Would it be a valid idea to have extra ammo as an internal compartment feature?
Cannons need ammo Badly.
- Thread starter madmann135
- Start date
for conflict zones, maybe a happy medium could be to have ammo supply vessels on the outskirts of the combat, could even set them up as secondary objectives to protect or attack.
You've never played... any fps, have you?
Everyone uses the snipers, because they aren't that hard to aim and massively OP.
It all depends on the FPS. I can't play sniper (Always missing by inches), it is to incompatible with my play style, but I haven't played a multiplayer FPS in a while. I am better with a battle rifle.
I can not get the Aim assist to work for me.
Last edited:
so your are saying nobody uses anything other than sniper rifles?? sorry thats just a massive gerneralisation and not anywhere close to believable. i may like sniper riflles, great ranged support and they have a few other uses, but its far better to use the right weapon for the job/roll they are designed for. sniping isnt gonna do you much good in tight quarters with multiple combatants, in the same way small arms will be impractical, if not useless, at range.
Last edited:
I completely agree with you on that regard. If one was to think about it the weapons in Elite Dangerous are very unrealistic.
If this was "realistic" the cannons would travel at similar velocity as multi-cannons as they are of the same "family" of weapons. As is cannons travel at speeds akin to grenade launchers.
I could have written a long post but I decided against it.
Looking at the cannon round in flight I expect the projectile to be an HEAP round (High Explosive Armor Piercing), or at a minimum an HE round, but it is an AP round (Armor piercing)
Last edited:
I never wanted to boast or anything.
Someone got the right point though.
Cannons are a skill weapon.
Also they are quite a specific one, as torpedoes they have a limited capacity so what it has must be used correctly.
No army in the world has infantry formations only equipped with sniper rifles.
Hell even simple fireteams have 4 different guns.
That's easily explained with flexibility.
I really think that there's a whole metagaming substrata to be studied. And that's when wings will be extremely handy.
There will be assault ships, support ones and firebase ones. I honestly can't wait to see how the player base will adapt to these mechanics.
Someone got the right point though.
Cannons are a skill weapon.
Also they are quite a specific one, as torpedoes they have a limited capacity so what it has must be used correctly.
No army in the world has infantry formations only equipped with sniper rifles.
Hell even simple fireteams have 4 different guns.
That's easily explained with flexibility.
I really think that there's a whole metagaming substrata to be studied. And that's when wings will be extremely handy.
There will be assault ships, support ones and firebase ones. I honestly can't wait to see how the player base will adapt to these mechanics.
Increase rail gun ammunition even to 100 and it is obvious that no one is going to use cannons at all. Increase cannon ammunition by a significant amount and this is going to be an all cannon load outs for everyone as ammunition replenishment would be required very rarely so that it would be almost unlimited ammunition.
It was not hard to develop such skills. Most of the players were flying with rail guns during Premium Beta. And this is going to happen again if rail gun ammunition is increased.
Last edited:
Bear in mind that the 'cannon family' is a very broad family.. they are, after all, just projectiles of varying sizes, composed of various materials, fired with a variety of propellants from a good selection of barrels of varying lengths
Projectile velocity as it leaves the barrel is determined by the quality (burn speed, expansion) and quantity of the propellant, the mass of the projectile, and the length of the barrel. A slower burning propellant needs a longer barrel to burn completely, but can on the other hand use a heavier projectile. A faster burning propellant may accelerate a lighter projectile to higher speeds if the same amount of propellant is used. The pressure resulting from the combustion process is a limiting factor on projectile velocity. A balance between propellant quality and quantity, projectile mass, and barrel length must be found for optimal performance. 'Optimal' is very much dependant on need, and tends to be a compromise between all effecting factors to meet that need, deployment ability (skill) factors into that too.
These basic mechanics still apply in space, things should only really change after the projectile leaves the barrel, we shouldnt have to account for friction, or any velocity reduction factors other than impact
Last edited:
Hypothetically if a rail gun does 10 times as much damage as a cannon and a cannon does 10 times as much damage as a multicannon, then giving a rail gun 10 slugs of ammo, a cannon 100 and a multicannon 1000 makes them all capable of doing the same amount of damge.
However because the multi cannon has more chances to hit the target it is more likely to do SOME damage while a rail gun either does 1000 damage or none, this is why most players use the multicannon.
It may not be the best weapon but it has the best chance of hitting a small craft while dog fighting, without ammo restrictions everyone was flting around using the biggest guns they could afford, i know, i was one of em.
However because the multi cannon has more chances to hit the target it is more likely to do SOME damage while a rail gun either does 1000 damage or none, this is why most players use the multicannon.
It may not be the best weapon but it has the best chance of hitting a small craft while dog fighting, without ammo restrictions everyone was flting around using the biggest guns they could afford, i know, i was one of em.
This
An ammo store that takes up an internal slot, making it another decision to make when equipping your ship. Should add weight when full as well.
People already complain about shield cells, you don't think there would be more when everyone is using railguns with lots of ammo????
Now virtually no one does. This is balanced?
The video from the last newsletter actually shows the opposite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=___lRaq-xZ4
After counting the tally neither AtheosisX nor Aleksej has favor using that as a reference.
The MC is using railguns while his main wing-man is using multi-cannons.
The pilot of the Cobra MK 3 used pulse laser cannons and railgns.
One of the initial pilots in the Brawl with the drop ship was using multi-cannons.
Interestingly enough over 95% of all projectile weapons fired were from multi-cannons, and the railguns were exclusively used on Commanders.
Last edited:
That's exactly how rail guns are used, i.e. against other players. They deal heavy damage against shields as well as against hulls. They have A-piercing rating, which allows module sniping.
Here is what it was possible to do given unlimited rail gun ammunition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsleqVkByn4
No. So much no. Using these properly with agile ships and having so much ammo reserve would be too much OP.
A skilled player in agile ship can use these very effectively. Damage output of these is very high and that is the reason behind limited ammo.
The whole idea is not to use only one type of weapon. On top of that Rail Guns are fantastic finishers but they can be used for instant kill if mounted on multiple hardpoints. This has to have some negative impact on the weapon - amount of ammo and with it a higher price. This forces player to think carefully when he will use these.
It would be like asking again gimballed beam lasers to be more precise and not to have thermal effect on the ship (which would be also wrong). Both cannons and gimablled beam lasers have been OP back in beta days and they have been nerfed accordingly.
A skilled player in agile ship can use these very effectively. Damage output of these is very high and that is the reason behind limited ammo.
The whole idea is not to use only one type of weapon. On top of that Rail Guns are fantastic finishers but they can be used for instant kill if mounted on multiple hardpoints. This has to have some negative impact on the weapon - amount of ammo and with it a higher price. This forces player to think carefully when he will use these.
It would be like asking again gimballed beam lasers to be more precise and not to have thermal effect on the ship (which would be also wrong). Both cannons and gimablled beam lasers have been OP back in beta days and they have been nerfed accordingly.
I think the point here is that "balance" is causing weapons to be degraded.
This is the same problem we are having with armour, hulls and shields. I built a whole spreadsheet using spheres as models for the ships and it is very obvious that the hull mass, armour and shield values are just hand picked by humans and not scaling with the simplified data (surface area).
The same is happening for the guns. PvP whiners complained about gimbals and so now they cannot lock on, they complain about OP weapons (dumbfires whatever) and now missiles are nerfed. The same happens with all the weapons. I'm betting that the new "heat nerfs" are hand tweaked too..
IMO, there is no "balance", the guns should each be built per spec - like they would for real life - and people will chose what they want to run. If things scale properly you wont be able to fit stupid sized weapons on small ships.
As I said, the problem here is that the ships/guns/modules are not physical models, if they were then the ships would be self limiting both for cargo capacity and what can be fitted, and "balance" will resolve itself.
The outcome is that everyone will want the bigger ships because they can fit significantly larger <everything>, and if you bump into a bigger ship than you, you are very likely toast. Frankly I'm OK with that. Vipers shouldn't be able to take down anacondas IMO (you'd need a whole squadron).
This is the same problem we are having with armour, hulls and shields. I built a whole spreadsheet using spheres as models for the ships and it is very obvious that the hull mass, armour and shield values are just hand picked by humans and not scaling with the simplified data (surface area).
The same is happening for the guns. PvP whiners complained about gimbals and so now they cannot lock on, they complain about OP weapons (dumbfires whatever) and now missiles are nerfed. The same happens with all the weapons. I'm betting that the new "heat nerfs" are hand tweaked too..
IMO, there is no "balance", the guns should each be built per spec - like they would for real life - and people will chose what they want to run. If things scale properly you wont be able to fit stupid sized weapons on small ships.
As I said, the problem here is that the ships/guns/modules are not physical models, if they were then the ships would be self limiting both for cargo capacity and what can be fitted, and "balance" will resolve itself.
The outcome is that everyone will want the bigger ships because they can fit significantly larger <everything>, and if you bump into a bigger ship than you, you are very likely toast. Frankly I'm OK with that. Vipers shouldn't be able to take down anacondas IMO (you'd need a whole squadron).
I agree with you.
As is the specs and stats of the gear is arbitrarily made resulting in little balance and zero consistency. That was the underlining complaint I have but I decided to state it.
In all honesty weapons are suppose to be lethal, in the current ED they are friendly. In addition the progress of offense tends to outpace the progress of defense. Meaning that the weapons in ED should shred ships in seconds.
All that being said Railguns would be the logical progress of weapons and the main kinetic weapon of large ships for numerous reasons. The main ones being ammo capacity (no need for propellent), a second advantage could be projectile velocity (with a railgun you can adjust the velocity from slow to fast with the press of a few buttons). A safety concern would be the lack of flammable/explosive propellent. One could easily calculate that expanding gas propelled weapons would be discouraged in space due to, in comparison to a precision made block of iron, the weapon's ammunition is highly flammable.
EDIT
That is probably because those "Railguns" are overpowered. They function closer to a ... particle beam weapon (From the Gundam Franchise).
A railgun is in essence a motor. Long story short a railgun is capable of accelerating a projectile faster than any expanding gas propelled weapon. Yes the properties of the impact change a little but those properties can be observed in normal ammunition.
A railgun projectile can "Explode" but that is the result of the metal being superheated and ignited by oxygen. In space a Railgun would only be a kinetic weapon with excellent penetration.
I made a list comparing the velocity and energy of conventional weapons, Gauss guns and railguns.
If one was to really think about it in ED, conventional weapons are underpowered and railguns are overpowered.
The main advantage to conventional weapons is the ammunition. There is a variety of ammo that can be used in cannon types, while with a railgun, due to the G forces of acceleration solid ammunition is recommended (or a slug and sabot). Modern railguns main issue is that the g forces of acceleration is in excess enough to destroy the projectile's guidance equipment.
Making Railguns a kinetic only weapon with high penetration would reduce their effectiveness against shields.
I did not want to say this at first but... the effects of the weapons are also inconsistent. Using the real world as the basis and following the three damage types.
Multi-Cannons and Cannons: Kinetic + Explosive (maybe thermal, it all depends on how the ammo is made but these weapons could be any combination of the three or all three at once.)
Fragment Cannons: Kinetic (It could use exotic ammunition to increase the weapon's lethality but for a shotgun that would be tricky, at best. Reactive metals might fix that giving the weapon Kinetic and thermal properties)
Lasers: Thermal
Plasma Cannon: Thermal (technically speaking a plasma pulse would burn at the hull, and raise the target's thermal signature. The containment would not be strong enough to punch a hole through it. Now if it was a plasma beam, the leading plasma would melt the hull while the trailing plasma would melt through what is underneath the hull)
Railguns: Kinetic (A slug of high density metal at high speed would fragment on impact, increasing the damage area behind the point of impact)
Last edited: