| 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 |
|
|
RuckingFetard
Better Hide R Die
573
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 14:20:00 -
[31] - 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.
Realized you're no longer in SyN. What happened? Or is it none of my business |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
1375
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 14:36:00 -
[32] - Quote
CPL Bloodstone wrote:not stupid. tanks should have a finite amount of ammo.
However, a laser tank should not (can't wait)
You really think infantry will allow it?
Lasers and SCR use ammo, expect infantry to cry the same for vehicles laser turrets |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1045
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 14:39:00 -
[33] - 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 you have PRO AV. |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1045
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 14:40:00 -
[34] - Quote
Delta 749 wrote: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
Do you not run with intelligent people? You don't have any Logi suits at all? You don't use forward supply depots? |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1045
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 14:43:00 -
[35] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: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.
LOL That's a non-factor.
Wiyrkomi breach can probably one-shot an installation with proficiency 4. I bet Wiyrkomi swarms can probably do the same thing. Still takes 2 shots with a compressed particle cannon or PRO accelerated missile with 3 damage mods. |
Killar-12
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
1459
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 14:49:00 -
[36] - 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.
Who did you bet? Not Stupid |
Operative 1171 Aajli
Bragian Order
Amarr Empire
608
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 14:50:00 -
[37] - Quote
Not stupid as long as we get enough ammo for one swing around with mods running.
The ammo will be another factor that will effect winning a tank battle, not just timing your mods.
Still want bigger, but weaker blast damage for missiles. Close range would be full damage to tanks. Medium would be weaker spread damage for infantry suppression. |
Cy Clone1
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
270
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 14:51:00 -
[38] - Quote
If it were being applied to the current model of tanks I would be pissed. I like to stay and fight not run away for ammo, but the changes they have given to tanks make it sound like ill be running away more often so it might not be that big of a deal. I think these changes are going to make the game play boring, with tanks being forced out of the fight. |
Cody Sietz
Bullet Cluster
1190
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 15:26:00 -
[39] - Quote
Not stupid. |
Cody Sietz
Bullet Cluster
1190
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 15:30:00 -
[40] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: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. LOL That's a non-factor. Wiyrkomi breach can probably one-shot an installation with proficiency 4. I bet Wiyrkomi swarms can probably do the same thing. Still takes 2 shots with a compressed particle cannon or PRO accelerated missile with 3 damage mods. to kill a supply depot or turret?
|
|
|
Sir Dukey
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
209
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 15:51:00 -
[41] - 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 our fking turrets are 1 mil isk and tanks are ginormous and should be capable of fking having a lot of ammo ( 3000 blaster shots. if i had a turret that was good and costed 47k isk, i would be more than happy to get some ammo nerf but no other game in this fking world has ammo for the tanks. |
low genius
The Sound Of Freedom
Renegade Alliance
702
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:04:00 -
[42] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: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.
yeah, if the tanks would just realize it's their job to protect the supply depot, not blow it up things would be different. |
Moonrocks
Stars Protect Systems Incorporation
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:07:00 -
[43] - Quote
Good idea but mention below you can "revoke and invoke" the LAV/HAV GǪ for reload weapon
i think if CCp Introduce Capacitor in vehicle with gun /missile Consumption activation like Eve ship its will possible to have an erzats of limitation "ammo" by limitation of shoot As long as the capacitor did not reload enough
and with this mechanical no Revoke /invoke "fest" |
low genius
The Sound Of Freedom
Renegade Alliance
702
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:18:00 -
[44] - Quote
Sir Dukey 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 our fking turrets are 1 mil isk and tanks are ginormous and should be capable of fking having a lot of ammo ( 3000 blaster shots. if i had a turret that was good and costed 47k isk, i would be more than happy to get some ammo nerf but no other game in this fking world has ammo for the tanks.
drive a cheaper tank. solved. |
MUDFLAPS McGILLICUTTY
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
52
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:20:00 -
[45] - Quote
It makes zero sense.
