|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1294
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 00:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
This topic is a no-brainer that has been beat to death.
Vehicles should have limited ammo just like infantry. Having a limitation on ammunition does not automatically mean your vehicle is underpowered.
Supply Depots already replenish armor when you drive a vehicle near them, and could do the same for ammunition. Logistics LAVs could also be given this ability, increasing their usefulness, and further rewarding those who spec into them.
The nanohives we use have a finite lifespan before deactivating, so the idea of mounting one in every vehicle doesn't hold water, and is just an excuse to keep things as they are out of irrational fear.
Keep in mind that vehicle ammunition could be capped in the hundreds, which would simply reduce the likelihood of such tactics as putting an HAV on top of a mountain as BAD FURRY has demonstrated is an excellent way to dominate a match without risk, while only requiring that people using vehicles on the ground with infantry have to drive past a Supply Depot or LLV for maybe 3-5 seconds every few minutes depending on how much they fire.
Rather than trying to mess up fitting by creating modules to increase ammo counts, just give vehicles a large supply of ammunition and a fairly fast replenish rate to keep them on a bit more even footing with the AV players trying to take them out.
I say this as an HAV driver in every single build since Replication.
BobThe843CakeMan wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:I like the idea- there should also be a module similar to a remote repair tool that instead can transfer ammo to other vehicles.
This is the only way I can think of that would prevent fighters from being severely crippled. do what battlefield 2 did and make it where you had to go back to your base to restock ammo. or in this case a supply depo. even tanks had ammo. 40 rounds but still ammo. Helis carried 20 missiles if i recall. Exactly. If infantry are required to carry nanohives or visit Supply Depots to replenish ammo reserves, why should all vehicles be exempt?
I'm just waiting for the threads demanding limited ammo for air vehicles while leaving ground vehicles unlimited once Fighters and the like come out. You know it's going to happen.
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:I like the idea- there should also be a module similar to a remote repair tool that instead can transfer ammo to other vehicles.
This is the only way I can think of that would prevent fighters from being severely crippled. I don't think Fighters would be unfairly crippled by this change either. Having to land occasionally won't bother me at all.
However, it would be kind of neat if you could equip remote-resupply modules to a Logistics Dropship and use it as a flying ammo station.
Actually, that would eliminate the need for ground vehicles to return to a fixed supply point or work with a fragile LLV, and would provide Dropship pilots with more WP, which they've been asking about for quite a while. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1294
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 00:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mavado V Noriega wrote:BobThe843CakeMan wrote:i would like it better if the ammo had to be restocked at supply depos like how the armor recharges. that way we have a use for them too. IMO. and what if they are blown up? dumb idea thats been brought up already tbh You're obviously good with your HAV.
You have some good ideas you've presented.
You honestly seem like a pretty nice guy.
So I'm not out to get you or trying to nerf your preferred asset by saying that this is not a bad idea. Notice my own proposals to allow Logistics LAVs and Dropships to fit a module to allow resupply, thereby improving balance while giving the players who specced into them more rewards for their effort.
I agree with you that making Supply Depots the only way to resupply isn't a good idea. Planetside 2, for example, uses ammo towers at various bases, but you can also put ammo racks on a Sunderer and move with vehicles to keep them stocked up, which allows them to better engage enemies and encourages players to fill the support role rather than everyone just lone-wolfing.
Also notice that I specifically stated this should be applied to Fighters and other combat aircraft as well, assets I have been looking forward to since before getting into the Beta, and which I plan to spec into almost exclusively. Again, this is not an attack on vehicles related to some kind of rage about being killed by them.
if you ask me, this game could sorely use some more encouragement to support your teamates. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1295
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 00:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yani Nabari wrote:Meh, vehicles just have super good Nanohives where the ammo is supposed to go. Nanohives all have limited duration. There's no such thing as a "super good" device that can generate something out of nothing with absolutely no limitations.
Besides, we're not talking about lore here, we're talking about gameplay balance and providing roles for players to fill. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1295
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 00:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tolen Rosas wrote:Mavado V Noriega wrote:BobThe843CakeMan wrote:i would like it better if the ammo had to be restocked at supply depos like how the armor recharges. that way we have a use for them too. IMO. and what if they are blown up? dumb idea thats been brought up already tbh says the tanker. good thing ur not biased or anything. +1 this is long overdue unlimited ammo should be long gone. He may come off as just trying to defend his pet asset, but he has made some pretty good points about how this could be an issue. That's part of why I made the suggestion for allowing Logistics vehicles to resupply as well. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1295
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 00:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
DustMercsBlog wrote:Logistic vehicles a great suggestion. We touched on how unlimited ammo for vehicles [not just tanks] imbalances the game in a bad way. Jets could be here soon. Imagine a jet that can fly in and spam bombs & missiles endlessly. This change needs to happen soon. Exactly! As someone who, again, plans on flying such aircraft exclusively, I would hate to see them be overpowered like that. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1295
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 01:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
BobThe843CakeMan wrote:Mavado V Noriega wrote:BobThe843CakeMan wrote:i would like it better if the ammo had to be restocked at supply depos like how the armor recharges. that way we have a use for them too. IMO. and what if they are blown up? dumb idea thats been brought up already tbh we'll be able to bring in our own. problem solved. That is also a good point. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1295
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 01:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
Prius Vecht wrote:Logi Bro wrote:Meh, I run a tank on my alt and find them pretty underwhelming as they are, no need to nerf them farther. yeah because giving infantry limited amount of ammo nerfs them so much. vehicles spamming fire is the new zerg rush. That is somewhat what I've been pointing at for a while. Limitation doesn't mean you only get 12 rounds in your gun and then you have to reload. Realistically, most vehicles carry a LOT of ammunition into a fight. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1295
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 01:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Logi Bro wrote:Prius Vecht wrote:Logi Bro wrote:Meh, I run a tank on my alt and find them pretty underwhelming as they are, no need to nerf them farther. yeah because giving infantry limited amount of ammo nerfs them so much. vehicles spamming fire is the new zerg rush. Vehicles spamming fire is what they were designed to do. Vehicles are designed to provide transportation and heavy fire support on the battlefield. They hardly need unlimited ammunition to be able to do this. Besides, you can just put your HAV up on that mountain next to your buddy's LLV, and you can spam to your heart's content while giving him some well-deserved WP.
And then the lucky guy that drops an OB on both of you gets extra kills. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1296
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 01:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
BobThe843CakeMan wrote:Sev Alcatraz wrote:Terrible idea is terrible why is it terrible? give a rail 20 shots and a blaster 300 shots and missile 50 volleys and it would be fine. small turrets like rail 100 shots blaster 1000 and missile 150. Or something like this where u have plenty of ammo but will need to keep track of ur ammo. Whoah, whoah, let's not blow this out of proportion. These are large vehicles using weapons that can fire rather small projectiles while still doing quite a bit of damage. Make that 80-100 for a Railgun and 600-800 for a Blaster.
We're talking about balance, not nerfing.
Also, one of my guys specced into LAVs and put one together that can take 3 Forge Gun shots and that's only if he doesn't get away first and rep himself back up, which is usually the case. LAVs are very dangerous in the right hands. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1296
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 01:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
Logi Bro wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Logi Bro wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Logi Bro wrote: Vehicles spamming fire is what they were designed to do.
Vehicles are designed to provide transportation and heavy fire support on the battlefield. They hardly need unlimited ammunition to be able to do this. Besides, you can just put your HAV up on that mountain next to your buddy's LLV, and you can spam to your heart's content while giving him some well-deserved WP. And then the lucky guy that drops an OB on both of you gets extra kills. The problem I have with your LLAV theory is LAVs suck. Nobody will spec into them except for the mentally ill who want to die **** tons just to get a few +10s to resupply tanks. Limited ammo on tanks turns them into heavies with no other units on the field to throw them a nanohive. LAVs don't suck- it's just that the vast majority of players don't know how to use them. LAVs are weak. Too weak to be behind a tank while it goes into battle against AV spec'd players and other tanks. You don't keep the LAV around the HAV.
In Planetside 2, I use a Sunderer with speed upgrades and Ammo Resupply racks. When I see a group of tanks, I drive up to them, drive through them to resupply them, and then fall back where I can't be shot.
To answer the post about Fighters, the concept art Ironwolf dug up shows that they have a "hover mode" that let's them fly like a dropship, which would make it rather easy to land. |
|
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1297
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 01:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
Logi Bro wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Logi Bro wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Logi Bro wrote: The problem I have with your LLAV theory is LAVs suck. Nobody will spec into them except for the mentally ill who want to die **** tons just to get a few +10s to resupply tanks. Limited ammo on tanks turns them into heavies with no other units on the field to throw them a nanohive.
LAVs don't suck- it's just that the vast majority of players don't know how to use them. LAVs are weak. Too weak to be behind a tank while it goes into battle against AV spec'd players and other tanks. You don't keep the LAV around the HAV. In Planetside 2, I use a Sunderer with speed upgrades and Ammo Resupply racks. When I see a group of tanks, I drive up to them, drive through them to resupply them, and then fall back where I can't be shot. But what does the LLAV do while it's not with the tank? Hide? This is why I say no one will spec into them, from what I remember, LLAVs have a .5 damage modifier, so they can't go off and be useful battle units while they wait for the HAV to request more ammo. All they could do is sit in a corner twiddling their thumbs, or stay behind the tank with a shield transporter/armor repper and get blown to smithereens by an intelligent AV user. http://www.blackpalette.com/wp-content/gallery/artworks/gallente_scv2.jpg
Spec into that.
My suggestion is based around the assets we have right now, but remember that the original plan back in 2009 was for 8 vehicle classes at launch, only 3 of which we have right now.
So imagine a vehicle like that, only with a Medium turret instead of a Large one, that acts as a mobile spawn point and helps defend the HAVs from infantry AV while simultaneously supporting the vehicles around it, just like a Sunderer in Planetside 2.
You won't find any threads complaining about Sunderers being overpowered on their forums, believe me. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1297
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 02:15:00 -
[12] - Quote
Logi Bro wrote:I'm confused as to what your point is now. I thought we were talking about LLAVs, if you are saying those should replace LLAVs when we get them, you should know just as well as I do what CCP's SOONGäó tactics are, LLAVs are all we will have for the next year at the least. I'm saying that LLAVs need not be the only way to provide that support, but since you can still put a gunner in them, you can zip around the map like any other LAV and only occasionally visit another vehicle to top them up before zipping off again. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1298
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 03:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
Honestly, the main reason I'm behind this is because I see it providing additional roles for support players while also assisting with Infantry/Vehicle balance, and also hopefully encouraging more players to consider support specializations instead of having a game of nothing but "slayers". |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1313
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 19:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
Sir Meode wrote:This is a bad idea HAV's have been hit with the Nerf hammer so many times they are almost flat. You should all be ashamed at such a suggestion. Look, do you ever want to see a Dust where seeker AV weapons have more reasonable damage and Forge Guns don't hit harder than tank turrets?
If we want to improve the balance between vehicles and infantry, we're all going to have to get together and compromise.
For example: have the current damage output of Swarms given to Plasma Launchers, decrease Swarm damage and kick while increasing missile speed, and reduce Forge Gun projectile speed, all in exchange for giving vehicles a limited supply of ammo.
If you want to argue a "realism" standpoint, having a seeker package in a missile reduces the amount of space left for the warhead, and a soldier in an armor suit carrier a short-barreled weapon shouldn't be able to accelerate a projectile to as high of speeds as the longer Large turret, and wouldn't have as much power to dump into the magnets either.
But again, we're talking about balance here, not realism. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1313
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 23:35:00 -
[15] - Quote
BobThe843CakeMan wrote:BobThe843CakeMan wrote:knight of 6 wrote:your idea is poorly fleshed out, so i can't say i support it.
though i wouldn't mind having a limited ammo supply per say. ammo would need to be easily enough accessible that vehicles are still usable.
tanks can sit but not for long, at all optimally you move every 15 sec or every kill. and i think you're neglecting the fact that dropships and LAVs are vehicles too, what's you brilliant plan to restock a dropship? LAVs can sit for roughly 5 sec. AV would need much nerf before vehicle ammo is reasonable, and a good way to restock flying dropships is needed.
also to whomever was saying 400-800 rounds blasters put out well above 400RPM that number is way low. 800 is low. thts 2 minutes of shooting. without overheating. So in theory you would last about 5-6 min before having to restock. That's if u use it constantly. Which no one does so your looking at a match having to restock once. Twice if ur trigger happy. Which in all honesty is not that much. Especially if ur in an armor tank with nitrous like most armor tanks. Shield tanks and mainly on the move or hiding so you wouldn't need as much ammo. How about we make it the more ammo you carry the heavier you are and the less you would have to restock. Just an idea. Plus i think that would be neat to have. Edit: Also for an idea have an invincible resupply station in ur base that could only be taken out by eve orbitals. Maybe an orbital thts meant for destroying instalations. Or 2-3 normal persison strikes. Lol meant to click edit. XD silly me. Was pretty much just throwing a number out to make sure it was clear the 20 idea was bad. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax. CRONOS.
1317
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 05:31:00 -
[16] - Quote
Charlotte O'Dell wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:This topic is a no-brainer that has been beat to death. Vehicles should have limited ammo just like infantry. Having a limitation on ammunition does not automatically mean your vehicle is underpowered. Supply Depots already replenish armor when you drive a vehicle near them, and could do the same for ammunition. Logistics LAVs could also be given this ability, increasing their usefulness, and further rewarding those who spec into them. The nanohives we use have a finite lifespan before deactivating, so the idea of mounting one in every vehicle doesn't hold water, and is just an excuse to keep things as they are out of irrational fear. Keep in mind that vehicle ammunition could be capped in the hundreds, which would simply reduce the likelihood of such tactics as putting an HAV on top of a mountain as BAD FURRY has demonstrated is an excellent way to dominate a match without risk, while only requiring that people using vehicles on the ground with infantry have to drive past a Supply Depot or LLV for maybe 3-5 seconds every few minutes depending on how much they fire. Rather than trying to mess up fitting by creating modules to increase ammo counts, just give vehicles a large supply of ammunition and a fairly fast replenish rate to keep them on a bit more even footing with the AV players trying to take them out. I say this as an HAV driver in every single build since Replication. BobThe843CakeMan wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:I like the idea- there should also be a module similar to a remote repair tool that instead can transfer ammo to other vehicles.
This is the only way I can think of that would prevent fighters from being severely crippled. do what battlefield 2 did and make it where you had to go back to your base to restock ammo. or in this case a supply depo. even tanks had ammo. 40 rounds but still ammo. Helis carried 20 missiles if i recall. Exactly. If infantry are required to carry nanohives or visit Supply Depots to replenish ammo reserves, why should all vehicles be exempt? I'm just waiting for the threads demanding limited ammo for air vehicles while leaving ground vehicles unlimited once Fighters and the like come out. You know it's going to happen. Scheneighnay McBob wrote:I like the idea- there should also be a module similar to a remote repair tool that instead can transfer ammo to other vehicles.
This is the only way I can think of that would prevent fighters from being severely crippled. I don't think Fighters would be unfairly crippled by this change either. Having to land occasionally won't bother me at all. However, it would be kind of neat if you could equip remote-resupply modules to a Logistics Dropship and use it as a flying ammo station. Actually, that would eliminate the need for ground vehicles to return to a fixed supply point or work with a fragile LLV, and would provide Dropship pilots with more WP, which they've been asking about for quite a while. I'll just solve this by redline railgun sniping bc i cant be too far away from my supply depot so when yall are hatin on me for it just remember it's your fault. I'll be sure to keep that in mind while I call down OBs on you since you'll just be sitting in one spot. |
|
|
|