DUST Search - Forge Gun vs Vehicle Turrets

Mobius Wyvern wrote:

Derek Barnes wrote:

Lurchasaurus wrote:

STB-stlcarlos989 EV wrote:

Am I the only person who thinks that if a forge gun had a direct impact on the small tank turrets that they would be obliterated? I feel as though tank turrets should have their own health bars. Obviously the small turrets would be weaker than the main turret. I would say the main turret could take at least 2 forge shots depending on how advanced it is. If the turrets get damaged the driver would obvious have to retreat to engage some type of turret repair. AR or other small arms would be able to damage them but it would be a slow process. The tanks would still keep the same hull health system, but the drivers would also have to deal with maintaining an awareness of the health of their turrets as well.

This would also give Forge gunners a choice to make in terms of attacking tanks. Do they damage the turrets or do they focus on the hull, I think this would add a great deal of depth to vehicle combat.

then why cant i destroy your forge gun?

Forge guns have a limited amount of ammo, small tank turrets have unlimited. Being able to destroy the small turret would act like running out of ammo.

But tank turrets also shouldn't have unlimited ammo, both because its unbalanced from a gameplay standpoint, and it makes no sense from a universe standpoint. And no, built in nanohives doesn't make it make sense either.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arceus Evoxazon Hikahotaru 119	Posted - 2012.08.05 00:13:00 - [1] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Derek Barnes wrote: Lurchasaurus wrote: STB-stlcarlos989 EV wrote: Am I the only person who thinks that if a forge gun had a direct impact on the small tank turrets that they would be obliterated? I feel as though tank turrets should have their own health bars. Obviously the small turrets would be weaker than the main turret. I would say the main turret could take at least 2 forge shots depending on how advanced it is. If the turrets get damaged the driver would obvious have to retreat to engage some type of turret repair. AR or other small arms would be able to damage them but it would be a slow process. The tanks would still keep the same hull health system, but the drivers would also have to deal with maintaining an awareness of the health of their turrets as well. This would also give Forge gunners a choice to make in terms of attacking tanks. Do they damage the turrets or do they focus on the hull, I think this would add a great deal of depth to vehicle combat. then why cant i destroy your forge gun? Forge guns have a limited amount of ammo, small tank turrets have unlimited. Being able to destroy the small turret would act like running out of ammo. But tank turrets also shouldn't have unlimited ammo, both because its unbalanced from a gameplay standpoint, and it makes no sense from a universe standpoint. And no, built in nanohives doesn't make it make sense either. Are you serious? How does a nano hive in a tank not make sense? From a military standpoint, they are both relatively easy to manufacture and simple to install. It makes a great deal of sense! Including the fact that they are extremely compact, this is a valid point. Me thinks.
Arceus Evoxazon Hikahotaru 119	Posted - 2012.08.05 00:16:00 - [2] - Quote Btw, plus one. I thought about this often.
Arceus Evoxazon Hikahotaru 119	Posted - 2012.08.05 00:37:00 - [3] - Quote Forge guns have a limited amount of ammo, small tank turrets have unlimited. Being able to destroy the small turret would act like running out of ammo.[/quote] But tank turrets also shouldn't have unlimited ammo, both because its unbalanced from a gameplay standpoint, and it makes no sense from a universe standpoint. And no, built in nanohives doesn't make it make sense either.[/quote] Are you serious? How does a nano hive in a tank not make sense? From a military standpoint, they are both relatively easy to manufacture and simple to install. It makes a great deal of sense! Including the fact that they are extremely compact, this is a valid point. Me thinks.[/quote] gets ready for the hate train This game connects to EVE Online. If there were any means of fitting such a device into a ground vehicle to provide it with unlimited ammunition, why in the name of all things holy would this not be equipped to the starships of the near infinitely wealthy capsuleers? That aside, if you consider that a nanohive works by using the materials inside it and a cloud of nanites to replicate ammunition found in your magazines to fill your empty ones, they device would need to be of sufficient size and storage capacity to handle a certain number of replications. Hence why they eventually expire. So, naturally, in order to replicate larger ammunition, you need a larger device. In the Quantum Rise (I'm pretty sure it was that one) expansion for EVE, they put in the Alchemy system, which allowed moon minerals of a lower rarity grade to be disassembled into sub-atomic particles and re-assembled into more complex compounds. However, this required a large quantity of the inferior material, as the higher level material had a larger and more complex molecule. You're effectively dealing with a similar concept. At what point does the device take up enough storage space in your vehicle out of it's need to be large enough to handle the production that it takes up space you could be using to store ammunition, leaving you waiting on it's assembly process, and this would still only work until the device ran out of nanites, and left you out of ammo anyway. Now you have an empty and useless piece of equipment in your vehicle that's taking up space you could be using to just hold more ammunition, and then just fall back to resupply when you run low.[/quote] I can't fault you. Mits a sound argument. Ok, let's switch gears then. Say we are using a similar system to the original Mass Effect universe, where the ammunition is actually just a large block of metal that a computer slices off to the necessary quantity for weather condition, special pressure, trajectory, and numerous other factors. This would provide an almost infinite supply of ammo whilst still maintaining the need to watch for overheat. Who's to say the the Corporations couldn't have discovered this? It's like outsourcing. Just because another company does it better or cheaper, does that mean you bring it back to your own company, with a much higher cost and manpower, when you can leave it in the hands of still capable persons who can accomplish it without o up understanding its significance? But I agree. The nano hive system wouldn't make sense in that aspect.