Engineer Mine nerf????

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

The problem with tank mines is PS2 doesn't have tank mines, it has death frisbees.

Heh, indeed. Personally I would like them better if we had to deploy them just like you would with the ammo pack via the ACE, just not quite as picky as to where it can be placed. So in essence you would have to place mines and no longer be able to toss them.
When we first got to try out mines I was really hoping to see entire minefields, but alas 'twas not to be.

[Bocheezu]

I thought mines could be seen with IRNV/thermovision? So there is a counter to them. If you are rolling a tank into an area where the enemy just left, you have to expect mines. That said, I think mines should have a deployment radius like PS1 so that you can't just stack them on top of each other and one-shot a tank.

[maradine]

I don't think mines should be de-powered in any way. I do think they should be "set", and not just tossed around like party favors, however. That setting should take a moment or two.

C4 is annoying, but I'm prepared to live with it.

[CraazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Chaff

.
*snip*

I lost my post due to time restraints and posting, Doesn't keep me logged in currently where I am. Hamma you need to allow for a post to be automatically posted in once a person relogs without lost of their text. But back on topic. I'm not familiar with PS1 but what I had brought up in the lost post runs parallel with what Chaff has stated. I think he's spot on or the PS1 system was/is dramatically better then the generalized one used now in PS2.

Figment, this has nothing to do with my standards and your being a bit presumptious assuming you know mine. OP was not about mines/c4 being op Its about the possibility of a fundamental change to the utility of those engineers that have invested considerable certs into mines/explosives.

Its not the fact that mines/c4 destructive capability are overpowered. They're explosives for shit sakes. Compare mines to the destructive capability of rockets. They should be more powerful then the rocket but its as Chaff stated, and I think what Figment is also trying to get across. Poor implementation of explosives in this game. They've dumbed them down and generalized their usuage to the point they are an improved grenade. A deployment/arming timer is definitely needed in this game. whole explosive system needs an overhaul really. As its stands right now, it's clumsy. A counter similar to the one used for overloading/stabilizing generators would improve things.

Specialization in explosives with more detailed tree to both use or counter would be huge improvement. As the user increases their proficiency, the time need to deploy them would decrease as well as the ability to carry more. Engineers would also have their explosive versatility improved. The utility belt needs an overhaul as well. Should allow more of the same type to be carried, or 1 or more of a different type to also be carried, the exact number dependent upon rank if the current restraints on capacity are kept.

Minesweeper tree for the flash or this new buggee they've talked about would fill anti-mine role nicely.

[Figment]

Press F5 (refresh) when a post seems lost, often works.


You actually stated what your standards for OP were:

1 = OP
2 = Not OP

When asked, you also had no qualms with the other specifications either, while justifying it with a cost (cert cost is a one time purchase after an arbitrary grind and therefore never a justification of consistent power after purchase). That's what I based my statements on.

And explosives or not... "THEY'RE FUTURE TANKS FOR SHIT SAKE". Category has nothing to do with why an OP balance is justified. For the same category we have "future infantry suits" and other things. Balance is how it plays out in practice and what gameplay is gained from it. The category is hardly interesting beyond rock-paper-scissors (counters, etc).

[CraazyCanuck]

Thanks for the tip Figment, but no unfortunately it doesn't work for me.

The dmg of AV mine is not OP and requiring 2 or more mines to take out a vehicle seems right when combined with the cert and resources involved. The system they have in place on its usuage is the problem. I do not like the fact explosives can just be thrown out there and would be happy if they revised the system with a timer.

And I don't agree with cert not being a justifiable cost to consider for long term power. Time invested for certs should in turn translate to improvement in power. Any player can spend resources and hop into their faction's tank with no certs required whatsoever. (Another problem imo) That tank has power over infantry for only the cost of resources. 200 for the lightning and 250 for the heavier tank of your faction. 2 av mines 150 resources, while c4 is 200. I think those resources combined with the cert cost and the risk in their deployment is justifiable for having the ability to kill 1 vehicle. While the risk to your survivability is not always there when just placing the mines indirectly, you still risk your resources.

If that tank driver spends certs for mineguard he's improved his survivability, and I now have to spend certs to get up to 3 mines in order to ensure I take him out. Uping my resource cost to 225 and another 200 certs. I don't know how many av mines it takes in relation to the improved ranks of mineguard. Perhaps a more experienced engineer can answer that, but I am curious how it works out.

[Figment]

Time invested last year in chess doesn't gain me extra chess pieces this year. That's an entitlement reasoning, not a gameplay reasoning. It's irrelevant.


Time invested gains you personal experience (not even relating this to experience/cert points and battle ranks, mind, simply actual gaming experience).

[LoliLoveFart]

Tank mines damage is fine, the ability to run up to an enemy vehicle click twice and run away before it dies is OP.

