Read by Schine Ammunition as an Alternative

[Spartan-228]

So I know things like this have been done before, and the anti consumables crowd goes nuts ever time its mentioned. But it is a subject I fell very strongly about and I am not about to just let it die.

Ammunition, every one knows what it is. Its that stuff you put in your weapons so that they go bang bang. Right now the power our ships generate is used for our ammo, and that is all well and good. But some people might not want to use power, maybe they want to use good old metal slugs and missiles.

This is what I am suggesting. Leave the current weapon system as is, but give us an ammo storage block that we can link to our weapons computers or weapons groups. This ammo box will have a set amount of ammo it can hold and once it has been linked to a weapon, that weapon will not be able to shoot without ammunition unless you reset it at a shop. This will keep players from switching them over to energy weapons in the middle of a fight when they run out of ammo.

Now what are the advantages of ammo? Well your ship doesn't need as much power to fire its weapons.
What are the downsides? You can run out of ammo, if your ammo storage gets hit then the you are out of ammo, and you have to buy or make the ammo.

 

[sayerulz]

I honestly think that missiles should just consume ammo be default. At least as a server config. But this system sounds good to me.

 

[jayman38]

Another buff for ammo supply might be faster missile reloads. When the missiles are pre-built and don't need to be constructed in real-time, subsequent missiles should be ready to fire faster.
Similarly, if cannons are given ammo, maybe have them shoot each shot with twice as much damage and use up twice as much ammo, to simulate faster firing, even when set up for rapid-fire. (E.g. a rapid fire cannon that does 1 damage per shot, with 10 shots per second still fires at 10 rounds per second, but when linked to an ammo box, hits with 2 damage per shot, and each shot uses two ammo storage cartridges.)

 

[ltmauve]

Unless larger weapons need more ammo, I can see this getting unbalanced very quickly.

 

[Spartan-228]

Unless larger weapons need more ammo, I can see this getting unbalanced very quickly.

Yes of course larger weapons would require more ammo or ammo units per shot. For example you have one gun that uses one ammo unit per shot, but it is very week. Then you have a gun that uses say one hundred ammo units per shot, that is more along the lines of a anti capital gun.

 

[ltmauve]

Yes of course larger weapons would require more ammo or ammo units per shot. For example you have one gun that uses one ammo unit per shot, but it is very week. Then you have a gun that uses say one hundred ammo units per shot, that is more along the lines of a anti capital gun.

I'd imagine that it would be more like 1 ammo per 1 damage, and you craft 2,000 ammo from one scrap.

 

[Blaza612]

Yes of course larger weapons would require more ammo or ammo units per shot. For example you have one gun that uses one ammo unit per shot, but it is very week. Then you have a gun that uses say one hundred ammo units per shot, that is more along the lines of a anti capital gun.

Rather than make them use up more ammo, how about have different sizes of ammo? The total mass of the weapon would determine whether it needs small, medium, large or extra large ammo, since using more ammo as the weapon gets bigger seems odd and annoying.

 

[ltmauve]

small, medium, large or extra large

Only four sizes? You have no idea how this games goes, do you? Not enough flexibility.

 

[Blaza612]

Only four sizes? You have no idea how this games goes, do you? Not enough flexibility.

That was an example, I would expect to be a lot more sizes. :P

 

[ltmauve]

Would you agree that a two-block cannon should take twice the resources to fire using ammo as a one-block cannon?
Anyway, the point is that there are practically an infinite number of ammo sizes, so it's probably best to just have one size and use more of it for bigger guns. Plus it's actually less annoying. If you have five different sizes of missile system on your cruiser (I do.) then having to make five different sizes of ammo is a pain. The fact that any ammo I do come across or make I can use in any of my ships, only limited by the type of the master computer, is definitely easier.

 

[hunterRAE]

I'd imagine that it would be more like 1 ammo per 1 damage, and you craft 2,000 ammo from one scrap.

I love it, it would make encounters about management instead of who has the bigger gun, which at the moment is the sum of all combat. Also, since most people do not even bother with scrap, it now actually might make sense in a way to salvage derelicts for a heavy supply of ammo material supply. Also like it has been stated, maybe have weapons drain ammo supplies at different rates, making maybe a semi fix to the OP damage output of missile batteries, which still reigns supreme even to the latest update.

 

[hunterRAE]

Well, if you can define the weapon ammo consumption rate, in theory you could make energy based system have a drain of 0. I do think that since the most powerful weapons currently are the matter based systems like cannons and missiles, they should be based off of an ammo cache, making energy based useful for something, even though pulse could not hit the broad side of a barn if it had to.:p

 

[jayman38]

Putting amunation with "solid" weapons YES
Putting amunation with energetic based weapons NO, when fuel systems arrives they be limited the shot numbers too.

Solid weapons = Canon and Misiles.
Energetic weapons = Beams and pulses.

You're making assumptions about the nature of weapon systems that might not necessarily be true, depending on the lore of the weapon. Don't forget about the people who use cannons to simulate energy-blasters (think: Star Wars and all the multitude of Sci-fi franchises with similar weapons) and those who insist on the idea of using e=mc^2 to create infinite solid ammunition from pure energy. (Which, ironically, is usually explained as being produced from the manipulation of other solid matter.)

 

[Spartan-228]

You're making assumptions about the nature of weapon systems that might not necessarily be true, depending on the lore of the weapon. Don't forget about the people who use cannons to simulate energy-blasters (think: Star Wars and all the multitude of Sci-fi franchises with similar weapons) and those who insist on the idea of using e=mc^2 to create infinite solid ammunition from pure energy.

That is why I am suggesting ammunition as an alternate to energy.

 

[shadowulf]

i would say yes to ammo for missiles, and maybe cannons, but no for beams, as beams are lasers, as evidenced by their hitscan programming, and only something that could be as fast as the speed of light could be instant hits. optional ammo usage is interesting, but how do you suggest the weapons act if not connected to ammo, because i would need more incentive to use ammo then "it costs less energy"

 

[ltmauve]

I believe Sparten's suggestion is that the ammo replace all energy consumption, with the additional possiblity of a few different boosts.

Also for anyone who says ammo for laser weapons is unrealistic, laser weapons currently in development use chemicals that have to be swapped each time it fires.

 

[Spartan-228]

i would say yes to ammo for missiles, and maybe cannons, but no for beams, as beams are lasers, as evidenced by their hitscan programming, and only something that could be as fast as the speed of light could be instant hits. optional ammo usage is interesting, but how do you suggest the weapons act if not connected to ammo, because i would need more incentive to use ammo then "it costs less energy"

The main weapon of the Normandy in mass effect 2 and 3 was a beam weapon that fired liquid iron-uranium-tungsten. The jet of molten metal, accelerated to a fraction of the speed of light, and destroys targets by impact force and irresistible heat. Plus there are plasma beam concepts that require a supply of plasma to work. So ammo for beam weapons is possible.

As for more incentive to use ammo. I felt the no energy or nearly no energy use was a big one. You could add ammo types like AP and HE, but we have the effects so it would be sort of redundant. if you have ideas about other things ammo could enhance pleas share. However you should remember that with weapons using ammo instead of energy, that excess energy you now have can be used for other things. This would allow you to add more thrust to you ship, have faster charging jump drives, and possibly stronger shields. These seem like pretty good advantages to me, the only down sides are you have to keep an eye on your ammo counter, and if your ammo supply is destroyed you will be out of ammo.

 

[shadowulf]

The main weapon of the Normandy in mass effect 2 and 3 was a beam weapon that fired liquid iron-uranium-tungsten. The jet of molten metal, accelerated to a fraction of the speed of light, and destroys targets by impact force and irresistible heat. Plus there are plasma beam concepts that require a supply of plasma to work. So ammo for beam weapons is possible.

As for more incentive to use ammo. I felt the no energy or nearly no energy use was a big one. You could add ammo types like AP and HE, but we have the effects so it would be sort of redundant. if you have ideas about other things ammo could enhance pleas share. However you should remember that with weapons using ammo instead of energy, that excess energy you now have can be used for other things. This would allow you to add more thrust to you ship, have faster charging jump drives, and possibly stronger shields. These seem like pretty good advantages to me, the only down sides are you have to keep an eye on your ammo counter, and if your ammo supply is destroyed you will be out of ammo.

i see your point. i would suggest faster reloading times, but that would just make people want to make more ammo. i would suggest that, for cannons, a projectile diffusing damage over a wider area, as there is more kinetic energy in a physical projectile than an energy one. it would have a greater effect on armor and system blocks, but be slower at breaking them. a slight boost to firing times would also work for all, but base it on the distance the ammo is from the weapon. for beams, a much greater impact area, but uses alot of ammo for continuous fire. for missiles, maybe integrate a shaped charge in the forem of a non-radius detonation, but a cone from the blast area.

for example,
a
aass
aasssss
xasssssss
aasssss
aass
aa
where x=detonation
a=armor
s=system

 

[ltmauve]

I was thinking maybe it would add an additional effect on top of the damage. So I could have ION ammo that does an additional 5% shield damage on top of the normal weapon damage -and whatever effect is in the blocks-, but that ammo costs more to make.

 

[Lecic]

If we got ammo, I'd prefer it to be an add on rather than a replacement. Energy costs are the same, but the weapon is stronger. Ammo would be a meta item that could be drawn from storages for additional strength to an effect without needing blocks for it. So, you could have a cannon/cannon with ion ammunition that was stronger than a cannon/cannon/ion, but it comes with the downside of limited shots.

Ammo costs per shot would increase as it did more damage, along with a 5% ammo cost increase per output.

And, of course, ammo shouldn't be added til we get a cargo overhaul. Someone should need to worry about needing the space to hold their 8 billion super focused beam lenses or whatever. Ammo isn't balanced when it doesn't take up space for the extra power it gives, because no matter the cost of the ammo, someone WILL just pack a storage with billions of the stuff otherwise.

Also, ammo consuming weapons should just switch back to energy only when they run out of ammo, and not... this.

This ammo box will have a set amount of ammo it can hold and once it has been linked to a weapon, that weapon will not be able to shoot without ammunition unless you reset it at a shop.

That's ridiculously punishing for no reason at all.