Ammunition as an Addition

[Broomsage]

Weapons that use ammunition should NOT inflict more damage per shot than weapons without.

-But they should be able to inflict damage faster, weapons are currently limited only by the rate at which ammunition is manufactured, but you could have the weapon system continue manufacturing munitions to have surplus that can be spent at the highest possible rate of fire with no cost to power.

-Surplus munitions would need to be stored in an inventory linked to the weapon a role that cargo space blocks seem to be made for.


Ammunition should not have to be produced in factory blocks.

-Having to return to base and restock in order to have functional weapons systems is a logistical nightmare and would be really annoying. You could argue that you could carry around so much ammunition that it wouldn't matter but that defeats the point.

-Manufacturing ammunition would also limit the variety of ammunition available and be less scalable than
the current setup,


Ammunition inventory management
-Link inventories of separate weapons of the same type and transfer munitions between them. If you have enough space in cargo to hold the munitions those munitions can be fired from any size weapon of the same type.
-You can produce capital ship size munitions and load them into anything with the storage capacity to hold it.

Example:
You have cannon cpu linked to a pulse cpu you fire it once and it takes 16000 milliseconds to manufacture the next volley. You can link cargo space blocks to the cannon cpu and every 16000 milliseconds a volley is stored in the cargo spaces until the spaces are full. The stored volley can be fired at the speed of a cannon cannon linked cpu until munitions are fully depleted

Other Example:
You have a planet cracking missile on your capital ship, you move it to a significantly smaller bomber. You can launch it from any launcher that is linked to the inventory that contains the missile

 

[NeonSturm]

Issues:

1. Smooth ammo clips : 16 shots 1 shot … 1 shot … 1 shot ((ammo clips would prevent that. Or forced parallel production streets with time-costs))
2. Alpha-damage : Ammo would need to cost a fraction of the value that can be killed with it. Else it would be op

​

Similarities:

1. Fuel : thrusters can be weapons using fuel-ammo.
2. Fire-pattern : Ammo-Clip-size. Linked storage-groups of different size and capacity can create recognizable+unique fire-patterns​

Other Example:
You have a planet cracking missile on your capital ship, you move it to a significantly smaller bomber. You can launch it from any launcher that is linked to the inventory that contains the missile

WAIT, you said "Make small ships useful by diverting a part of their systems to the mother-ship"??? How you dare!

 

[SkylordLuke]

Issues:

1. Smooth ammo clips : 16 shots 1 shot … 1 shot … 1 shot ((ammo clips would prevent that. Or forced parallel production streets with time-costs))
2. Alpha-damage : Ammo would need to cost a fraction of the value that can be killed with it. Else it would be op

​

Similarities:

1. Fuel : thrusters can be weapons using fuel-ammo.
2. Fire-pattern : Ammo-Clip-size. Linked storage-groups of different size and capacity can create recognizable+unique fire-patterns​

WAIT, you said "Make small ships useful by diverting a part of their systems to the mother-ship"??? How you dare!

You have a planet cracking missile on your capital ship, you move it to a significantly smaller bomber. You can launch it from any launcher that is linked to the inventory that contains the missile

yo,that would be insane hahahaha
abused,imagine someone flying into a big cluster of people and ships that dont even notice you til the last second

 

[NeonSturm]

But it would add some strategical value if titans use small ships to relay their fire-power.
If all charge times would be longer, they could tank Power,Shield and Ammo on the Carrier/Titan and then fight the enemy one with their own superior evasion.

This suggestion needs an ammo-supply beam if you like what I said above.

 

[Broomsage]

1. Smooth ammo clips : 16 shots 1 shot … 1 shot … 1 shot

You could have multiple computers linked to a cargo group and only use one, reducing amount of time to reload.
[DOUBLEPOST=1452293488,1452292765][/DOUBLEPOST]

yo,that would be insane hahahaha
abused,imagine someone flying into a big cluster of people and ships that dont even notice you til the last second

You still need the infrastructure to manufacture ridiculously powerful missiles.

This makes the use of smaller ships against titans somewhat viable. This means that you should respect that 2k mass fighter because it could be packing the temporary punch of 10k mass corvette, making player interactions unpredictable and interesting.

It would also allow for more creative and role-play central ships as they no longer have to be built around systems to be super effective.

 

[Criss]

Hmm. This right here is already a problem I think.

Weapons that use ammunition should NOT inflict more damage per shot than weapons without.

-But they should be able to inflict damage faster, weapons are currently limited only by the rate at which ammunition is manufactured, but you could have the weapon system continue manufacturing munitions to have surplus that can be spent at the highest possible rate of fire with no cost to power.

So you don't want the ammo to inflict more damage, but you want it to inflict it's damage at a high rate. With a sizable cargo hold on any ship, they could all become alpha weaponry. Additionally having no power cost just because you are using ammo is a big leap. Ammo doesn't fire itself because it is in the chamber. At the very least it needs mechanical energy if we look at modern day weapons.

