A Rough Proposal for the Functionality of Tank Mines

[IRedFoxI]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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?

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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]

Originally Posted by IRedFoxI

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.