A Rough Proposal for the Functionality of Tank Mines - Page 3

OnyxD · 2013-02-15, 04:05 AM

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 · 2013-02-15, 07:33 AM

man engys in ps1 could deploy like 20 mines each.....that slows down tank columns

drop the price of them and allow more and tanks will be more balanced imo with grunts.

Bloodlet · 2013-02-15, 07:56 AM

Tank mines are fine just the way they are.

Calisai · 2013-02-15, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by OnyxD

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 · 2013-02-15, 09:11 AM

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 · 2013-02-15, 09:29 AM

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 · 2013-02-15, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by 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).

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 · 2013-02-15, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2013-02-15, 10:26 AM

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 · 2013-02-15, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

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 · 2013-02-15, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

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 · 2013-02-15, 11:17 AM

I agree with the OP's points 100%.

Bravix · 2013-02-15, 11:35 AM

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 · 2013-02-15, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Bravix

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 · 2013-02-15, 12:36 PM

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.