Infantry carries nanohives for a few PG/CPU that restock everything from bullets to explosives.
But a tank with 3000 PG can't support the same technology to replicate its own ammunition? It's completely nonsensical. |
Void Echo
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
1819
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:32:00 -
[46] - Quote
low genius wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: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. yeah, if the tanks would just realize it's their job to protect the supply depot, not blow it up things would be different.
if infantry would actually defend it from reds then we wouldn't need to blow it up out of fear for AV |
Obodiah Garro
Tech Guard
RISE of LEGION
430
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:32:00 -
[47] - Quote
I think its stupid they havent introduced vehicle ammo yet at all. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
4223
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:33:00 -
[48] - Quote
I'm a tanker and I fully support finite ammo counts. |
Slag Emberforge
Immortal Retribution
23
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:34:00 -
[49] - Quote
MUDFLAPS McGILLICUTTY wrote:It makes zero sense.
Infantry carries nanohives for a few PG/CPU that restock everything from bullets to explosives.
But a tank with 3000 PG can't support the same technology to replicate its own ammunition? It's completely nonsensical.
Agreed, but then it should take a slot. tanks and vehicles shouldn't just have endless potential to do damage, but with that said I see no reason modules could not be made for extra ammo/ammo regeneration. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
9473
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:35:00 -
[50] - Quote
Ohh I am all for it, especially if it means vehicles like logistic dropships and LAVs get ammo suppliers. |
|
|
Void Echo
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
1819
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:37:00 -
[51] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Ohh I am all for it, especially if it means vehicles like logistic dropships and LAVs get ammo suppliers.
well, nobody expects anything different from you |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
4224
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:38:00 -
[52] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Ohh I am all for it, especially if it means vehicles like logistic dropships and LAVs get ammo suppliers.
+10 Vehicle resupply |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
1384
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:53:00 -
[53] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Ohh I am all for it, especially if it means vehicles like logistic dropships and LAVs get ammo suppliers.
Obv missed the big sticky vehicle post
LLAV and LDS are being removed
Why do you keep posting in vehicle threads? |
Void Echo
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
1820
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:53:00 -
[54] - Quote
TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Ohh I am all for it, especially if it means vehicles like logistic dropships and LAVs get ammo suppliers. +10 Vehicle resupply
only if we can replace those small turrets with an ammo regenerator. |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S.
Public Disorder.
3663
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
Not stupid, could add an interesting dynamic to vehicle fights, and it enables future support actions, logi vehicles aren't going away forever. |
Ghost Kaisar
Pradox One
614
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:35:00 -
[56] - Quote
Not stupid. |
Uravm0d groundforce
molon labe.
RISE of LEGION
21
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:00:00 -
[57] - Quote
Dust rifle style ammo = Stupid
Eve style ammo where you can chose the damage type and load as much as you see fit into your cargo = Smart
|
CrotchGrab 360
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:11:00 -
[58] - Quote
If it's not broke, don't fix it. |
Cyrius Li-Moody
The New Age Outlaws
1318
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:13:00 -
[59] - Quote
Makes sense. Dust isn't the only game that is incorporating vehicle ammunition. |
CLONE117
Planetary Response Organization
Test Friends Please Ignore
411
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:15:00 -
[60] - Quote
ammo for vehicles...how to make it to where it isnt underpowered..
make the ammo regenerate over time.. |
|
|
XxWarlordxX97
Ancient Exiles
4736
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:16:00 -
[61] - 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.
Bad bad and bad,plus bad so bad that bad its self is say that is bad.
I had to say it |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
4226
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:19:00 -
[62] - Quote
CLONE117 wrote:ammo for vehicles...how to make it to where it isnt underpowered..
make the ammo regenerate over time..
