DUST Search - Vehicle Ammuntion

STB Vermaak Doe wrote:

Mobius Wyvern wrote:

STB Vermaak Doe wrote:

Mobius Wyvern wrote:

STB Vermaak Doe wrote:

Nanohives need matter to convert to ammo so it wouldn't work in eve (at most locations)

But the nanites themselves are consumed in the replication process, which is why they themselves expire after a certain number of uses. Thus, carrying them becomes inefficient when trying to use them to replicate larger ammunition, as said ammunition will require a greater number of nanites to be consumed, thus requiring a larger device, thus requiring more space to house it, and you're well on the way to carrying a highly-advanced and only semi-practical hunk of metal in your vehicle, taking up the space you could be using to store ammunition.

I really appreciate all these alternate explanations, by the way. Very good for discussion.

Thanks i approach new angles constantly on this forum

Always good to see people doing that.

@Shiro My thoughts exactly. The issue is less one of their defensive abilities and more their ability to just mow down everything because they don't have to conserve ammunition. I mean, this might seem like a problem now, but can you imagine Fighters and MTACs with unlimited ammo counts? That doesn't even bear thinking about. I'm fairly certain that unlimited ammo won't be kept, since CCP likes to make things match up neatly, but I'm still interested in other opinions on this, since I've seen quite a few since getting into these forums.

Mtacs with infinite ammo?( Eye twitches and heavy suit commits suicide)


