| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Seth Avaar
Minmatar
Free Space Initiative
   |
Posted - 2006.09.30 17:40:00 -
[1]
We matari pilots know the amount of ammunition our beloved autocannons consume. There are a variety of ways to change this.
But i find this method more realistic that the others.
The projectile ammo icons:
Small Ammo : Box of ammo
Medium Ammo: Clip of ammo
Large Ammo: Singe-round 'clip'
The idea is to implement Ammo Belts. The autocannons are no longer able to shoot the ammo as it is at the moment. But by making Ammo Belts (or whatever the devs wanna call it) you cut the volume in half (because of a better way of storing the ammo) and you're able to feed the autocannons again.
This can be done by just right-clicking on a mounted autocannon and choosing "Make Belts" (or whatever the devs wanna call it).
Then you drag the desired ammo from your cargo bay or station. The belts can only be used by autocannons and you'll have to take the belts apart to use the same ammo for artillery.
What do you think?
IN RUST I TRUST
|
Hypo Psycho
Minmatar
Universal Industries PLC.
|
Posted - 2006.09.30 20:28:00 -
[2]
i like the idea
maybe have it is a building item?
meaning with a BPO and a few minerals aswell as the ammo you could build these "belts"
maybe the same could be done for blasters? (lasers obviously dont need it)
"see you on the other side" |
Vahur Kahur
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.10.01 10:41:00 -
[3]
I find it a bit retarded that if you stick a shell into artillery cannon you do 100 damage, but if you stick it into a machine guns you do 10. How can I even use the same ammo for two weapons that are so different? How is it fair that you need 10 times that much ammo (and therefore money) to do the same damage? The only logical way for me is making separate ammo for artillery and auto.
|
Seth Avaar
Minmatar
Free Space Initiative
|
Posted - 2006.10.02 08:38:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Vahur Kahur
I find it a bit retarded that if you stick a shell into artillery cannon you do 100 damage, but if you stick it into a machine guns you do 10. How can I even use the same ammo for two weapons that are so different? How is it fair that you need 10 times that much ammo (and therefore money) to do the same damage? The only logical way for me is making separate ammo for artillery and auto.
Blasters and Railguns use the same ammo. But the reason for me to bring this up for autocannons only is the amount of space required to be effective with autocannons.
Filling up a 1/3 to 1/2 your cargobay with ammo is just plain dumb. Therefore the belts would be both realistic and a good solution for autocannons.
Unfortunatly if this is implemented in the game, everyone else wants a piece of the same pie. Perhaps this is the price we pay for not using cap?
|
Kakita J
Placid Reborn
Placid Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.10.02 09:07:00 -
[5]
Same game with Caldari ships and missiles, really. No wonder all the missile boats have an extra large cargo bay, otherwise it would be more like 100% cargo loaded with ammo.
"They better fix the *bleep* *bleep* *bleep* jump *bleep* gates before I *bleep**bleep**bleep* and then some."
|
Seth Avaar
Minmatar
Free Space Initiative
|
Posted - 2006.10.02 09:13:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Seth Avaar on 02/10/2006 09:14:01
Originally by: Kakita J
Same game with Caldari ships and missiles, really. No wonder all the missile boats have an extra large cargo bay, otherwise it would be more like 100% cargo loaded with ammo.
As i said: Unfortunatly if this is implemented in the game, everyone else wants a piece of the same pie.
The problem with autocannons is the extreme amount of feeding they require. missiles do alot more damage based on the amount of ammo you use.
|
viral storm
|
Posted - 2006.10.02 16:57:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Vahur Kahur
I find it a bit retarded that if you stick a shell into artillery cannon you do 100 damage, but if you stick it into a machine guns you do 10. How can I even use the same ammo for two weapons that are so different? How is it fair that you need 10 times that much ammo (and therefore money) to do the same damage? The only logical way for me is making separate ammo for artillery and auto.
its the way they are fired that affects the damage that the ammo does, simply put the ammo in auto cannons has a higher rate of fire which means the distance the ammo travels is shortened and makes the fired projectile have a lower accuracy over long ranges, thus meaning lower speed and less penetrating effectiveness.
|
Vahur Kahur
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.10.02 18:08:00 -
[8]
If you look carefully, you notice different calibre for autocannon and artillery cannon (200 and 480 mm in case of small projectile turrets for example), so the difference is already there and they use different ammo, logically, RP-wise, and such.
I imagine they programmed the same ammo for both long and short range varieties just so they have to implement two times less types of items and blueprints! Well, that was fine to get the game rolling, but it would be nice to at last implement the other half either by clips/belts or just some "autocannon phased plasma s" along with "artillery phased plasma s" and sort out the damage per isk stuff.
|
spc fish
|
Posted - 2006.10.02 21:26:00 -
[9]
the simple answer to why the same round would cause less damage from one weapon than from another is the simple physics of actual weapons
granted when it comes to real weapons caliber makes a huge difference, as an ammunition specialist i have no trouble finding the humor in using the same round for both a 250mm and a 280mm howitzer. so i'll go ahead and ignore that because its convienant for me ( don't have to carry multiple size rounds, w007! )
the bullet isn't the sole decider in the damage of a firearm, it actually depends mostly on the weapon. the tighter the barrel fits the bullet the less gases can slip past it in their attempt to escape. the longer the barrel, the more time the gasses have to accelerate it up to the speed of their expansion ( low explosives used in propellants yeild a velocity of around 4,000 feet per second ). and when it comes to distance and stability, the tighter the twist the more spin and thusly the more stable ( you have to account for how fast the round will be traveling though, if you do it too much you'll tear up your barrel and possibly risk clogging the weapon with the bullet and killing yourself. if you do it too little it won't be effective. gunsmithing is an art, not a science ^_-
so it makes perfect sense why a shorter barrel, quick fire operation based weapon would be weaker than a long barrel high precision rifle. and sense we've already decided that we're shooting magical transforming bullets we can further state that the bullets are able to transform entirely in size. for instance, a 9mm pistol is weaker than a 7.62mm sniper rifle even though the 9mm bullet is larger caliber the 7.62mm rifle round is longer and has more propellant to power it.
as far as the link idea, i would like to see it done like actual belts of military ammunition where we can choose to mix different ratios of different styles of rounds.
for instance, my M249 Squad Automatic Weapon ( SAW ). the belts of ammunition are not made out of the same bullet type linked together. the standard arrangement for 5.56mm machine gun belts is a 4:1 mix of ball and tracer. every fifth bullet has a phosporus filler that illuminates the round in flight to assist with targeting corrections and aiming ( and makes it look cool ).
as for not needing to fill 1/3 of your cargo with ammo... you have no idea
when i was riding AG in a guntruck on a equipment convoy from kuwait to iraq the entire back of the vehicle was filled with, you guessed it, ammunition. we had NO cargo space after loading up the ammo. the M2 .50 caliber machine gun mounted to our truck was fed by 200 round box magazines, each fitted with 4:1 mix of API ( Armor Piercing Incendiary ) and APIT ( Armor Piercing Incendiary with Tracer ). each box was about two feet long, a foot tall, and half a foot wide ( roughly ) and we had about six to eight of em. so in total we only had about 1200 to 1600 rounds, ammunition takes up alot of space in real life. and those are just .50 cal. imagine how much space 1200 rounds of 800mm would consume?
i know that 9 round pallets of 105mm rounds that i handled in AIT were no joke, they were about three feet tall, three feet wide, and three feet long for only 9 rounds. thats roughly 1m^3 per 9 rounds for 105mm. in the game i don't remember 1000 rounds of the 120mm autoguns equipt on my mining ship being more than 5m^3 ( i could be mistaken about that though, i removed the UBL from my mining ship )
|
Jens Beckstrom
|
Posted - 2006.10.03 22:22:00 -
[10]
Good idea, having a separate bay for amo would be qute handy for gunn boats.
If all you cargo cap goes to ammo storage where do you place you loot, dumping ammo? Bad idea!
I would like the indea implmented with a ammor meter refering to the amount off ammo left in the ammo belt for use, to limit it to autocanons is just dumb, blasters eat a lot of ammo to. Shure they do a lot more dmg, but hey they steal a lot of cap to.
To the fine creators of eve, give us a separate ammo bay. Yarrr!!!
|
Seth Avaar
Minmatar
Free Space Initiative
|
Posted - 2006.10.03 22:25:00 -
[11]
You didnt get my point, Jens.
The idea is not to have a second cargo bay for ammo. The ammo belts are meant to be a compact version of your ammo, thereby taking up 50% less cargospace.
|
Vahur Kahur
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 11:53:00 -
[12]
The GAU-8/A (real life automatic cannon) ammunition is linkless, reducing weight and avoiding a great deal of potential for jamming. So I'm not sure about clips and things.
Just wanted to point out that there is a special close range and high rate of fire ammo in case of missiles -- rockets. It would make sense to implement the same smaller and cheaper versions of bullets and charges as well.
I actually like taking loads upon loads of ammo and spewing it all at enemies. I just don't like to think that I could have done the same damage with 10 times less the mount of the exact same bullets and usually from safer distance.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 17:21:00 -
[13]
Linkless? So how does the Avenger cycle reliably?
Compressing ammo for use in autocannons sounds like a good idea to me, but all the above concerns regarding haw to get it done and whether "found" ammo can be prepared for use in space are valid points.
Civis Ascendant Sum |
spc fish
|
Posted - 2006.10.05 11:11:00 -
[14]
there are plenty of automatic weapons that don't use links but rather spring pressure from magazines. the problem with this is that they are less reliable as machine guns. magazine placement is critical, if the securing of the magazine gets worn over the years or such you're looking at alot of jams
and the spring can only put out so much pressure. the advantage of links is that the weapon draws the ammo itself, it doesn't have to wait for a spring to push the round up into the chamber. so they have faster rate of fire. ( 550 rounds per minuite compared to 750 rounds per minuite. miniguns and vulcan cannons fire about 6000 rounds per minuite. [ one every milisecond ] )
it appears to me that there are essentially two guns. autocannons and artillery right? why not make different ammo for the guns? the autocannons would be designed for ROF while the artillery rounds would be larger, more expensive per round, and designed more for "one shot one kill"
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |