas, then onces 1 is hit, "smart" drives will stop, repair, clear field with either their gun or the gun on their vehicle for fast clearing (roughtly 1min tops to clear but took you 5-10mins to place). Mineguard would be completely useless and EVERYONE will go Blockade, since a stock sundy can take 3-4 tank mines and then blow up(depending on how much it is nerfed). It will be an annoyance if the field is in non-choke area and facilities. But a joke when in Choke points and facilities because the predictability of it. Predictability? Like the standard area where vehicles normally park at or go through.

Again, if they were to chage Tank mines, I think the proper direction would be (to prevent them from being an annoyance and being completely useless):

1) Make them 1 Shot sundies and Tanks (without mine guard. rank 1 mine guard will leave you with 30% hp leave on your sundy/tank)
2) Can ONLY be triggers by movements (prevents people just dropping them under deployed/non-moving vehicles and encourage "defensive deployment" of the tank mines)
3) Reduce FORCED detonations to only 25% damage (to prevent eng from deploying 1 tank mine under a deployed sundy and shotting it to 1 shot sundy. Plus it also allows the owner of the sundy to check around his sundy to clear any tank mines before moving out.)

The Mentality of a squad/platoon should change to this:
1) Understanding that tank mines can 1 shot a non-mine guarded sundy, they will have someone with mine guard in the front of the pack to take the hits while the armor column follows in a line.
2) Check under the sundy before undeploying it or BOOM!
3) since tank mines cannot detonate under a non-moving vehicle, most people now will generally not run mine guard and no longer be "forced" to.

Mentality of the Eng:
1) I won't deploy 2 tank mines together as 1 mine can do the job just fine(2 would generally waste resources)





Need to reduce damage on forced explosion in general anyway. A C4 was placed on my sundy and when I blew it off, it still dealt full damage. And this would stop the 1 shot, 2x C4 + Rocket from 1 HA to do 1 Massive damage. He placed 2 C4s on a sundy, and then rocket the sundy where the C4s is at to detonate them.

[Kerrec]

He was jumping around me indoors and killed me with a tank mine in a 1on1. I'm not upset, i just don't know how that's possible indoors without any vehicle around to trigger the mine. I'm pretty sure no other explosive triggered it aswell (allthough with michael-bay-PS2 you never know).

Assuming he didn't cheat and no explosive set it off it felt like he was exploiting the mechanic. And that was the reason why i think mines should be rather deployed than dropped.

Overall there are much more important problems this game has though. :p

I don't know Babyfark. My guess, based on what is the easiest, is he placed a mine on the ground inside the building. Then he got your attention, lured you to his mine, then shot it.

If he did the whole thing on the fly, then I'd be even more impressed. But it's still possible.

I wouldn't say it happends very often though.

[JesNC]

If Figment and outfit buddy JesNC just want a different playstyle that reflects how they think mines "should" be used, there's room for that in the game. I really can't believe that the suggestion to ADD content to a game is being shot down because it would make it too complicated and "clutter up the engineer class".

I also use AT mines in both roles, but I find that I simply cannot block/trap/whatever a chokepoint reliably with the 4 mines I have aviable.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I am in no way advocating that AT mines need a certain distance between them to be deployed, just that it would be nice to have the choice to either comcetrate them all in one spot or spread them out to cover more terrain.



And just as a note, Figment and me being both members of BDX has nothing to do with this discussion, or any discussion on these boards for that matter. We disagreed on several parts of PS2's design in the past, and I don't think this is going to change in the future. That doesn't mean we can play and enjoy the game together.
So, if you have a problem with Figgy, take it out in PMs or simply ignore him. But don't spread the hate, bro.

[Kerrec]

I also use AT mines in both roles, but I find that I simply cannot block/trap/whatever a chokepoint reliably with the 4 mines I have aviable.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I am in no way advocating that AT mines need a certain distance between them to be deployed, just that it would be nice to have the choice to either comcetrate them all in one spot or spread them out to cover more terrain.



And just as a note, Figment and me being both members of BDX has nothing to do with this discussion, or any discussion on these boards for that matter. We disagreed on several parts of PS2's design in the past, and I don't think this is going to change in the future. That doesn't mean we can play and enjoy the game together.
So, if you have a problem with Figgy, take it out in PMs or simply ignore him. But don't spread the hate, bro.

You want the choice? I proposed adding a different kind of mine, that is catered to how Figment (and I assume, your) wishes for how they play out, allowing both camps to play the way they want. That exactly fits "having a choice". Yet you shot it down, because "it would clutter the engineer class too much". In the same post, you said that mines should be area denial tools, not offensive weapons. So "NO" to my playstyle, "YES" to your playstyle, and there's only room for one! I don't know how else to interpret your previous post.

You basically repeated exactly what Figment has been saying. Almost like you're an Alt account or something. I don't HATE Figment, that's such a strong word. But it's obvious we disagree on many things.

If I wrongly painted you and Figment as being part of the same camp with regards to Mines as a deterrant vs. Mines as a weapon, then I apologize. I'm sorry if you interpreted anything I said about you and Figment in some kind of "hateful" way.

[Figment]

Kerrec, when was the last time you layed a minefield of more than 3 either weak or strong mines (in the order of 20-25 mines)?

[Figment]

Dude, I was just joking. Lighten up. Trying to get some people to laugh at this "serious" matter.

In light of things said in this thread, I don't think the joke came over very well. Didn't see one anyway.

Reducing the damage on mine would not buff the eng, and a mine field would be more of an annoyance than anything. Plus if you leave those on the road, once 1 is hit, "smart" drivers will just stop, repair, and drive around the mine field that took you 5-10 mins to place.

1. It's a buff, because they can protect areas and flanks, instead of points. It's a support and tactical tool, don't just think in kills (and they would get far more kills, mind you). They can actively discourage and deny areas to enemies and control and stall enemy movements. That's something the current mines cannot ever hope to accomplish.