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.09.02 10:13:00 - [1] - Quote Having read and posted in a few recent threads, I felt like coming back to this topic in a more focused manner. I personally believe that a significant portion of the anti-HAV posts and the "tank culture" referenced in the IRC comes from the fact that an HAV operator can willfully engage any target he can see due to the fact that all vehicles have unlimited ammunition. Based on map design, we no longer have the "tower-ship" problem, but that issue was also rooted in the fact that the single dropship on the tower would never run out of rounds. Driving a nigh-unkillable HAV around the map begins to lose the demi-god feeling when you have to weigh each target against whether or not you'll need that round later for a more dangerous target, which is exactly what that driver should have to think about as a side-effect of using such a vehicle. it just doesn't make any sense for something that gives you greater speed, defense, and striking ability to also give you unlimited ammo, making you a one-man army that wastes entire enemy teams with ease and comes out 41/1 in every match. Giving vehicles a limited ammo supply wouldn't make such feats impossible, but it would make it so that they aren't child's play to pull off. While this ammo count would be somewhat based on turrets used, I believe it should also be based on the size of the vehicle in question. For instance, an HAV should be able to carry more ammo for it's light turrets than a dropship can, even though they both use the same turret. For those that speak of the dropship being used more as a gunship than a transport, the following would curtail that. Give it sufficient ammo to suppress a drop-zone for a short period, and then have to fall back to re-arm. This would also leave a perfect opening for a Gunship type aircraft, which would conceptually be a two-seater, allowing the pilot to use such weapons as unguided rockets, whereas the gunner would be able to use a single light-turret with a far higher ammo count. This ammo count should also be per turret, and not shared. It should be automatic as well, because while a limited ammo count does increase the level of strategy necessary to engage in battle effectively, I don't propose making tank drivers have to balance shells for different weapons like in EVE, for instance. In any case, my long-winded idea concluded, what are your opinions on this?
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.09.02 10:22:00 - [2] - Quote STB Vermaak Doe wrote: Ammo for all! I run av day and night and i can say we should all have ammo we have to purchase Ps mass drivers, scramblers, swarms and sniper rifles (possibly forge guns also) need a capacity buff Disclaimer: I will only fight to the death for swarms and mass drivers. They are rather lacking on ammunition. Also, the fact that Mass Drives have an 8-tube magazine that can only be loaded with 4-rounds just grinds on my sense of aesthetics. As to the idea of shutting down turrets via capacitor, it looks like the capacitor idea has gone by the wayside completely due to it being too complicated, which I heartily support. To make the point fully, for anyone that hasn't played EVE, it would originally have been possible to set up an active tank in Dust like you could in EVE, using capacitor upgrades to allow you to run your shield boosters constantly while using only missile turrets, that use no capacitor. Imagine your favorite Sagaris fit to hate with the ability to permanently rep off any and all damage you throw at it. Yeah. As a 4-year EVE player, even the dreaded Curse can be countered if you play your cards right. Having cooldown times for modules instead of capacitor usage was a better move. No ides what that'll mean for Ewar and turrets, though. Also, I'm assuming this is still a support for ammo counts?
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.09.02 10:29:00 - [3] - Quote STB Vermaak Doe wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: STB Vermaak Doe wrote: Ammo for all! I run av day and night and i can say we should all have ammo we have to purchase Ps mass drivers, scramblers, swarms and sniper rifles (possibly forge guns also) need a capacity buff Disclaimer: I will only fight to the death for swarms and mass drivers. They are rather lacking on ammunition. Also, the fact that Mass Drives have an 8-tube magazine that can only be loaded with 4-rounds just grinds on my sense of aesthetics. As to the idea of shutting down turrets via capacitor, it looks like the capacitor idea has gone by the wayside completely due to it being too complicated, which I heartily support. To make the point fully, for anyone that hasn't played EVE, it would originally have been possible to set up an active tank in Dust like you could in EVE, using capacitor upgrades to allow you to run your shield boosters constantly while using only missile turrets, that use no capacitor. Imagine your favorite Sagaris fit to hate with the ability to permanently rep off any and all damage you throw at it. Yeah. As a 4-year EVE player, even the dreaded Curse can be countered if you play your cards right. Having cooldown times for modules instead of capacitor usage was a better move. No ides what that'll mean for Ewar and turrets, though. Also, I'm assuming this is still a support for ammo counts? Yes or an ask for unlimited for all (aka assault forge spam Creator) Yeah, I'm all for one or the other. I mean, if you think about it from a universe standpoint, if ground vehicles have unlimited ammo capacities, why the hell do the immortal demi-god capsuleers have to buy ammo for their ships? If a Sagaris can throw missiles around for hours on end with no penalties, why can't my Rattlesnake do the same thing? Come to think of it...
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.09.02 10:36:00 - [4] - Quote STB Vermaak Doe wrote: Nanohives need matter to convert to ammo so it wouldn't work in eve (at most locations) But the nanites themselves are consumed in the replication process, which is why they themselves expire after a certain number of uses. Thus, carrying them becomes inefficient when trying to use them to replicate larger ammunition, as said ammunition will require a greater number of nanites to be consumed, thus requiring a larger device, thus requiring more space to house it, and you're well on the way to carrying a highly-advanced and only semi-practical hunk of metal in your vehicle, taking up the space you could be using to store ammunition. I really appreciate all these alternate explanations, by the way. Very good for discussion.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.09.02 10:43:00 - [5] - Quote STB Vermaak Doe wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: STB Vermaak Doe wrote: Nanohives need matter to convert to ammo so it wouldn't work in eve (at most locations) But the nanites themselves are consumed in the replication process, which is why they themselves expire after a certain number of uses. Thus, carrying them becomes inefficient when trying to use them to replicate larger ammunition, as said ammunition will require a greater number of nanites to be consumed, thus requiring a larger device, thus requiring more space to house it, and you're well on the way to carrying a highly-advanced and only semi-practical hunk of metal in your vehicle, taking up the space you could be using to store ammunition. I really appreciate all these alternate explanations, by the way. Very good for discussion. Thanks i approach new angles constantly on this forum Always good to see people doing that. @Shiro My thoughts exactly. The issue is less one of their defensive abilities and more their ability to just mow down everything because they don't have to conserve ammunition. I mean, this might seem like a problem now, but can you imagine Fighters and MTACs with unlimited ammo counts? That doesn't even bear thinking about. I'm fairly certain that unlimited ammo won't be kept, since CCP likes to make things match up neatly, but I'm still interested in other opinions on this, since I've seen quite a few since getting into these forums.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.09.02 11:00:00 - [6] - Quote STB Vermaak Doe wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: STB Vermaak Doe wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: STB Vermaak Doe wrote: Nanohives need matter to convert to ammo so it wouldn't work in eve (at most locations) But the nanites themselves are consumed in the replication process, which is why they themselves expire after a certain number of uses. Thus, carrying them becomes inefficient when trying to use them to replicate larger ammunition, as said ammunition will require a greater number of nanites to be consumed, thus requiring a larger device, thus requiring more space to house it, and you're well on the way to carrying a highly-advanced and only semi-practical hunk of metal in your vehicle, taking up the space you could be using to store ammunition. I really appreciate all these alternate explanations, by the way. Very good for discussion. Thanks i approach new angles constantly on this forum Always good to see people doing that. @Shiro My thoughts exactly. The issue is less one of their defensive abilities and more their ability to just mow down everything because they don't have to conserve ammunition. I mean, this might seem like a problem now, but can you imagine Fighters and MTACs with unlimited ammo counts? That doesn't even bear thinking about. I'm fairly certain that unlimited ammo won't be kept, since CCP likes to make things match up neatly, but I'm still interested in other opinions on this, since I've seen quite a few since getting into these forums. Mtacs with infinite ammo?( Eye twitches and heavy suit commits suicide) Heck, why stop there? Just implement BFRs. Those were clearly the best feature of Planetside, and would be a great addition to this game. (brb killing myself for making that statement) I guess the funnier one to imagine would be fighter-type aircraft, though. Imagine that you can get a ground-attack specialized one, equip it with air-to-surface rockets, and spend an entire match just strafing the whole battlefield. The current state of vehicle ammunition would only lead to lots of pain if kept this way till launch.