DUST Search - Ammo for vehicles idea -- let's put it to a vote.

All Channels

General Discussions

Ammo for vehicles idea -- let's put it to a vote.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Himiko Kuronaga SyNergy Gaming EoN. 1882	Posted - 2013.10.16 12:45:00 - [1] - Quote No big discussion, just a simple vote so Wolfman can reflect on this decisions without spending a year reading every neckbeard's lengthy opinion. Stupid or not stupid. My vote? Stupid.
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 34	Posted - 2013.10.16 12:49:00 - [2] - Quote Not stupid IMHO
Ripley Riley Pheonix Corp Selectus 7	Posted - 2013.10.16 12:51:00 - [3] - Quote I don't think it is a stupid idea, personally. Infantry have to worry about ammo consumption so why shouldn't vehicles?
castba Penguin's March 151	Posted - 2013.10.16 12:52:00 - [4] - Quote Not stupid
Himiko Kuronaga SyNergy Gaming EoN. 1882	Posted - 2013.10.16 12:52:00 - [5] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: I don't think it is a stupid idea, personally. Infantry have to worry about ammo consumption so why shouldn't vehicles? Because infantry don't have to go all the way back to the red line to get ammo.
Syeven Reed Inanimate Objects 66	Posted - 2013.10.16 12:53:00 - [6] - Quote It's really not stupid.
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2139	Posted - 2013.10.16 12:58:00 - [7] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: I don't think it is a stupid idea, personally. Infantry have to worry about ammo consumption so why shouldn't vehicles? Because infantry don't have to go all the way back to the red line to get ammo. Infantry also dont get to recall from anywhere on the map and call in a fresh fully loaded suit to replace it so dont act like you have to run back to the red line every time ammo runs low and thats not even touching on supply depots which heal vehicles right now as well although Im not sure at what rate since they usually get blown up long before I consider calling something in
Arkena Wyrnspire Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 3933	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:00:00 - [8] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: I don't think it is a stupid idea, personally. Infantry have to worry about ammo consumption so why shouldn't vehicles? Because infantry don't have to go all the way back to the red line to get ammo. Neither do you if you don't blow up the supply depots. It's also easier for you to do that because tanks move much faster than infantry.
Vyzion Eyri The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 1483	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:04:00 - [9] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: No big discussion, just a simple vote so Wolfman can reflect on this decisions without spending a year reading every neckbeard's lengthy opinion. This defeats the purpose of the forum. In my opinion, ammo is worth pursuing because if what I understand is correct about "waves of opportunity", then according to the ebb and flow of vehicle combat there will be periods where you're forced to back out of combat anyway. Making it a requirement to replenish ammo forces those trigger happy turret gunners to realise the pilot isn't retreating because he's a wimp but because the modules are on cool down and the turrets are empty.
Toby Flenderson research lab 93	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:07:00 - [10] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: No big discussion, just a simple vote so Wolfman can reflect on this decisions without spending a year reading every neckbeard's lengthy opinion. Stupid or not stupid. My vote? Stupid. Seems like voting is just going to end up counting the players who use tanks and the players who don't use tanks.

Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 238	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:10:00 - [11] - Quote I'm a tank user. Cannot say for sure till I try it out. CPP claims ammo limitations will nake the game "more fun" not sure how but still... Waiting to see. They have to fix draw distance or AV range first however... Or this will suck heavily...
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1374	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:11:00 - [12] - Quote Stupid overall 1. They will have to move supply depots, my HAV cannot climb a staircase so i have to drive all the way to the redline to get ammo thus out of the battle in an important moment when my team may need me, no vehicle nanohives either for a logi to carry or even a logi LAV to have a mod to resupply ammo to other vehicles 2. Ammo counts - I may want to keep my turrets on for a PC match, if a gunner fires a few shots it also takes ammo from the large turret, there is no large and small ammo 3. No vehicle locks, i may want to keep on 1 turret for a squadmate so he can jump out and hack stuff but when hes in my tank he can watch my back, but bluedot may jump in and waste all the ammo at the MCC like a ****** if he jumps out to hack stuff 4. Overheating - This was used so that you couldnt spam shots all the time, now we have ammo and overheating and if we overheat before a clip is used or even use up a clip before we overheat then what is the point of either system? 5. Skills - Infantry have alot of skills for weapons, vehicle turrets on the otherhand are close but the prof skill for example doesnt give more damage, its give turret rotation instead 6. AI installations - Will they have ammo? they should, will they run out also? they should All i can think of for now
Gorra Snell The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 176	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:20:00 - [13] - Quote Not stupid. This gives the devs a much needed balancing tool - my hope is that they can eliminate things like absurd missile spread, which they seem to have used to balance small turrets due to lack of other balancing tools. Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Stupid overall 2. Ammo counts - I may want to keep my turrets on for a PC match, if a gunner fires a few shots it also takes ammo from the large turret, there is no large and small ammo What makes you think this? Sounds very fishy and unlikely to be implemented this way... Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 4. Overheating - This was used so that you couldnt spam shots all the time, now we have ammo and overheating and if we overheat before a clip is used or even use up a clip before we overheat then what is the point of either system? Scrambler rifles, laser rifles and HMGs have both heating and ammo. I find the mechanics very compatible.
Tank Missile Intara Direct Action Caldari State 14	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:23:00 - [14] - Quote Stupid. To all you people that keep using the, "you can recall your vehicle anywhere so it's fine," argument obviously don't understand how dangerous it is to attempt a recall anywhere except inside the red-line, so either way, you are running to the red-line.
Repe Susi Rautaleijona Top Men. 711	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:25:00 - [15] - Quote Not stupid. Besides, wasn't this discussed some time ago already? I seem to recall CCP implied it in coming vehicle changes?
Aero Yassavi PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 2845	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:32:00 - [16] - Quote If vehicles don't need ammo then neither should infantry. See how stupid that sounds? I'm all in favor of this change and really think games like Battlefield and such should follow suit.
Princeps Marcellus expert intervention Caldari State 258	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:32:00 - [17] - Quote First of all, that is a loaded question. It's the way you framed the question. In it, there is no room for the changes be good, just "...eh, it's not so horrible" or "stupid." Second of all, I'd rather wait to see how everything is changed in 1.7 before I jump to conclusions about things. I see the changes as interesting.
Cosgar ParagonX 6100	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:34:00 - [18] - Quote If it means large missiles and small rails will be worth a damn- not stupid.
BLAAAASTER Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 57	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:35:00 - [19] - Quote Not stupid Seriously tankers as soon as you get hit you roll to cover and re call your tank anyway Now you can recall it for more ammo. Cause it sure would be nice to have a new drop suit called in ever time I get shot up.
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 775	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:38:00 - [20] - Quote Ok if I can go full auto on your asses with my missiles

knight of 6 SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 394	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:39:00 - [21] - Quote on one hand I see it as a flaw that vehicles have unlimited ammo. I tanked all of chromosome and most of the closed beta, sue me. limited ammo shouldn't come with out significant perks though. the reason I say that is that tanks cannot sit still for any length of time. chrome had arguably the best balance of any build and you still couldn't stop moving. tanks need enough armor to be able to take av fire while rearming. it's not like you can hide the thing... as it currently stands, no I'm against tank ammo because rearming can't be safely done at a supply depot. in the future I would like to see tank ammo but done in a way that offers some protection to the tank. anyone who can sum up their views on anything in one word hasn't really thought about it.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1375	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:42:00 - [22] - Quote Gorra Snell wrote: Not stupid. This gives the devs a much needed balancing tool - my hope is that they can eliminate things like absurd missile spread, which they seem to have used to balance small turrets due to lack of other balancing tools. Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Stupid overall 2. Ammo counts - I may want to keep my turrets on for a PC match, if a gunner fires a few shots it also takes ammo from the large turret, there is no large and small ammo What makes you think this? Sounds very fishy and unlikely to be implemented this way... Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 4. Overheating - This was used so that you couldnt spam shots all the time, now we have ammo and overheating and if we overheat before a clip is used or even use up a clip before we overheat then what is the point of either system? Scrambler rifles, laser rifles and HMGs have both heating and ammo. I find the mechanics very compatible. HMG have alot of ammo and rarely overheat Lazer rifle of 100ammo overheats at the 80mark SCR is the weapon which overheats early in comparision, thus you either reload or let it cooldown If the blaster at 140clip overheats too early then blaster is useless, if it overheats at the 120mark then you might aswell reload anyways and if you use a heatsink you will most likely run out or ammo and have to reload It was confirmed somehwere, IRC i think that both ammo is coming from the same pool
Frank Olson Usul DUST University Ivy League 31	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:45:00 - [23] - Quote Ammo is a good idea.
SteelDark Knight Ancient Exiles 125	Posted - 2013.10.16 13:46:00 - [24] - Quote It depends. It is not stupid in concept. However, how it is actually implemented could make it "very stupid" in a hurry. In running as infantry I very rarely run in to instances were I run out of ammo or sources for ammo. Between nano-hives an supply depots sources for replenishment are many. Will the same be said for tanks? I don't know because the full picture isn't there yet. If tanks have as many plentiful options as infantry and storage on the tank is of a reasonable level (I think it may need more than what it has) than this works. If it becomes difficult and a chore than this becomes "very stupid".
Himiko Kuronaga Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation 1883	Posted - 2013.10.16 14:11:00 - [25] - Quote Confession time! The actual point of this thread wasn't to determine anything either way. CCP will do whatever they want, lolfeedback. It was just to see how long it would take for people to start arguing with each other instead of just voting. I was allowed one sentence to bait a response, and the argument had to spring within the first ten posts. Thank you fellas, I am now twenty dollars richer. Carry on.
Alpha 443-6732 843 Boot Camp 171	Posted - 2013.10.16 14:13:00 - [26] - Quote Opens up new opportunities for logistics vehicles and vehicle resupply WP. Not stupid.
Alpha 443-6732 843 Boot Camp 171	Posted - 2013.10.16 14:14:00 - [27] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Confession time! The actual point of this thread wasn't to determine anything either way. CCP will do whatever they want, lolfeedback. It was just to see how long it would take for people to start arguing with each other instead of just voting. I was allowed one sentence to bait a response, and the argument had to spring within the first ten posts. Thank you fellas, I am now twenty dollars richer. Carry on. This guy, oh man.
taxi bastard S.A.C. Strategic 7	Posted - 2013.10.16 14:16:00 - [28] - Quote not stupid.
CPL Bloodstone Neanderthal Nation Public Disorder. 163	Posted - 2013.10.16 14:18:00 - [29] - Quote not stupid. tanks should have a finite amount of ammo. However, a laser tank should not (can't wait)
DJINNDicknoseturdwaffle Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 241	Posted - 2013.10.16 14:20:00 - [30] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: No big discussion, just a simple vote so Wolfman can reflect on this decisions without spending a year reading every neckbeard's lengthy opinion. Stupid or not stupid. My vote? Stupid. If its done how bf4 does it and they get a buff then yeah..no buff then no, not similar to bf4 then no...tanks are already pathetic this would be another nerf



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.