Mines should be pre emptive not a "Oh there is an enemy sundy i am going to rambo off this tower and neuter their attack". As it stands you can drop 2 mines on a sunderer before you can be killed and that is a bit much.

If tank mines required a vehicle to move over the top of them instead of a proximity detonation suicide bombing sundies would not happen, well you could drop them and shoot them but that will kill you and takes a lot longer.

[DirtyBird]

Thankfully they have an option via certs that you can take to help with the mines, its not as if there is nothing you can do.

[Rothnang]

It takes 2 mines to kill any tank right now, the only thing about them is that you can place two mines on top of each other, so basically you still get instant-kills from mines.

[CraazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Figment

Time invested last year in chess doesn't gain me extra chess pieces this year. That's an entitlement reasoning, not a gameplay reasoning. It's irrelevant.


Time invested gains you personal experience (not even relating this to experience/cert points and battle ranks, mind, simply actual gaming experience).

I don't see how. Certs and resources are an integral part of the gameplay so how are they irrelevant. Time invested in this game, regardless of how bad a player may be still rewards certs. I fail to see your point.

[Emperor Newt]

For one I think they are too powerfull, making mineguard almost a must have as the amount of engis with mines increases each day. Luckily most of those are placed predictably on the road. But sometimes they aren't and I expect more enigs to learn that.

But the problems with mines are several:

- Single mines are pretty strong, but using mineguard almost negates minefields. There is a mismatch in balance between the two. All our dedicated tank drivers use mineguard and mines are no longer an issue for them. We actually use mineguard Magrinders to clear minefields on purpose (if there is no Zerg to... take care of this)
(Actually it's the same as I would say that there is nothing beter for infantry then flak armor but that's another topic)
- Mines should not explode when the target does not move (deployed sunderers)
- Mines as well as C4, proxinimity mines (etc) should be spottable. Although this would require some work to not make a single press of Q light up the whole minefield (how about having a cooldown on Q already. Just like BF?)
- There should be a away to defuse mines and c4 withot having to shoot them (making them explode and damaging the target)

[CraazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

It takes 2 mines to kill any tank right now, the only thing about them is that you can place two mines on top of each other, so basically you still get instant-kills from mines.

Not entirely true from my experience in regards to the number of mines required. I've placed two mines under a tank and it yet survived. Only reason I can think of that makes sense is mineguard. Reason I've been drop 3 just to be sure.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by CraazyCanuck

I don't see how. Certs and resources are an integral part of the gameplay so how are they irrelevant. Time invested in this game, regardless of how bad a player may be still rewards certs. I fail to see your point.

Certs and resources are not the issue I'm talking about.


I'm saying your entitlement argument ("I should be more powerful now") related to them is entirely irrelevant.


No, you should not be more powerful.


You should be more versatile and adaptable to various gameplay scenarios.




If you spend 3 certpoints on a MBT in PS1 or 3 on engineer, neither is a measure of direct power. They're a measure of unit quantity incentive and character variation limitations as part of a trade-off. Cheaper == more appealing to get a number of cheap stuff, instead of a couple more expensive stuff. This way, not everyone uses the same setup.

Power has very little to do with it, at least stand alone. Of course it's one of the factors involved, but hardly THE factor. Frequent usability and versatility and combi-consequences are much bigger factors.



You can't say A costs Y certs, and B costs 2Y, so A must be half the strength of B. That's not how things work. It may be that gameplay is encouraged where there's more A than B, even though they are of equal power one on one, but B could have a bigger negative effect in high numbers.


The current cert system is flawed, in that you don't make a trade-off, you simply upgrade something you have anyway. How powerful it is, is not the only relevant variable, others are what it is used against, would it be abused in high numbers, and in what quantities can you use them, how flexible is it, what kind of other advantages (mobility, endurance, teamwork, etc) does it have?

These costs do not - or should not - be representing equal amounts of power per unit cost. They should be applied such that there's a balanced gameplay effect where you have sufficient quantities of all the unittypes needed in rock-paper-scissors, witout making certain units feel useless, or putting too much focus on one type of gameplay because it's cheap and flexible and therefore powerful in a different way than just direct firepower.


The amount of time invested in getting such an object in PS2 in particular, is simply a measure of how long they want you to play their game to get the carrot you want, incentizing you to use station cash instead to skip the grind on certain things.

However, they have chosen not to restrict the cert system, so really, in time, what won't you have? Can you then still say it should be more powerful? Because then everyone else can claim that too. You just happened to unlock this first. That's your choice. It doesn't mean you should get very powerful tools in return however. Just something that's useful.

[Figment]

@EmperorNewt: boomers and mines in PS1 didn't light up with Q, yet they were easy to spot. Why? They stood out.