Ammo limits back

[JerryLove]

This OP though...very impressive....I can't even begin to address his fallacious points about fuel, power, air, ammo, etc.

Yes. So attack the poster rather than the post. Good plan. Hope no one notices your lack of defensible position.

So to the topic. I'm very glad they fixed the ammo economy, now there is an economy again, a proper drawback to MCs has been re-implemented, bug squashed, good work FD.

The draw-back is that it's a time sink? That's a stupid draw-back.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

because i don't want to take the time to explain how stupid this threat is
sorry

Would you like some cheese with that wine?

 

[The Replicated Man]

So that's the end of your post then? Cool.

See: it turns out that games and reality aren't the same thing, and as I said in the part you quoted: E isn't realistic to begin with. So now we must discuss game-mecahnics.


Wait. I thought you were leaving that there.

What does that make you? Who solely posts on the thread to whine and complain about the thread?

To answer your Question I'm just tired of people complaining every day on the forums. I understand the game does have bugs to be worked out but give FD time, they will get the game running perfectly eventually.

 

[AdmiralFloof]

Holy crap, it finally pops up. I've been waiting for someone to whine about Multi-Cannon ammo being fixed in the latest patch and OP delivers yayyyyyyyy. Goodness gracious I have 2 Huge MC and I don't have any problem restocking it in stations at all

 

[Eymerich]

Really I am impressed... about how many attacked the poster.

Maybe because they have no idea to counter his idea? Don't know but it could be,.

Anyway.

We shouldn't forget that:

1) Nothing is real so everything can be changed : a rail gun whose balance was ammo now "can" became a weapon with no ammo;

1b) FD, in any time, can add ammo to laser weapon (they uses special energy cells for example),.

2) So Let's put away the "realistic" idea and let's have a look to "gameplay"

3) this bring to the next question: when there is balanced gameplay.

4) So I am asking: why Fd put the ammo limit to Mc?

Don't know, but this is definntly the right way to discuss an idea instead a poster...

 

[Darth Ender]

I'm disappointed that there isn't infinite credits. Credits are really easy to amass and having to periodically get more is such a grind and adds nothing beneficial to my gameplay. Non-infinite credits is bad design.

seriously.
I wish FD would bring back 10% buy back fee so it would drive these ridiculously entitled players off to infest some other game. Crying about not having infinite ammo. wth.

edit: You people realize it's always had ammo and a bug caused this to misbehave when 2.1 was released, right? the guns having ammo isn't a new feature. If you're going to complain about being entitled to stuff, stick to your favs like complaining about having to pay money for store items or some other nonsense. This is a bugfix and the behavior is returning to how it's been since before the game was released.

 

[Bacalao]

Yes. So attack the poster rather than the post. Good plan. Hope no one notices your lack of defensible position.


The draw-back is that it's a time sink? That's a stupid draw-back.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -


Would you like some cheese with that wine?

Sigh...no, I didn't attack anyone (I'm all out of ammo anyway ), I addressed the method of the OP as being counter productive, full of fallacies and destructive to discussion, which you've again illustrated (thank you). You're whole argument seems to be based on the fact that ammo doesn't play into combat, it just makes you leave combat when you run out. Yet you can't see how those two statements are contradictory. Go load up on MCs and fight some other commanders with lasers, lets see if that economy comes into play. When he's still damaging you while you're high waking out because your out of ammo, or you're distracted reloading come tell me how the economy doesn't matter. Tell me again how running out of ammo in RES or CZ doesn't affect your loadout choices and combat decisions. Tell me some more how that economy is dumb and pointless.
-
Personally I hate synthesis, it's silly. I don't mind things like FSD boost because catalysts are real and extremely potent, but making lots of ammo out of weightless ingredients has never sat well with me. However, one logic-less implementation does not justify another.
-
You're real argument is "I liked infinite ammo.", which is fine, but you can't justify it with any kind of rational argument because it doesn't have one, it's an emotional response. Which again is fine, you're entitled to your feelings and opinions, but its being your opinion does not make it fact.

 

[Kayweg]

Really I am impressed... about how many attacked the poster.

Maybe because they have no idea to counter his idea? Don't know but it could be,.

Anyway.