The best place currently to implement ammo is to replace the effect modules that are in the game. Since offensive effects come from the same blocks another solution should be found. Ammo could easily be made to alter the effects of the weaponry. But it should not allow a player to ignore things like the stats on their weapons since their ammo fed alpha weapon can fire quickly without a power cost.

 

[Dire Venom]

Really good suggestion OP! I would love to see this in-game.
However it does need to be developed further before possible implementation.
What I suggest:
-->'Ammunition' (Such as clips, laser charges, warheads as names etc) can only be constructed on large ships/stations.
-->Ammunitions weight is proportional to it's damage. Therefore a 1k mass ship can't carry around 10,000 10 million damage torpedo's (it would be unable to move with the immense weight). This would be balanced so that smaller ships can carry high-damage ammunition but it weighs them down so they can't carry absurd amounts of it. (Think of 100 drones each staked with 100 million damage missiles XD bit too unbalanced).
-->Ammunition could require cargo space, therefore instead of building large weapon arrays you instead need to have large cargo bays. This would mean that small ships could only carry a couple high-damage rounds at a time.
-->Large ships wouldn't be able to carry around endless amounts of ammunition due to it's weight, thus encouraging manufacturing on-the-go.

@Criss does have some really good points which would also need to be addressed.

 

[starhaiden]

Consumables for defence effect.

 

[Broomsage]

But it should not allow a player to ignore things like the stats on their weapons since their ammo fed alpha weapon can fire quickly without a power cost.

There is a power cost, the power that it currently costs to fire a weapon would be how much is required to materialize each extra shot.
There is no power requirement, because power was invested in the ammunition prior to being fired.

Any ship could have alpha weaponry but only those with the means to manufacture it would have it, and cargo being limited, they wouldn't do alpha damage for long.
To use powerful ammo, space for storage and thrust to conceivably carry it would be needed at the expense of other systems.

You could say that the number of cargo blocks to contain one shot must equal the amount of blocks in the weapon that manufactured them.
The amount of mass that each shot takes up could be balanced to perfectly fit the existing system.

Consumable effects sound interesting but that comes with all the problems discussed over this topic in the forums

 

[Deserea]

There is a power cost, the power that it currently costs to fire a weapon would be how much is required to materialize each extra shot.
There is no power requirement, because power was invested in the ammunition prior to being fired.

Any ship could have alpha weaponry but only those with the means to manufacture it would have it, and cargo being limited, they wouldn't do alpha damage for long.
To use powerful ammo, space for storage and thrust to conceivably carry it would be needed at the expense of other systems.

You could say that the number of cargo blocks to contain one shot must equal the amount of blocks in the weapon that manufactured them.
The amount of mass that each shot takes up could be balanced to perfectly fit the existing system.

Consumable effects sound interesting but that comes with all the problems discussed over this topic in the forums

i have to agree with Criss here on just about everything he said, and with what Lecic said, in your other thread, the weapons system in game works well already, for the most part, with a few bugs that hopefully will get fixed.

like i pointed out in the last thread you made, even if you made it so that there was a maximum ammo count per weapon computer(Which is how it would have to work), players would start making bigger ships, to A.) store all that ammo, and B.) to allow for more computers, for more stupid powered, rapid fire, alpha weapons.

You add ammo, you force players to build bigger, no ifs ands or butts, because thats how people work, they want the best of everything, if they can achieve it, Nobody would forgo anything, theyd just build bigger, and building big can already be a problem.

The consumable effects i could agree with if the topic was fleshed out rather well.

 

[Broomsage]

You add ammo, you force players to build bigger, no ifs ands or butts, because thats how people work, they want the best of everything, if they can achieve it, Nobody would forgo anything, theyd just build bigger, and building big can already be a problem.

People make big, stupidly powerful ships because they can, its inevitable, this wouldn't effect the power of already stupidly powerful ships so there is no real reason to build the ships bigger.
People building big is a completely different problem, your logic could be applied to any system

Adding ammo makes smaller weapons more effective and is hard to implement well on really big ships.
This could make smaller ships relevant in a battle between big ships as well.

 

[Deserea]

People make big, stupidly powerful ships because they can, its inevitable, this wouldn't effect the power of already stupidly powerful ships so there is no real reason to build the ships bigger.
People building big is a completely different problem, your logic could be applied to any system

Adding ammo makes smaller weapons more effective and is hard to implement well on really big ships.
This could make smaller ships relevant in a battle between big ships as well.

Yes it would, it would make them even more powerful than they already are.


Smaller ships are already relevant, the problem is pilots dont want to pilot them in my limited experiences, sure some do, but most players i know like piloting bigger ship, when five or six 300 mass fighters can overwhelm a ship that come in at 12k mass, thats balanced, thats how small ships *should* work, and thats how they do work at the moment. A single 300 mass fighter shouldnt be able to wipe out a 3-5k mass ship, just for an example(Which wouldnt happen with this system anyways said ship would have a turret that would destroy the fighter). Numbers are small ships friends, not their weapons damage, its their ability to overwhelm the opponent with numbers.

This would also make them completely irrelevant, as bigger ships would load up turrets loaded with ammo that could obliterate fighters faster than they could now. Take away the ammo reload, and fighters become useless in large ship fights. Big ships just load up their ships with Cannon/Cannon emplacements, or Missile/Beam emplacements, loaded with ammo, goodbye fighters. Fighters/Bombers/ small ships wont get a chance to use there...mediocre weapon that wouldnt hurt a big ship to begin with.

 

[NeonSturm]

Smaller ships are already relevant, the problem is pilots dont want to pilot them in my limited experiences, sure some do, but most players i know like piloting bigger ship, when five or six 300 mass fighters can overwhelm a ship that come in at 12k mass, thats balanced, thats how small ships *should* work, and thats how they do work at the moment. A single 300 mass fighter shouldnt be able to wipe out a 3-5k mass ship

5x 300mass = 1'500 mass vs a single 12k mass = 1/8 ratio which is ok (a ship 2x as short/long).

I would like smaller ships if others don't build only that big.
Small-Medium-Interceptors would be perfect alone
and Heavy Interceptors or Light warships if you have NPC-crew : https://starmadedock.net/threads/ship-classification.22595/#post-257078

More Thoughts:

Medium Trade/Build ships should equal 1 Light Warships only and are OK with PvP too.

(( Medium Build-ships can construct stations and Gates.))​

Medium Warships should only be used in faction wars or own territory or fighting pirate-stations - when you have a goal scouted.
Heavy Warships should only be used when more than 3-5 medium ae involved or fighting a planet. But NEVER alone. Exception: mobile faction home-base.
Titans, Capitals, … all else: Only one per category per faction in each Galaxy. They should count as faction-assets.​

 

[Broomsage]

Yes it would, it would make them even more powerful than they already are.

Turrets could pull ammo from the main ship and be incredibly powerful but then you have less ammo for the weapons that the turrets pull from as well which would totally cripple your ship.

You would only waste your ammo trying to kill a small fast target with turrets, so beam weapons are your best bet for anti fighter defense. Beam weapons' dps is totally unaffected by ammo.

You could say that "they will just build bigger!" but they can already build bigger.
[DOUBLEPOST=1452425561,1452425323][/DOUBLEPOST]

A single 300 mass fighter shouldnt be able to wipe out a 3-5k mass ship

Take a look at how this is balanced, it just makes sense, said fighter capable of taking on 3-5k mass ship would probably weigh 3-5k mass when fully stocked with ammo.

 

[NeonSturm]

Turrets could pull ammo from the main ship and be incredibly powerful but then you have less ammo for the weapons that the turrets pull from as well which would totally cripple your ship.

You would only waste your ammo trying to kill a small fast target with turrets, so beam weapons are your best bet for anti fighter defense. Beam weapons' dps is totally unaffected by ammo.

You could say that "they will just build bigger!" but they can already build bigger.

Take a look at how this is balanced, it just makes sense, said fighter capable of taking on 3-5k mass ship would probably weigh 3-5k mass when fully stocked with ammo.

A ship should be unable to carry many times it's weight in ammo. Maybe it's own weight at max (better 1/2).

Note: Except you hold the weapon externally like the first stage on space-shuttles. But then having 3k ammo on a 300m ship with 150m inside it is still a little bit unrealistic. It totally changes movement properties.

 

[Broomsage]

You wouldn't have a 300m fighter carry that much ammo even if the fighter was nothing but thrust. It was an extreme example.
And if it did it wouldn't really be a fighter would it?

Why shouldn't a ship be able to carry more than its own weight in ammo? You can already do what I'm suggesting, but it requires more blocks and more weapon groups

The entire point is that it scales with the weapon configuration currently in the game. All this adds is another factor into weapons systems that doesn't affect balance. your argument can apply to any ammo suggestion. It also applies to starmade's current weapon configuration as well

 

[NeonSturm]

Why shouldn't a ship be able to carry more than its own weight in ammo? You can already do what I'm suggesting, but it requires more blocks and more weapon groups

Because of movement properties.

For me, fighters/interceptors are defined by the cockpit-size/weight minimum and Hangar-size maximum. The heavy Interceptors define the Hangar size.
A good weight would be defined by minimal systems for light interceptors doubled for light and 2 small or 1 bigger turrets for heavy.

Everything above is a gun-boat/ship or torpedo-boat/ship.​

 

[Broomsage]

Of course, but you should still be able to do it. Freedom of design and all.

You can already load up a ship with power and weapons but no thrust, you just cant move the ship. thrust would have to scale with the ship.
Bomb pods with no thrust that have to be carried an deployed would be interesting too.

 

[Shaker]

Ammo is already in the game, its called power. There is no need for ammo, weapons are fine for the alpha stage of this game.

 

[Broomsage]

Ammo is already in the game, its called power. There is no need for ammo, weapons are fine for the alpha stage of this game.

there are some instances where ammo is better than power, ammo serves to increase options for design, and makes for more dynamic and interesting combat.

State your case to say why this idea, which does nothing to disrupt the balance of weapons systems currently in game, should not be implemented.