DUST Search - Limiting Vehicle Ammo Supply

All Channels

General Discussions

Limiting Vehicle Ammo Supply - A Proposal

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
WhiskeyJack Otako The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 10	Posted - 2013.04.17 23:16:00 - [1] - Quote Limit Vehicle Ammo Supply I've been wondering lately why HAVs and LAVs should have unlimited ammo - or installations for that matter. Without any reference to fairness or their relative OPness, doesn't it seem a bit unrealistic and out of sync for vehicles to have unlimited ammo when dropsuits do not? Managing the ammo supply is part of running a dropsuit with any weapon, why not give vehicle users the same depth of experience? I, for one, think that they can handle the additional challenge. I've discussed this idea with a few people and a few tankers (not to imply in any way that tankers aren't, in fact, people) and the response to it has been interesting and positive.-á Incorporating the suggestions I've heard from folks thus far, I propose the following for your consideration: Add a vehicle-focused nanohive with similar fitting requirements as we have now. Modify vehicles to have an ammo battery with a reasonable recharge rate. Add modules that can be fitted to vehicles that increase ammo battery recharge rate These seem to me to be reasonably simple things to incorporate that would add a great deal in terms of realism and depth of experience for those in the vehicle and those trying to kill it. In fact, if this idea has already been put out there, please ignore and get back to that bacon.
TiMeSpLiT--TeR Planetary Response Organisation 361	Posted - 2013.04.17 23:20:00 - [2] - Quote no Equip yourself AV loadout.
BobThe843CakeMan Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 161	Posted - 2013.04.17 23:20:00 - [3] - Quote 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.
Higgs flagrantfool 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 27	Posted - 2013.04.17 23:47:00 - [4] - Quote Think about it. Your sitting inside a giant mechine (tank) why not just implant a huge nanite storage plant inside the belly of the beast? And for the price these things cost, IMO, that kitten should come factory standard. Do I want to see tanks pooping nanohives? No.
Logi Bro Eyniletti Rangers Minmatar Republic 1226	Posted - 2013.04.17 23:49:00 - [5] - Quote Meh, I run a tank on my alt and find them pretty underwhelming as they are, no need to nerf them farther.
DeadlyAztec11 One-Armed Bandits Atrocitas 57	Posted - 2013.04.17 23:54:00 - [6] - Quote No... I'm AV and I think doing this would leave vehicles underpowered.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1247	Posted - 2013.04.17 23:57:00 - [7] - Quote 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.
BobThe843CakeMan Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 161	Posted - 2013.04.18 00:16:00 - [8] - Quote 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.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1294	Posted - 2013.04.18 00:21:00 - [9] - 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.
Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming EoN. 2771	Posted - 2013.04.18 00:32:00 - [10] - Quote 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

Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1294	Posted - 2013.04.18 00:39:00 - [11] - 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.
Yani Nabari One-Armed Bandits Atrocitas 34	Posted - 2013.04.18 00:47:00 - [12] - Quote Meh, vehicles just have super good Nanohives where the ammo is supposed to go.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1295	Posted - 2013.04.18 00:49:00 - [13] - 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.
Tolen Rosas Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 82	Posted - 2013.04.18 00:52:00 - [14] - 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 says the tanker. good thing ur not biased or anything. +1 this is long overdue unlimited ammo should be long gone.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1295	Posted - 2013.04.18 00:54:00 - [15] - 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.
DustMercsBlog Galactic News Network 43	Posted - 2013.04.18 00:58:00 - [16] - Quote 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.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1295	Posted - 2013.04.18 00:59:00 - [17] - 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.
BobThe843CakeMan Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 162	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:01:00 - [18] - 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 we'll be able to bring in our own. problem solved.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1295	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:02:00 - [19] - 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.
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:03:00 - [20] - Quote 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.

Casius Hakoke Fenrir's Wolves 72	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:07:00 - [21] - Quote This is something that has always bothered me about HAV's and other vehicle turrets. I like to drive my tank, but honestly I think limited ammo should be added in, it gives supply depots a use other than WP's for a HAV. A requirement to return somewhere and resupply would go a long way I think, although I am still of the opinion that most vehicles in general need a buff to EHP to help account for such a change as there would be times when they may be returning for resupply with no way to directly defend themselves from attack. I also really like the idea someone mentioned about dropships being able to remotely resupply vehicles as well. Edit: +1 to the OP for posting this, even though I know it has been discussed before.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1295	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:14:00 - [22] - 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.
Logi Bro Eyniletti Rangers Minmatar Republic 1228	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:19:00 - [23] - 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. Vehicles spamming fire is what they were designed to do.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1295	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:22:00 - [24] - 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.
Logi Bro Eyniletti Rangers Minmatar Republic 1228	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:25:00 - [25] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: 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. 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.
Sev Alcatraz The Tritan Industries RISE of LEGION 210	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:28:00 - [26] - Quote Terrible idea is terrible
BobThe843CakeMan Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 166	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:32:00 - [27] - Quote 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.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1248	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:32:00 - [28] - Quote Mobius Wyvern 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. I don't think Fighters would be unfairly crippled by this change either. Having to land occasionally won't bother me at all. The way that I'm saying they would be crippled is that nanohives don't stay in the air. Things like HAVs would be able to keep going on the frontlines because nanohives would be constantly supplying them ammo. However, fighters would need to awkwardly fly away from whatever dogfight they're in to land and resupply- and I doubt they'll be as easy to land as dropships; much less being able to land within the radius of a supply depot.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1248	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:34:00 - [29] - Quote Logi Bro wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: 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. 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.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. CRONOS. 1296	Posted - 2013.04.18 01:35:00 - [30] - 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.



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.