We shouldn't forget that:

1) Nothing is real so everything can be changed : a rail gun whose balance was ammo now "can" became a weapon with no ammo;

1b) FD, in any time, can add ammo to laser weapon (they uses special energy cells for example),.

2) So Let's put away the "realistic" idea and let's have a look to "gameplay"

3) this bring to the next question: when there is balanced gameplay.

4) So I am asking: why Fd put the ammo limit to Mc?

Don't know, but this is definntly the right way to discuss an idea instead a poster...

Here's a question, would he have argued against limited MC ammo if this bug had never happened ?

I know, we can't answer that.

But the timing of that OP is at least peculiar ?

 

[arfonfab]

The OP is correct that perceived realism should always be trumped by gameplay, and quite frankly the arguments against him have been infantile and embarrassing.

Having said that, the gameplay argument in favour of MC ammunition is to reward accuracy. Someone who wastes 5% of their shots is going to have far less downtime replacing it than someone who wastes 50%.

 

[MottiKhan]

I didn't read anything but the title, but can say I agree. The unlimited ammo bug is finally fixed! Thanks FD!

 

[Bacalao]

Really I am impressed... about how many attacked the poster.

Maybe because they have no idea to counter his idea? Don't know but it could be,.

Anyway.

We shouldn't forget that:

1) Nothing is real so everything can be changed : a rail gun whose balance was ammo now "can" became a weapon with no ammo;

1b) FD, in any time, can add ammo to laser weapon (they uses special energy cells for example),.

2) So Let's put away the "realistic" idea and let's have a look to "gameplay"

3) this bring to the next question: when there is balanced gameplay.

4) So I am asking: why Fd put the ammo limit to Mc?

Don't know, but this is definntly the right way to discuss an idea instead a poster...

The poster and his method have to be addressed when they shut down any possible constructive discussion about gameplay with the ridiculous statements he's making and the appalling lack of logic he attempts to apply. Why did they put the ammo limit back? Because without it there is no reason to run lasers. Good damage, good hit percentage, good range, no heat generation, very low capacitor draw. The drawback of MCs/cannons/PACs/Rails is making sure you've got enough ammo to finish the fight. Pathetic NPC AI doesn't do a very good job of bringing this economy out because it's boring, fish in a barrel. No one worries about how much ammo they can carry at a shooting range, put a guy in the field with real enemies shooting back and it will suddenly become a significant factor in his decisions.

 

[Casey Casem]

Multicannon ammo really isn't much of an issue with synthesis. I often have so much mats for ammo synthesis that I often discard those mats more often than use them.

 

[Kayweg]

Multicannon ammo really isn't much of an issue with synthesis. I often have so much mats for ammo synthesis that I often discard those mats more often than use them.

I'm really not agreeing with the OP on this topic, but you're assuming everyone plays 2.1, which is untrue.

 

[Eymerich]

Here's a question, would he have argued against limited MC ammo if this bug had never happened ?

I know, we can't answer that.

But the timing of that OP is at least peculiar ?

HOnestly?

No, I don't think: I didn't it consider it in over 1,5 year of game so I doubt it.

Anyway, what's wrong in this?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The poster and his method have to be addressed when they shut down any possible constructive discussion about gameplay with the ridiculous statements he's making and the appalling lack of logic he attempts to apply. Why did they put the ammo limit back? Because without it there is no reason to run lasers. Good damage, good hit percentage, good range, no heat generation, very low capacitor draw. The drawback of MCs/cannons/PACs/Rails is making sure you've got enough ammo to finish the fight. Pathetic NPC AI doesn't do a very good job of bringing this economy out because it's boring, fish in a barrel. No one worries about how much ammo they can carry at a shooting range, put a guy in the field with real enemies shooting back and it will suddenly become a significant factor in his decisions.

Okay, those are fair points.

But I wonder: Should I be - i am pushing the conclusion "hard" - "punished" leaving the game only because a weapon is better than an other?

This question in my opinion bring another one: is there a different way to balance it, letting me stay in my conflict zone instead that turning back with my Corvetto to refill my weapons?

 

[JerryLove]

The poster and his method have to be addressed when they shut down any possible constructive discussion about gameplay with the ridiculous statements he's making and the appalling lack of logic he attempts to apply.

And you prove his point that you are just whining about the poster rather than addressing the topic.

What's the issue with the actual first post? Because the first three responses were passive-aggressive sarcasm; so I wonder if blame is not being misplaced.

Why did they put the ammo limit back? Because without it there is no reason to run lasers.

Better shield damage.
No reload time.
No flight delay (so far less missing).

Even if we presumed that your statement was true (that lasers are useless compared to multi-cannons); resolving that by adding "multi-cannons add the inconvenience of occasionally running back to a station or having to spend time on a planet first" doesn't resolve the complaint.

If you could run out in a single battle (see torpedos); that would be one-thing. But if there's no reason to use lasers with unlimited-ammo MCs, then there's no reason to use lasers with limited-ammo MCs either.

To put this another way: this change doesn't effect my ship load-out at all. It merely means it will take me longer to kill the same number of things.

The

drawback of MCs/cannons/PACs/Rails is making sure you've got enough ammo to finish the fight. Pathetic NPC AI doesn't do a very good job of bringing this economy out because it's boring, fish in a barrel. No one worries about how much ammo they can carry at a shooting range, put a guy in the field with real enemies shooting back and it will suddenly become a significant factor in his decisions.

I've never run out in a single fight, have you?

And even if I accept that premise: synthesis throws that limitation out the window.

You are attempting to deal with one percieved flaw by throwing another at it.

Some *good* flaws in multi-cannons.
Travel time.
Reloading. (between magazines, not at stations)

If they are actually over-powered, then fix what makes them over-powered.

If MCs were coming with 300 rounds instead of 2100: that would be balance effecting; but then no one would use them.

You are welcome to disagree with my statement that trips back to the station to reload are dull game-play; but no one has done that.

Instead they toss insults, or they throw out "realism", and then when I respond to *their* claims accuse me of going off topic.

Having to re-supply MCs at stations does not add balance or challenge. It only takes time.
It isn't even defensible as "realistic" in light of synthesis and the fact that I cannot store more ammo in my cargo hold.
It's not a limitation (like ammo is for torps)... it's just an annoyance.

 

[KG_Jedi]

Yes. Storing ammo in a gigantic ship is unrealistic.
Unlike faster than light travel.
And resurrection / indestructable escape pods.
And unlimited air/power.
And a lack of g-forces.
And unlimited (near) delta V despite a lack of substantial reaction mass.
And space-ships that fly like planes.
and don't even get me started on their grasp of thermodynamics.
.. nor what communications is or is not actually like.

I could sit all day listing.

Seriously?

There isn't a single thing about this game that's realistic except the scale of the galaxy.

So: back to the game play issue. This is bad design.

Let me rephrase this. Unlimited ammo would make no sense from gameplay point. If there is a technical(gameplay) reasons we don't get splashed on window upon hitting something at 330 m/s / can't accelerate infinitely and etc, then there is no excuse for having unlimited ammo in game.

Oh and by the way - faster than light is actually made possible by "space warp". Resurrection is explained by ship putting pilot in escape pod with powerful one-time use FSD before exploding. Unlimited air might be explained by having some air restoration system (sort of greenhouse). Power is provided by your powerplant, which uses hydrogen as fuel (you explode if you run out of fuel). Not sure where you saw spaceships flying like planes, but you can disable Flight assist and enjoy true space flight. Only thing is inability yo accelerate infinitrly, but that could be due to game mechanics.

 

[askavir]

Is this a parody post or are you serious?

It would be even funnier if it was serious.,

 

[Bacalao]

And you prove his point that you are just whining about the poster rather than addressing the topic.

What's the issue with the actual first post? Because the first three responses were passive-aggressive sarcasm; so I wonder if blame is not being misplaced.


Better shield damage.
No reload time.
No flight delay (so far less missing).

Far more heat generation and capacitor draw, with incendiary rounds MCs no longer worry about shields.

Even if we presumed that your statement was true (that lasers are useless compared to multi-cannons); resolving that by adding "multi-cannons add the inconvenience of occasionally running back to a station or having to spend time on a planet first" doesn't resolve the complaint.

If you could run out in a single battle (see torpedos); that would be one-thing. But if there's no reason to use lasers with unlimited-ammo MCs, then there's no reason to use lasers with limited-ammo MCs either.

To put this another way: this change doesn't effect my ship load-out at all. It merely means it will take me longer to kill the same number of things.

