A Rough Proposal for the Functionality of Tank Mines - Page 4

Figment · 2013-02-15, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by BIGGByran

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 · 2013-02-15, 01:46 PM

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 · 2013-02-15, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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.

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

Originally Posted by BIGGByran

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 · 2013-02-15, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by BIGGByran

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 · 2013-02-15, 06:49 PM

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 · 2013-02-15, 07:27 PM

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 · 2013-02-15, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

Originally Posted by Satanam

-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 · 2013-02-15, 08:40 PM

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 · 2013-02-16, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Rumblepit

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.

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 · 2013-02-16, 08:45 PM

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 · 2013-02-16, 10:58 PM

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 · 2013-02-16, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

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?

Originally Posted by Figment

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 · 2013-02-17, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by BIGGByran

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 · 2013-02-17, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by JesNC

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 · 2013-02-17, 09:43 AM

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.