2. Can you stop on a dime in PS2? Especially down hill? Answer: no.

3. Smart (I'd prefer the term "aware") drivers aren't as numerous as you currently seem to think... Trust me on that one... And if the first tank dies makes the collumn behind him halt... Don't you see the tactical potential of that moment? A group of stationary targets trying to detect a thread and slowly moving forward opposed to a group of full speed ahead targets swamping your position in seconds?

That makes absolutely no difference to you? It gets you time! Time is important in everything you do in defense, particularly if you have smaller numbers! It's such a huge buff to defense I'm amazed how few people understand its purpose.

If a tank in World of Tanks is detracked, rather than storming forward, it will take far more heavy damage from other sources than the source that caused the detracking in the first place. You're focusing too much on the single mine (which is what the current mine design has taught you), but you should look at this in a far wider perspective. If you gain even 10-20 seconds from a minefield, that's people being able to get back in position, that's a number of rocket hits and your enemy has been dealt a significant psychological blow in that they will become afraid of driving in your vicinity: where else are mines? And when they don't dare to move in, it'll be much easier for you to hold.

Or if you leave them as choke areas, then onces 1 is hit, "smart" drives will stop, repair, clear field with either their gun or the gun on their vehicle for fast clearing (roughtly 1min tops to clear but took you 5-10mins to place).

Again, why do you assume they're not taking any other fire and are you completely focusing on a mine only method of killing?

Listen to what you're saying 5-10 minutes?! Where do you get that number from? And how many hits can you get on them in 1 minute?

You have absolutely no sense of the amount of time needed to place and no sense of the time it gains you to do something else.


Also remember that minefields tend to have a lasting psychological detering effect from an irrational fear of potential damage that lasts far longer than the actual mines: if they come back, they'll think twice of storming in again, again providing you time and that effect will spread to their allies as players pass on information and mimic one another's behaviour ("Why is he stopping? Should I stop as well? What's out there that's scary?"). Again, providing you time to actually deal damage even if the mine does not.

Mineguard would be completely useless and EVERYONE will go Blockade, since a stock sundy can take 3-4 tank mines and then blow up(depending on how much it is nerfed).

I'll remind you that this is a complete fear assumption you make. It is far likelier that the mineguard becomes extremely important for offense (particularly spearheading units), where currently it's mostly use as defense.

And for the record, PS1 Sunderers took 12 mines and eventually even had a 25m radius EMP blast yet still blew up to mines, a lot! Why? Lots of mines by lots of engineers means there's more than they can handle and they can't afford to stand still under fire. Plus mines are actually quickly replaced, as long as players want to maintain it (and it's very lucrative to do so, PS1 minefields could be very long and wide if you had a lot of combat engineers in the same area). In a minute, you could lay all your mines and a couple fortification engineers could make a lot of important defenses and passive deterents.

It will be an annoyance if the field is in non-choke area and facilities. But a joke when in Choke points and facilities because the predictability of it. Predictability? Like the standard area where vehicles normally park at or go through.

Completely disagree. Again from experience with PS1. They will form a physical barrier that will take time and effort to pass. Not being able to create barriers, THAT is useless and a supreme annoyance to defenders.

So what do you do if you know a Sunderer will want to sit in a particular location and will rush there? You place mines there.

Again, if they were to chage Tank mines, I think the proper direction would be (to prevent them from being an annoyance and being completely useless):

1) Make them 1 Shot sundies and Tanks (without mine guard. rank 1 mine guard will leave you with 30% hp leave on your sundy/tank)
2) Can ONLY be triggers by movements (prevents people just dropping them under deployed/non-moving vehicles and encourage "defensive deployment" of the tank mines)
3) Reduce FORCED detonations to only 25% damage (to prevent eng from deploying 1 tank mine under a deployed sundy and shotting it to 1 shot sundy. Plus it also allows the owner of the sundy to check around his sundy to clear any tank mines before moving out.)

1. Ridiculously OP buff - why do you want to make the situation even less fair and used defensively than it is now? You only make it more attractive to run up to vehicles and place them for free kills as you'd need even less time to place!

Honestly, the thought alone of wielding such weapon absolutely disgusts me. I'm not fighting AI mobs. I'm fighting players. The way you treat other players as some sort of grinding AI mob is horrifying. Have some respect for your opponents?
2. Units are pretty much always moving, hell stationary deployed sunderers are moving (bug, obviously). This rule would therefore only affect non-bugged deployed Sunderers. There's nothing wrong with :/
3. Don't see why you'd make such a special case unless you realise yourself it's actually OP and an exploit.

The Mentality of a squad/platoon should change to this:
1) Understanding that tank mines can 1 shot a non-mine guarded sundy, they will have someone with mine guard in the front of the pack to take the hits while the armor column follows in a line.

They won't. Chances of hitting a mine are nill in most situations since there's so few.

2) Check under the sundy before undeploying it or BOOM!

Sure.

3) since tank mines cannot detonate under a non-moving vehicle, most people now will generally not run mine guard and no longer be "forced" to.

So basically you're saying it's become pretty much entirely useless. :/ I thought you wanted to prevent that? If you have large minefields, the risks of hitting a mine increases as a perpetual threat. Particularly if you play on offense. More people on offense would use mineguards if the chances of hitting a mine increases. If a mine does 25% damage, a mineguard that can handle even two more mines would be a huge benefit. Especially if you're at speed and can't stop quickly, or the game's physics don't let you stop moving - which is the case for most moving units in PS2 and can be very annoying in hills.

Mentality of the Eng:
1) I won't deploy 2 tank mines together as 1 mine can do the job just fine(2 would generally waste resources)

Not so much mentality as it is behaviour, but there'd still be no fields. And mines wouldn't be major threads, just random "Oh crap, couldn't see that coming *sigh* *respawn*" moments, rather than taking wits to place and beat.

Remember that players like some feeling of control in both killing and dieing. If they don't feel they had a fair, let alone a, chance, the majority of players won't like this and become frustrated. :/

Need to reduce damage on forced explosion in general anyway. A C4 was placed on my sundy and when I blew it off, it still dealt full damage. And this would stop the 1 shot, 2x C4 + Rocket from 1 HA to do 1 Massive damage. He placed 2 C4s on a sundy, and then rocket the sundy where the C4s is at to detonate them.

That's not so much the C4, rather than the "disabling" mechanic being missing entirely. I wouldn't mind lower C4 damage levels if you can carry more btw. More variation in amount of C4 needed to blow up different units wouldn't be such a bad thing.

They should really introduce a disabling mechanic for C4. :/ I've killed so many things that already drove away after they killed me, it's silly.

In PS1, EMP grenades set them off, while dealing damage to them would destroy them before they'd detonate. It works quite well, since most players do carry bullets, but not grenades. Alternatively, for remote explosives, pressing the action key to cause deconstruction could work. Though I doubt you'd have the time for it.

The mechanic for Boomers (C4) in PS1 was that each had their own trigger. As long as the boomer was alive, so was the trigger. As long as the trigger was alive, so was the boomer. Since triggers remained in backpacks after a kill, you could try and collect them, though most the times they were destroyed before you could respawn due to the longer spawn time.

Since the context is a bit different, I think the dev team should evaluate this and try a couple of different mechanics based on what players have available and how much time they have.

[JesNC]

You want the choice? I proposed adding a different kind of mine, that is catered to how Figment (and I assume, your) wishes for how they play out, allowing both camps to play the way they want. That exactly fits "having a choice". Yet you shot it down, because "it would clutter the engineer class too much". In the same post, you said that mines should be area denial tools, not offensive weapons. So "NO" to my playstyle, "YES" to your playstyle, and there's only room for one! I don't know how else to interpret your previous post.

You basically repeated exactly what Figment has been saying. Almost like you're an Alt account or something. I don't HATE Figment, that's such a strong word. But it's obvious we disagree on many things.

If I wrongly painted you and Figment as being part of the same camp with regards to Mines as a deterrant vs. Mines as a weapon, then I apologize. I'm sorry if you interpreted anything I said about you and Figment in some kind of "hateful" way.

I did not intend to 'shoot your idea down'. I just stated that - in my opinion - it adds unnecessary clutter to a class that is already littered with certs. Neither did I say that mines should not be used offensively. Maybe I didn't explain it well, let my try again:

Currently, AT mines are kinda versatile. You can put them on a stationary vehicle to instantly take it out, or you can put them in the middle of a road and hope that someone's dumb enough to drive straight through them.
I want AT mines to be more versatile. You should still be able to dump mines on a stationary target to take it out, but you should also be able to mine an entire chokepoint.
Again, in my opinion, it doesn't make a difference if you need 2 or 4(or more) mines to take out a vehicle. You drop them nearly as fast as you can click, so even tripling the amount needed to kill will only increase the 'TTK' by 1 second at best.

[BIGGByran]

In light of things said in this thread, I don't think the joke came over very well. Didn't see one anyway.

Ya probably not.




If a tank in World of Tanks is detracked, rather than storming forward, it will take far more heavy damage from other sources than the source that caused the detracking in the first place. You're focusing too much on the single mine (which is what the current mine design has taught you), but you should look at this in a far wider perspective. If you gain even 10-20 seconds from a minefield, that's people being able to get back in position, that's a number of rocket hits and your enemy has been dealt a significant psychological blow in that they will become afraid of driving in your vicinity: where else are mines? And when they don't dare to move in, it'll be much easier for you to hold.

Now if these new mines you are proposing will disable a vehicle that has ran over them for a period of time (instead of indefinitely. maybe like 5 sec) Then I would love these. On top, they have to be harder to spot.

Again, why do you assume they're not taking any other fire and are you completely focusing on a mine only method of killing?

If an engineer get mines, he can't get C4 and it is his only method of killing tank.

Listen to what you're saying 5-10 minutes?! Where do you get that number from? And how many hits can you get on them in 1 minute?

You have absolutely no sense of the amount of time needed to place and no sense of the time it gains you to do something else.

You gain 0 time if someone is rolling up with a fully upgraded mine guard. It would be a 0 denial tool. Again depending on how bad it is nerfed.


Completely disagree. Again from experience with PS1. They will form a physical barrier that will take time and effort to pass. Not being able to create barriers, THAT is useless and a supreme annoyance to defenders.

So what do you do if you know a Sunderer will want to sit in a particular location and will rush there? You place mines there.

Exactly, but due to predictability on key location and placement, they can "clear" the mines by shotting M40s or M60s. And if they don't, the mine don't deny them that area because it doesn't deal enough damage.



1. Ridiculously OP buff - why do you want to make the situation even less fair and used defensively than it is now? You only make it more attractive to run up to vehicles and place them for free kills as you'd need even less time to place!

Honestly, the thought alone of wielding such weapon absolutely disgusts me. I'm not fighting AI mobs. I'm fighting players. The way you treat other players as some sort of grinding AI mob is horrifying. Have some respect for your opponents?

I guess you don't use Anti-Personnel Mines, Sniper Rifles, Shot Guns, Tank Weapons, L105 and L150, or anything else that 1 hit kills people. But you did not read what I said :
2) Can ONLY be triggers by movements (prevents people just dropping them under deployed/non-moving vehicles and encourage "defensive deployment" of the tank mines)

2. Units are pretty much always moving, hell stationary deployed sunderers are moving (bug, obviously). This rule would therefore only affect non-bugged deployed Sunderers. There's nothing wrong with :/

This is true and I thought about that. Hopefully they have some way of detecting a "true" movement as oppose to "bug" movement. LOL would suck ass if your "bugged' sundy moved towards a tank mine lol.