You absolutely run out in a single battle, (a CZ, a PvP battle, a RES), as I stated, NPC AI is so sad that single opponents don't provide sufficient challenge, but players thought the AI was too hard to pop like bubbles in the air for easy credits so we are where we are. CZs, RES, Nav being persistent and endless is a separate issue. If you leaving a CZ meant that the battle was going to turn then we'd see the ammo restrictions in a more appropriate light. Again, one poor mechanic does not justify implementing another poor mechanic. Even with the system as it is, you run multis, you have to leave the fight, you're not winning it for your side anymore.

I've never run out in a single fight, have you?

Yes, a bunch of times, fight something tougher.

And even if I accept that premise: synthesis throws that limitation out the window.

Let me repeat this again, one poor mechanic does not justify another.

You are attempting to deal with one percieved flaw by throwing another at it.

No, I am simply looking at the mechanics as a whole across all possible scenarios.

Some *good* flaws in multi-cannons.
Travel time.
Reloading.

If they are actually over-powered, then fix what makes them over-powered.

FD just did, you are complaining about it for some reason.

If MCs were coming with 300 rounds instead of 2100: that would be balance effecting; but then no one would use them.

Hence the 1200 round limit.

You are welcome to disagree with my statement that trips back to the station to reload are dull game-play; but no one has done that.

When something is on the line (wingman in a hot CZ/SS needing help, PvP battle, defending CG system against pirates, pirating a CG system, blockading), it's not at all dull.

Instead they toss insults, or they throw out "realism", and then when I respond to *their* claims accuse me of going off topic.

Addressed in my previous post.

Having to re-supply MCs at stations does not add balance or challenge. It only takes time.
It isn't even defensible as "realistic" in light of synthesis and the fact that I cannot store more ammo in my cargo hold.
It's not a limitation (like ammo is for torps)... it's just an annoyance.

Already addressed.

 

[CMDR Aengus]

I agree. Its all nonsense.

It's a game. Stop pretending to be rocket scientists.

However, unlimited mc ammo, allowing me to stay in a fight indefinitely...
... Well, that's just a grind.
Might as well play Space Invaders.

I'd rather dock for 10 minutes and go get a cuppa and a biscuit or two.

Besides, lasers aren't unlimited either, you need to manage your power effectively. And even then. You can't pewpew indefinitely.

So ner.

Point is moot.

 

[JerryLove]

Let me rephrase this. Unlimited ammo would make no sense from gameplay point.

Because it lowers tedium without adversely affecting balance.

If there is a technical(gameplay) reasons we don't get splashed on window upon hitting something at 330 m/s / can't accelerate infinitely and etc, then there is no excuse for having unlimited ammo in game.

Those actually change game balance, making the game "easier" (seriously: try matching orbits in KSP without a flight control computer).

We don't even need FTL travel: but real travel times would be [wait for it...] tedious.

Oh and by the way - faster than light is actually made possible by "space warp". Resurrection is explained by ship putting pilot in escape pod with powerful one-time use FSD before exploding. Unlimited air might be explained by having some air restoration system (sort of greenhouse). Power is provided by your powerplant, which uses hydrogen as fuel (you explode if you run out of fuel).

Yea. Miracles. Remind me again why it takes 50 tons to give my pilot 30 min of space-suit air on a python.

So add to your miracle list the ability to store things in cargo (like: you know, ammo).
Or imagine your synthesis replicator can replicate some.
Or pretend that your ship is really honking big and can store enough ammo to make this issue moot.

Not sure where you saw spaceships flying like planes

Everywhere. These aren't space-ships at all. These are (WWII) planes in space.

The space shuttle travels faster in real space than these things do.
They have a top speed (like planes, but unlike spaceships).
They have signifigant thrust in multiple directions (like planes, but unlike space-ships).
They roll really well, pitch sort-of-ok, and yaw poorly (like planes, but unlike spaceships).

Try KSP sometime. See how different actual spaceship are.

but you can disable Flight assist and enjoy true space flight. Only thing is inability yo accelerate infinitrly, but that could be due to game mechanics.

Can I accelerate along a vector without changing my inertia along an existing vector?

"Coasting while reorienting" is indeed something spacecraft do that planes do not; but it is far from the only difference.

 

[StiTch]

This post wins one of two awards:

1) The greatest troll post this forum has ever seen
2) The worst post this forum has ever seen