I'd go as far as adding an ammo regeneration module in the same slot type as an ammo cache, but that's it. A base ammo regeneration would sort of defeat the purpose of finite ammo. |
Olomo Daygon
ZionTCD
3
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:19:00 -
[63] - Quote
Here is a simple pole. http://goo.gl/ZdVJ0a |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
4226
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:22:00 -
[64] - Quote
Here's a simpler pole. |
Vulpes Dolosus
Neanderthal Nation
Public Disorder.
110
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:24:00 -
[65] - Quote
If it was like EvE where you had to purchase ammo to use on your vehicle with virtually no limit of capacity (but you risk losing if you die and it is actually used up in battles), then it would not be stupid. This would also open the possibility for different ammo types. |
TheAmazing FlyingPig
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
4228
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:32:00 -
[66] - Quote
Vulpes Dolosus wrote:If it was like EvE where you had to purchase ammo to use on your vehicle with virtually no limit of capacity (but you risk losing if you die and it is actually used up in battles), then it would not be stupid. This would also open the possibility for different ammo types.
I highly doubt that this game currently has the ability to support different ammo types, or any kind of weapon attachment / modification at all. Most likely the reason why we have multiple variants of the AR instead of a single AR with a few buttons slapped on it. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
9483
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 19:45:00 -
[67] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Ohh I am all for it, especially if it means vehicles like logistic dropships and LAVs get ammo suppliers. Obv missed the big sticky vehicle post LLAV and LDS are being removed Why do you keep posting in vehicle threads?
Why do you keep posting? You seem quite a bit behind on the times or a bit ignorant.
Also I am pretty sure the past I rubber stamped with "Expidite" is the same one you guys got. |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1046
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 19:57:00 -
[68] - Quote
Cody Sietz wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: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. LOL That's a non-factor. Wiyrkomi breach can probably one-shot an installation with proficiency 4. I bet Wiyrkomi swarms can probably do the same thing. Still takes 2 shots with a compressed particle cannon or PRO accelerated missile with 3 damage mods. to kill a supply depot or turret?
Turret, obviously |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1046
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 19:58:00 -
[69] - Quote
low genius wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: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. yeah, if the tanks would just realize it's their job to protect the supply depot, not blow it up things would be different.
It would be nice if infantry could capture and hold the supply depot. Sometimes that's all that stands between capturing an objective. |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1046
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 19:59:00 -
[70] - Quote
low genius wrote:Sir Dukey 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 our fking turrets are 1 mil isk and tanks are ginormous and should be capable of fking having a lot of ammo ( 3000 blaster shots. if i had a turret that was good and costed 47k isk, i would be more than happy to get some ammo nerf but no other game in this fking world has ammo for the tanks. drive a cheaper tank. solved.
You mean a weaker tank. |
|
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1046
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 19:59:00 -
[71] - Quote
Obodiah Garro wrote:I think its stupid they havent introduced vehicle ammo yet at all.
I think it's lame infantry still gets +5% to CPU and PG per core level. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
9484
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 20:00:00 -
[72] - Quote
TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:Vulpes Dolosus wrote:If it was like EvE where you had to purchase ammo to use on your vehicle with virtually no limit of capacity (but you risk losing if you die and it is actually used up in battles), then it would not be stupid. This would also open the possibility for different ammo types. I highly doubt that this game currently has the ability to support different ammo types, or any kind of weapon attachment / modification at all. Most likely the reason why we have multiple variants of the AR instead of a single AR with a few buttons slapped on it.
The game can support but there is no development or design ready for it at this time maybe after the next roadmap which will be PM 1's mess to deal with then. |
Delta 749
Kestrel Reconnaissance
2146
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 23:15:00 -
[73] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Delta 749 wrote: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 Do you not run with intelligent people? You don't have any Logi suits at all? You don't use forward supply depots?
That question has what to do with the ability to recall a tank from anywhere on the map and call a fresh on in back on that same location
Our stuff is limit, can be destroyed, and are static not mobile, its not like we can stick a nanohive on top of a logis head and go and we cant hold down O for a few seconds to keep out stuff from getting blown up so your "argument" has no ground to stand on |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |