|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
   |
Posted - 2012.08.05 00:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
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. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 00:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Arceus Evoxazon wrote: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.
*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. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 00:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Arceus Evoxazon wrote:
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.
You make a valid point yourself. While that would very well make sense for a particle cannon, or even a railgun, as we have right now, I think the big sticking point would be when the Minmatar projectile weapons are introduced, which use traditional bullets as their ammunition. In that case, the nanohive explanation would be the only one that would work, and like you said, it doesn't really work. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bones1182 wrote:I don't know about disabling turrets, as in I don't care one way or the other. I do like the idea of limited ammo.
Even if you leave the total about of ammo unlimited give turrets a magazine so that periodically they have to reload.
Lets go with limited ammo first though. Tanks would be called in with x amount of for each turret, it would still have be fairly significant amount though. they could easily restock at a supply depot just lime they repair their armor now. It would keep the idiots from just blowing those up.
Exactly. Just like in EVE Online, you would usually be deploying with more than enough ammunition for a good length fight, and would need to resupply if that was expended.
EDIT: Uh, wow, I've yet to make an on-topic post in this thread
I like the idea of destructible turrets as long as its not childishly easy to do, and the turrets can be restored easily as well. For instance, you shouldn't be able to blow one clean off, only damage it to the point that a repair tool is needed to return it to functioning. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 01:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Bones1182 wrote:@Mobius
The main difference is that in this case the ammo for your tank just like the ammo for your soldier is the same every time you deploy.
Now I think it should be enough that if you have half a brain and don't spam nonstop you should not run out in a battle, but if don't practice any kind of ammo conservation and pay attention to you ammo counts you will be defenseless.
Just imagine that and web grenades no ammo and you can't even run away. I want this. So satisfying killing a Sagaris because he wasn't paying enough attention. Bring on the tears.
AND...wait for it...tower ships would no longer be as irritating as they are, as they would be subjected to ammo limitations as well. Actually, the ammo limitation should be set based on the vehicle. Therefore, the turrets of an HAV would have a large amount of ammunition due to it's size, while a dropship would have to return frequently to resupply. That would actually serve as a major factor to differentiate a dropship from a potential gunship-type aircraft. While the dropship could provide fire support for drops, it would then have to fall back to re-arm. The gunship, however, could fit a single turret under the body with a much higher ammo count. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 15:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mo Gallas Gentralde wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:
*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.
Let's take another look at this... Why would starships not have a practically unlimited supply of ammo? They're in a void with nothing around them close enough to use when in combat normally. Why could tanks and dropships have "infinite" amunition? -They're rolling on a massive "resupply station" called a planet. Nanohives use the materials inside of them, yes, but they also can break down potential materials in the environment around them. That dirt you're rolling on is potentially filled with iron and other raw materials, even if not, the alchemical aspect of EVE satisfies that raw dirt could be converted molecularly into something more useful, hence allowing the resupply stations to continue operation.
Again, you run into the fact that you are limited:
A. In the supply of nanites in the machine
B. The sheer amount of dirt that must be broken down to assemble the more complex molecules
C. Power
Your vehicle would have to be producing enough energy to run such a machine, and it would probably require quite a bit more energy than, say, just carrying the ammunition and resupplying when necessary. |
|
|
| |
|