3. Don't see why you'd make such a special case unless you realise yourself it's actually OP and an exploit.

No, not OP, but yes can be exploited IF they change the mines to what I have suggested. And this is to prevent that exploit.


They won't. Chances of hitting a mine are nill in most situations since there's so few.

And it won't be so few if people realize the killing potential of it. My proposal would be "Not abundantly annoying but minimally effective."

So basically you're saying it's become pretty much entirely useless. :/ I thought you wanted to prevent that?

It would not be useless as it is a minimally effective weapon. AND it takes away what people are complaining about. I don't mind it not blowing up on non-moving vehicles if they change the mine to what I have suggested.

If you have large minefields, the risks of hitting a mine increases as a perpetual threat. Particularly if you play on offense. More people on offense would use mineguards if the chances of hitting a mine increases. If a mine does 25% damage, a mineguard that can handle even two more mines would be a huge benefit. Especially if you're at speed and can't stop quickly, or the game's physics don't let you stop moving - which is the case for most moving units in PS2 and can be very annoying in hills.

Did you just rewrote what I said? (About the Mineguard leading the pack.)
The Mentality of a squad/platoon should change to this:
1) Understanding that tank mines can 1 shot a non-mine guarded sundy, they will have someone with mine guard in the front of the pack to take the hits while the armor column follows in a line.

Not so much mentality as it is behaviour, but there'd still be no fields. And mines wouldn't be major threads, just random "Oh crap, couldn't see that coming *sigh* *respawn*" moments, rather than taking wits to place and beat.

Remember that players like some feeling of control in both killing and dieing. If they don't feel they had a fair, let alone a, chance, the majority of players won't like this and become frustrated. :/

Lol doesn't causing frustration mean that your doing something right? I'm sure any faction would get frustrated if they fail their goal. Ex. Leaders get frustrated when they cannot capture a territory and constantly being denied. Frustration is part of any competitive game.

That's not so much the C4, rather than the "disabling" mechanic being missing entirely. I wouldn't mind lower C4 damage levels if you can carry more btw. More variation in amount of C4 needed to blow up different units wouldn't be such a bad thing.

They should really introduce a disabling mechanic for C4. :/ I've killed so many things that already drove away after they killed me, it's silly.

In PS1, EMP grenades set them off, while dealing damage to them would destroy them before they'd detonate. It works quite well, since most players do carry bullets, but not grenades. Alternatively, for remote explosives, pressing the action key to cause deconstruction could work. Though I doubt you'd have the time for it.

Well the if you kill the guy before he detonates it, you would have some time to disable it. Maybe like how you overload/stabilize a generator. Give disabling a slightly shorter time to disarm.


So you have heard what I proposed for the reinvent of the tank mines. Could you clearly (or as much as possible) define yours? I may like yours better but I don't think you have clearly defined it yet.

Ex. Mine can only be deployed every 25ms
Mines deals 10% of a stock sundy HP.
How many? etc etc.

[Kerrec]

Kerrec, when was the last time you layed a minefield of more than 3 either weak or strong mines (in the order of 20-25 mines)?

Tonight. Played with an Outfit callled TRAF. Squad leader asked to spawn engineers and mine a bridge. Assuming most engineers have at LEAST 2 mines, that's 2 x 12 = 24. Probably not everyone in the squad bothered, but there was at least more than a dozen mines because I was trying to find places that didn't have 2 stacked mines and had to run across a good bit of the bridge.

Happy now?

By the way, I got no kills for those 3 mines I dropped on the bridge. Big waste of resources.

Outside of PS2, I have played games that use mines. Starcraft comes to mind. The original one, years ago. The new one too for that matter, I think the Terran bikes drop mines.

So, what is your point?

[Figment]

Now if these new mines you are proposing will disable a vehicle that has ran over them for a period of time (instead of indefinitely. maybe like 5 sec) Then I would love these. On top, they have to be harder to spot.

Well you already said they'd stop and get out to repair. ;) (Likelier is, they stop, look around for a way around the minefield or to blow up the minefield or to fall back). Either way, it'll save you time. :)

If an engineer get mines, he can't get C4 and it is his only method of killing tank.

Once a minefield is in place and remains there, you can change class or even get into a vehicle. ;)

You gain 0 time if someone is rolling up with a fully upgraded mine guard. It would be a 0 denial tool. Again depending on how bad it is nerfed.

That's the idea of a mineguard though, isn't it? It'd make it useful. Just like how frontal and side armours are very useful, but are vulnerable in other areas. So that sounds fine.

Exactly, but due to predictability on key location and placement, they can "clear" the mines by shotting M40s or M60s. And if they don't, the mine don't deny them that area because it doesn't deal enough damage.

Even then this takes them time.

Did you just rewrote what I said? (About the Mineguard leading the pack.)

More or less. A consistent, regular threat is treated as a bigger direct reason to cert into something than a random, once every while threat. Consider that even if ESFs zoom over constantly, most people don't continuously use AA, because there are more consistent, perpetuous threats like infantry and tanks. You'd only get a mineguard if you actually expect to enter a minefield or other area where mines might be a threat. In the open field, currently nobody would use it and most wouldn't even use it to approach a base (frontal and side armour is most popular I'd say). Mostly Sundies tend to use mineguards right now because they're the only unit type that faces mines more often than other units right now, the others move too much and are too far away for engineers to get to most the time and minefields don't exist.

But yeah, rolling in front of others with a mineguard... I would find that a solid and fair strategy and the point of a mineguard, would you not? :) In fact, I'd go for the biggest "minesweeper"/damage absorbing unit. Probably a Sundy first. Maybe two. With the actual filled ones behind it (that's how we did it very effectively in PS1 as well, most other vehicles wouldn't dare move in that close as we did - we also used that to shield Vanguards at bridge fights with suicide minesweepers).

Lol doesn't causing frustration mean that your doing something right?

There's frustration and frustration. Frustration with yourself or frustration with the game. If for example if it didn't give you a chance to at least fend of an attacker, chances are the game is blamed: can lead to players quiting. If you simply know you lost to an opponent who outfought you, chances are frustration is with yourself or you become more tenacious towards that opponent. Currently I'm under the impression players don't feel frustration with players as much as they do with the game design.

So you have heard what I proposed for the reinvent of the tank mines. Could you clearly (or as much as possible) define yours? I may like yours better but I don't think you have clearly defined it yet.

Ex. Mine can only be deployed every 25ms
Mines deals 10% of a stock sundy HP.
How many? etc etc.

Let's see, draft example obviously. Remember, vehicles are pretty big.

Mine can only be deployed (much like ammo pack) on suitable terrain
Maximum carried: 4-8 (cert into)
Maximum deployed: 10-25 (cert into, thus deployed in three, four runs)
Deployment time after click: 0.5 seconds
Time between deployments: ~3-6 seconds (cert into? Can be adjusted if needed)
Cannot deploy indoors or very steep slopes (no vehicles, no need)
Interference radius of 3-5m (cert into)
Proximity detection radius: 2.5m
Splash radius 2.75m
Core splash radius 1.5m (100% damage, damage drop off to edge of radius)
Lag upon proximity detection: 0.1 seconds (makes mine explode underneath approaching unit instead of in front of the unit - really speedy vehicles might take less damage if they fringe a minefield instead of going over it directly)

Damage to ATV without mineguard: ~100% (1 mines)
Damage to ATV with mineguard 1: ~90% (2 mines, fire threat after one)
Damage to ATV with mineguard 2: ~75% (2 mines)
Damage to ATV with mineguard 3: ~50% (2 mines)
Damage to ATV with mineguard 4: ~45% (3 mines, fire threat after two)
Damage to ATV with mineguard 5: ~35% (3 mines)

Damage to Lightning/Buggy without mineguard: ~60% (2 mines, kills damaged units)
Damage to Lightning/Buggy with mineguard 1: ~50% (2 mines, increased survival when damage)
Damage to Lightning/Buggy with mineguard 2: ~40% (3 mines)
Damage to Lightning/Buggy with mineguard 3: ~35% (3 mines)
Damage to Lightning/Buggy with mineguard 4: ~30% (4 mines, fire threat after three)
Damage to Lightning/Buggy with mineguard 4: ~25% (4 mines)

Damage to Light APC/MBT without mineguard: ~35% (3 mines)
Damage to Light APC/MBT with mineguard 1: ~30% (4 mines, fire threat after three)
Damage to Light APC/MBT with mineguard 2: ~25% (4 mines)
Damage to Light APC/MBT with mineguard 3: ~20% (5 mines)
Damage to Light APC/MBT with mineguard 4: ~18% (6 mines, fire threat after five)
Damage to Light APC/MBT with mineguard 5: ~17% (6 mines)

Damage to Sunderer without mineguard: ~30% (4 mines, fire threat after three)
Damage to Sunderer with mineguard 1: ~25% (4 mines)
Damage to Sunderer with mineguard 2: ~20% (5 mines)
Damage to Sunderer with mineguard 2: ~18% (6 mines, fire threat after five)
Damage to Sunderer with mineguard 4: ~15% (7 mines)
Damage to Sunderer with mineguard 5: ~13% (8 mines)

[BIGGByran]

There's frustration and frustration. Frustration with yourself or frustration with the game. If for example if it didn't give you a chance to at least fend of an attacker, chances are the game is blamed: can lead to players quiting. If you simply know you lost to an opponent who outfought you, chances are frustration is with yourself or you become more tenacious towards that opponent. Currently I'm under the impression players don't feel frustration with players as much as they do with the game design.

Or patches it seems. Played last night and starting to see a lot of Magriders out and still doing really well, which is great. I'm atleast glad they are on the "ground."




Let's see, draft example obviously. Remember, vehicles are pretty big.

Mine can only be deployed (much like ammo pack) on suitable terrain

Well I agree with it not being dropped and only deploy on the ground, however there might be some places that ammo packs cannot be deployed but tanks/sundies can still go over. Lets not restrict it that much. Other wise agreed.


Maximum carried: 4-8 (cert into)
Maximum deployed: 10-25 (cert into, thus deployed in three, four runs)


Make it a nice number, so it is easier to track how many mines you have laid down. I don't know about 2 certs into the mine. I was thinking letting the cert like how mine is currently certed into, the more certed into it, the more you carry and the more you can deploy, it isn't separate.

How about:

Cert 1: Carry 5 Mines (Deploy 5 Mines)
Cert 2: Carry 5 Mines (Deploy 10 Mines)
Cert 3: Carry 10 Mines (Deploy 15 Mines)
Cert 4: Carry 10 Mines (Deploy 20 Mines)
Cert 5: Carry 25 Mines (Deploy 25 Mines)

Easy to keep track of, plus prevents alot of running back and forward especially if you deploy further away from the base/resupply station. Also makes MAX certing into tank mines attractive since you can carry the max load for deployment. Instead of like how most 1000 cert points are, a small not really worth it stat upgrade.


Deployment time after click: 0.5 seconds
Time between deployments: ~3-6 seconds (cert into? Can be adjusted if needed)

Whoa! How many certs do you want to sink into tank mine(10,000?) lol. Deployment time is fine. remove the time between deployment (or reduce to 1 sec or 0 as there is already a proximity deployment restriction) as these tank mines are defensive purpose and need to lay them out quite fast before the zerg gets here!

Cannot deploy indoors or very steep slopes (no vehicles, no need)

Well I was going to agree with the indoors thing, but after thinking about it, I'm 50/50. Would be nice to deploy some at the ground floor of towers for those that drive their sundy inside bases.
Disagree with the steep slopes. Magriders, enough said. lol Let them deploy there if they want. If no tanks can get there, waste of resources.


Interference radius of 3-5m (cert into)
Proximity detection radius: 2.5m
Splash radius 2.75m
Core splash radius 1.5m (100% damage, damage drop off to edge of radius)
Lag upon proximity detection: 0.1 seconds (makes mine explode underneath approaching unit instead of in front of the unit - really speedy vehicles might take less damage if they fringe a minefield instead of going over it directly)


Interference Radius, do you mean deployment proximity restriction? Lol never heard it said like that, but I think i know what you mean. Will have to play around with it, but maybe even 5m maybe about right. The killing effectiveness is reduce a bit. 3m would be lovely for the setter, the closer the better. again just have to do testing to find the sweet spot for the Aware and the Non-aware.


Damage to ATV without mineguard: ~100% (1 mines)
Damage to ATV with mineguard 1: ~90% (2 mines, fire threat after one)
Damage to ATV with mineguard 2: ~75% (2 mines)
Damage to ATV with mineguard 3: ~50% (2 mines)
Damage to ATV with mineguard 4: ~45% (3 mines, fire threat after two)
Damage to ATV with mineguard 5: ~35% (3 mines)

Damage to Lightning/Buggy without mineguard: ~60% (2 mines, kills damaged units)
Damage to Lightning/Buggy with mineguard 1: ~50% (2 mines, increased survival when damage)
Damage to Lightning/Buggy with mineguard 2: ~40% (3 mines)
Damage to Lightning/Buggy with mineguard 3: ~35% (3 mines)
Damage to Lightning/Buggy with mineguard 4: ~30% (4 mines, fire threat after three)
Damage to Lightning/Buggy with mineguard 4: ~25% (4 mines)

Damage to Light APC/MBT without mineguard: ~35% (3 mines)
Damage to Light APC/MBT with mineguard 1: ~30% (4 mines, fire threat after three)
Damage to Light APC/MBT with mineguard 2: ~25% (4 mines)
Damage to Light APC/MBT with mineguard 3: ~20% (5 mines)
Damage to Light APC/MBT with mineguard 4: ~18% (6 mines, fire threat after five)
Damage to Light APC/MBT with mineguard 5: ~17% (6 mines)

Damage to Sunderer without mineguard: ~30% (4 mines, fire threat after three)
Damage to Sunderer with mineguard 1: ~25% (4 mines)
Damage to Sunderer with mineguard 2: ~20% (5 mines)
Damage to Sunderer with mineguard 2: ~18% (6 mines, fire threat after five)
Damage to Sunderer with mineguard 4: ~15% (7 mines)
Damage to Sunderer with mineguard 5: ~13% (8 mines)

Do you mind rewriting this, as this is a revamp of the Mine Guard and I don't think they will redo it. Revamp the cert # as I think there are only 4 rank into it and then adjust the damage reduction.


I actually like this tank mine better than the current one and mine as this has increase killing potential (moar killing power) than what I have suggested.

Ok so, this is what it looks like on paper.

Current Tank Mine Setup:

- Max Carry Per Eng: 3
- Non-Mine Guard Sundy: 2 Tank mines
- Full Cert Sundy: 7 Tank Mine ( 2 eng with max tank mines + 1 eng with tank mines)
- Number of Sundies 1 Eng can Kill: 1 stock sundy ;; 0 certed
- Can be deployed under Non-moving vehicles and will detonate

My Tank Mine Setup:

- Max Carry Per Eng: 3
- Non-Mine Guard Sundy: 1 Tank Mine
- Full Cert Sundy: 4 Tank Mines ( 1 Eng with max tank mines + 1 eng with tank mines)
- Number of Sundies 1 Eng can Kill: 3 Stock Sundy ;; 0 certed
- Can be deployed under Non-Moving Vehicle, but wont detonate unless it is moving

Figment Mine Setup:

- Max Carry Per Eng: 25
- Non-Mine Guard Sundy: 4 Tank Mines
- Full Cert Sundy: 8 Tank Mines ( 1 Eng with Cert 1 or 2)
- Number of Sundies 1 Eng can kill: 6 stock sundy ;; 3 certed
- Can be deployed under a non-moving vehicle and will detonate (I didn't see anything restricting this from what you wrote)

Honestly, the thought alone of wielding such weapon absolutely disgusts me.

Were you sh!tting out your arse and vomiting out your mouth due to the "absolute disgust" when you wrote this? lol on paper yours looks to be the most destructive and the highest killing potential.

After writting that "what it looks like on paper" I thought about it.

"The Ups and Downs of our baby"

My Tank Mine Setup:

- Encourage Team Play. 1 Engineer cannot setup an effective mine field and will REQUIRE a team of engineer to do so. 1 Eng of 3 mines can be easily avoided and/or won't be effective at stopping a zerg
- Strike high levels of fear IF a mine field is setup (fear coming from the damage potential of 1 mine)


Figment Tank Mine Setup:

- Can encourage team play. 1 Engineer can setup an effective mine field and will not necessarily require another engineer to do so. 1 Eng of 25 mines cannot be easily avoided and will be decently effective at slowing/stopping the zerg.
- strikes fear as there is a mine field setup (fear coming from the amount of mines setup and the potential of running into multiples of them)

Both Setup:

- Requirement of the offensive team to have a Tank Guard Vehicle leading the pack


Please let me know if you think any of this is wrong and also, tell me your version of the "Ups and Down of our Baby" for both mine and your. Plus what do you think about what I suggested with your tank mine setup.

awesome discussion!

[Figment]

Oh by indoors I meant infantry areas. Like proxi + tankmines acting as clusters. And yeah interference radius is how all such restrictions were called in ps1.

Agree with +5 per cert, makes sense. And yeah if we are going by PS2 you could develop better specialists with more differentiations. Though I prefer cert groups akinto ps1. The mineguards rework isn't a lot of work, they could do that in a week.

Also yeah, wouldn't stop placing on stationary, I would just ask for more time.

[IRedFoxI]

If you want minefields you will need to lower the resource costs as well.

[Figment]

Tonight. Played with an Outfit callled TRAF. Squad leader asked to spawn engineers and mine a bridge. Assuming most engineers have at LEAST 2 mines, that's 2 x 12 = 24. Probably not everyone in the squad bothered, but there was at least more than a dozen mines because I was trying to find places that didn't have 2 stacked mines and had to run across a good bit of the bridge.

Happy now?

By the way, I got no kills for those 3 mines I dropped on the bridge. Big waste of resources.

Outside of PS2, I have played games that use mines. Starcraft comes to mind. The original one, years ago. The new one too for that matter, I think the Terran bikes drop mines.

So, what is your point?

Sorry missed this earlier. No, not happy. You still placed just a few mines. You don't get it still. Yes you did that together with a whole bunch of allies and you got a meagerly small minefield that's pretty useless in a 1080 degrees 3D freedom of movement world. That is what you seem to miss. The broader perspective.


You place 12 mines and of course they'll just get circumvented. Even if someone runs into that minefield, only a small portion of the minefield will blow up and that will mean that in your scenario where tons of people are needed to make a small minefield, chances are you personally won't get any results out of it. If anyone does. It also means you don't know if people have placed the mines well. The more people have to help to place them, the less coordinated and worse they'll be placed since more communication and comparison is needed. Especially if map drawing and CE (combat engineering, ie. deployables) map viewing is not present.

That is why you need quantity with mines per player. And to prevent complete and utter spam, preferably not every player. It should be a specialism. That's why the cert system of not everyone having access to everything is so important and why the current cert system will fail over time with limiting anything numerically (current system causes a temporary stall, not restriction).

Even on a chokepoint like a bridge (mostly because bridges don't matter too in PS2, there's no water that forces you across the bridge), you first need people to actually move over it. In your case, you speak of stacked mines. That significantly reduces the spread of your minefield and concentrates it even more, reducing the chance of someone hitting it in the first place.

To reliably damage enemies and get a chance of killing enemies you need a widespread minefield and a lot of mines that belong to you. Mines are an area of effect weapon, which you place in an area you suspect someone MIGHT enter. Thing is, you don't know for certain at what exact point this will be. This is why with the limited amount of mines, people don't place them ahead of time: chances are nobody will ever run over them.

Stacking mines shouldn't be necessary or even wanted from that perspective, since you only reduce your own chances of damaging something.

You should use enemy movement speed, fear and even their evasive reflexes against them and it helps to have proper designed mines to do that and there's a vebry good chance you need to combine it with other firepower to finish of a unit. Mines aren't per definition meant to completely destroy a unit, as other roles are disabling (could even be an EMP!), stalling (detering, slowing down), weakening (damaging) and funneling and herding opponent movements as physical obstacles!

Killing killing killing or waste of resources. If that is all one can think of, then one suggests one has limited experience (or realisation), vision and creativity on how to use these and quite probably the wrong expectation set. One can get doubts if that person can see the actual potential in strategic and tactical usage, particularly in combination with other tools at their disposal... :/

Do you actively lure people onto minefields, do you actively work around a minefield, do you just sit and wait and cross your fingers, do you use it as a backup system, or as a primary killing field? I'm sorry Kerrec, but your minefield laying experience seems extremely limited.



Let's have you look at these videos and images first. Maybe you'll start to understand "proper" area denial usage a bit.
302 Found
302 Found
302 Found
(goes on for quite a long time - note they're VS in between a fight between TR and NC).

Here's an image of a case where we called for cooperation in engineering for the entire NC empire on Cyssor. It was the fortification of Leza, our last and only base for NC on Cyssor at the time and we prepared for a final stand with two zergs about to hit us from different directions.

Yellow mines (triangle) are one's own and with TR coming in from the north west and VS from the north, north east and east. The white circles are motion detectors (put enemy units on mini-radar - no units are on the bigger map view btw). ( ) are artificial intelligence Shadow Turrets (cloaked) and the T shaped icons are artificial intelligence Spitfire Turrets and the little stars are artificial intelligence anti-air Cerebrus turrets.
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/825/lezaminefield.jpg (http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/825/lezaminefield.jpg)

You think we had issues with managing a large enemy armour group moving on us with 3 minute vehicle spawn timers and 9x the survivability of a tank in PS2, yet less numerous due to dedicated drivers in a situation like this? We held for ours on end because it was incredibly hard to approach us.

Do you see how different people place different mine traps in different areas, along different approach routes? Do you see how the bridge is simply turned into a no-go/do not cross area for the VS, not even by stormramming it and thus protecting the area behind it EVEN IF IT DOES NOT NET YOU KILLS DIRECTLY? Do you see the value of such a plug if you realise there's a large group of players firing AV over the minefield at the approaching units? Can you see that your "resources wasted" would actually be invaluable at that time because it allows you to do entirely different things where you'd otherwise been overrun?


Here's another example of how I used the Fortification Engineering cert in PS1 for a defense perimeter (edited image since it was part of a strategy guide):
http://members.multimania.nl/hansime/Extra/Planetside/TRAPusage.jpg (http://members.multimania.nl/hansime/Extra/Planetside/TRAPusage.jpg)

Because up to now I'm not convinced you even observe such benefits and uses, because you're entirely focused on maximizing kills per mine placement. Which is really not the attitude you should have for placing a minefield. You know how many mines linger after a war in real life? You think those mines have been considered a waste of resources, or did they fulfill their job without detonating during the war?



Btw, when you use mines in RTS games like Starcraft (or Command & Conquer games), how large are the minefields before you actually start noticing the minefield becomes effective and before they are gone? And this is where the AI mobs tend to move over extremely predictable shortest distance paths.

[Kerrec]

Figment, I have already told your Outfit mate that I have nothing against how YOU want to use mines. It would be a nice ADDITION to what we already have, for those people that want to use them that way. There's no reason BOTH can't be implemented in the game.

What I absolutely do not agree with is removing current mines in order to replace them with your vision of "mine warfare". Why is it not reasonable to someone like you to have the option? Equip lethal mines, can't carry more than 4 (if you have the utility pouch fully certed). Or carry 25 (or some other arbitrary quantity) "area denial" mines to be used as you outlined above.

Real life is nice and all, but I guarantee you that if some General had the option of getting a high kill rate with the mines, without risk of having a friendly vehicle killed some time in the future, or civilians long after the war is over, they would have jumped at the opportunity. So please, enough with "REAL LIFE". We are playing a game. What is fun for you, is boring for others. So please stop trying to force you way onto others.

[IRedFoxI]

Equip lethal mines, can't carry more than 4 (if you have the utility pouch fully certed).
Should that role not be performed by C4, though? As it is, what Engineer is running around with C4 right now?

So please, enough with "REAL LIFE". We are playing a game.
Noone is saying the game should mimic Real LifeTM. HOWEVER, obviously certain parallels can be made. Some are generally considered a good idea, for instance higher accuracy when aiming through scope. Others we feel are a bad idea for this game: one life and no respawn, comes to mind.

So you see that it is perfectly legitimate to look at "REAL LIFE" for inspiration for additions to this game. Because we all agree that this game desperately needs additions, especially to the meta-game. Minefields are a prime example of such an addition.

[Kerrec]

Should that role not be performed by C4, though? As it is, what Engineer is running around with C4 right now?

C4 is MUCH more versatile than a Tank Mine. With C4 you can *easily* set traps or drop and trigger on a gaggle of infantry. You can use 2x C4 to take out any tank, moving or not by either getting right up to it, or laying it down somewhere and waiting for the tank to roll over it before detonating. You can use C4 to blow up air vehicles (I've managed to even do it!!). You can use C4 to *easily* blow up manned turrets. You can use C4 to kill MAX's. You can place C4 on the floor, on the wall... heck an LA can place C4 on the ceiling!

A tank mine can either be thrown at a non moving vehicle or layed out in a high traffic area. Problem with AV Mines is it'll blow up a Flash even if you don't want it to. C4 in the same place can ignore the flash and hit the tank, given the engineer (or most classes) stay within visual range of the deployed C4.

C4 is MUCH MUCH more versatile than a tank mine. It also costs more resources. Tank mines cost less, but they're only really good at one thing.

So no, this whole concept that Tank Mines are for moving vehicles and C4 are for stationary vehicles is nonsense to me. I don't agree with that view at all.


As for the Real Life argument, here's one right back at you. Right now, people are really upset at the game because of how easy it is to ghostcap and lose territory. No one wants to sit on a base and wait "just in case" some lone wolf might come and try to flip the point. It's boring, and I agree.

BUT, when I was in the Canadian Infantry Reserves in my younger days, I spent ALOT of freaking time sitting in trenches or patrolling tents/sleeping quarters in the middle of the night. I spent more time "waiting for something to happen" than actual *simulated* combat. That's a fact of "real life". Soldiers spend the vast majority of their time training, and when in an actual theater of war, they spent alot of time WAITING for stuff to happen (happily, I might add). That is real life.

So the "real life" solution to ghost capping exists. But it's NOT FUN. I rarely ever see someone suggesting to camp the points and wait simply because no one wants that boring job. It's quite possible to do so, so people that DO find that fun, can do it and everyone will be glad for it.

And for the last time, I have nothing against the concept of a minefield, as described by Figment and others. I just oppose eliminating the way mines work now to be replaced with Figment (and others) concept.

[Chaff]

.
IMHO:

1) TTK is too quick
2) PS1 nostalgists suck
3) It is is Not contradictory to 2) to say parts of PS1 gameplay were superior to how things work in PS2
4) "I prefer PS1 mineplay & CE (& deployables) options to PS2.
5) Tank mines suck in PS2 (I played Primarily Engie in PS1 & Primarily play Engie in PS2)
6) C4 is too OP for my taste (in a TEAM oriented game, 1-man armies suck)
7) Flaming Threads suck. Everyone should be able to express their stupid opinion.
8) Increase TTK by buffing all armor (Infantry-Vehicle) by 25%, and then Tweak from there.....
.

[Figment]

If they are on the same counter and perhaps have a larger interference radius, while counting as more than one mine and having a double length deployment time, it'd be possible.

However, these would still mostly be used for drops directly under vehicles and I would imagine the most predictable chokepoints. The question that remains is whether the driver has a chance to avoid destruction at that point and if there is a point. Personally, I don't see any reason to keep a much heavier caliber mine. Especially since it makes things less predictable for the opposition and uncertainty leads to frustration.

I'd rather look at different types of mines in activation rules rather than damage dealt, for instance AV mines vs AI mines. And entirely different types of mines:

Think an EMP mine that temporarily disables vehicle weaponry and special systems (Vanguard Shield, Magbooster, activates Prowler lockdown without weapons: ie making them temp sitting ducks).

Or possibly a mine negatively affecting controls in terms of maneuvrability (for instance, one that disables an engine on the Mag making it spin due to vector thrusting and exposing the softer rear or side, or locking one side's tracks on the Vanguard and Prowler, doing the same).

Imagine some combinations of mines there.

Note that EMP mines in PS1 were not popular because they were on the same counter as regular mines. Few knew how to use them well. At first they used them together with boomers (C4), to set them off as a trap, but that exploit to make extra big explosions was quickly removed. I'm under the impression such a combination between mines and C4, where the mines work as triggers, might create the bang you want.

You could say that'd be balanced by resources.

Do note that the new mines would be cheaper in resources, of course.