Extra Ammo in Cargo Hold

[Tidings]

There are a bunch of awesome, fun to use weapons that just don't get played because they have such limited ammo. While the limited ammo makes a certain amount of sense as a balancing factor, I think it would make them more playable if you could fill your cargo holds with extra ammo for them. This means they still are limited in ammo unless you decide to equip cargo space (already a trade off that would have players thinking), but it allows players to use weapons like the railgun for bounty hunting without having to go back every 5 minutes.

Example: Rail gun comes with 30 shots. Cargo rack of 2 can hold 2 tons of rail gun shots, for a total of 90 shots (30x3).

Yes it can be abused a bit more by ships like the Asp, but you're paying so much more for ships like the Asp and Anaconda etc that it doesn't seem unreasonable or imbalanced. It's not going to make any difference in a PVP situation anyways, except MAYBE with missiles. Just add a reload time and bam, problem solved. It'll only be good for extended bounty hunting runs.

Better yet, when players are able to walk around their own ships, make them have to get up and manually do the reload from the cargo bay!

-Tidings

 

[Arsen Cross]

Seconded. Especially on the getting out of your chair and manually moving the ammo around. I was already thinking that half way through your post lol.

 

[pcymog]

Yes, or just instead of using the cargo hold, just create a new module only usable for that feature.

 

[koberko]

Thumbs up for this!

Extra ammo racks can be internal components module that you buy, and they could have limited ammo capacity, but higher class ones will have slightly more, so you will have to sacrifice internal component to get limited extra ammo (for example, class 1 to hold 1/4 of regular ammo capacity, and top class up to 1/2; so for full extra ammo load, you will need at least 2 top class).
And that ammo should increase weight of ship; so having a lot of extra ammo would reduce your jump range. And nice extra feature would be option to dump ammo in to space, so that you can either increase your jump range when you need it, or that you can dump it for other players. That would be nice feature to use in wing; one of wing ships will act as ammo supplier and would pack his ship with extra ammo racks, and resupply other players with ammo, while they wreck ships and collect bounty. And supplier, as part of wing, will get his share of bounty credits.

 

[Tidings]

Yes, or just instead of using the cargo hold, just create a new module only usable for that feature.

Genius. Even simpler! Ammo holds.

 

[Anton_]

No, let's not do this, not any of it.

I know it sounds like it's akin to what real life might be like, or even probably would be like. But in game world, that would make it way too easy to simply stay out in BH land for longer. "But why not?" I hear you cry. Well, because the way it works now introduces the need to think about managing your resources, and that's part of the gameplay. If you simply had loads of everything, it would be too easy, and no challenge. And - manual reloading already happens - have you noticed how long it takes? That's you getting off your butt to pop another mag into the gun.

 

[PanzerKadaver]

To balance we could imagine an internal module named "Ammunition Auto-Loader" which have some requisites to work:
- Hardpoint retracted
- Thruster to 0
- Ammunition Box in Cargo Hold

When you activate it, in the function menu :
- Thruster disabled
- Hardpoint disabled
- Sometime to replenish ammunition in the Hardpoint's ammo racks.

 

[Dwarden]

what about next to "Cargo hold" we get new module named "Ammo hold"

 

[Magic Man]

It's all about balance yet people keep asking for buff this, buff that and then complain when something is nerfed to bring it back into balance elsewhere.
You can't have everything.

 

[Tidings]

To balance we could imagine an internal module named "Ammunition Auto-Loader" which have some requisites to work:
- Hardpoint retracted
- Thruster to 0
- Ammunition Box in Cargo Hold

When you activate it, in the function menu :
- Thruster disabled
- Hardpoint disabled
- Sometime to replenish ammunition in the Hardpoint's ammo racks.

That's not you getting up to reload, you couldn't possibly do that in an eagle. It's the ship doing it. But that's beside the point. The point is that right now almost everyone just uses a combination of lasers and multi-cannons because it's just not viable to fly somewhere with only 30 shots. Having an Ammo Hold allows you to get around this an adds more versatility and decision making to how you load out your ship, which is a good thing. I'm not saying "oh give everyone infinite ammo." I'm saying introduce a module or option to carry additional stores of ammo so we can actually consider using the other 80% of the guns in the game, which just get passed up in favor of multicannons. I want to use cannons but the lack of ammo makes it worthless for bounty hunting.

The reason it wouldn't be op is because

a) it's taking module space, instead of hull reinforcement, interdiction device, fuel scoop etc.
b) added weight, which is something combat ships try to avoid.
c) it wouldn't be usable while in combat. I can think of a number of ways to make it non-usable in combat off the top of my head.

And Magic Man, I'm not trying to "have everything," I'm just trying to have the other guns that are already in the game​.

-Tidings

 

[Magic Man]

But they are balanced as they are, you want them without the conditions. You want the big guns without the ammo limitation, i.e. to break the balance metric set for them.

 

[Malactus]

Simple solution in addition to it being only usable with hardpoints retracted:
If a commander decides to equip an ammo rack, it will behave as another weak point that is not as heavily protected as the power plant (but still robust). If ammo rack module reaches 0%, it -will blow up-, causing massive damage other internal components if it has ammo in it (it will not destroy the entire ship like the power plant, unless sufficient damage has already been done to everything else).

That way, there is a negative fault in them that makes people reconsider especially if their shields suddenly go down, and give a whole new aspect to "glass cannons".

So in summary the negative faults would be the following:

1. Lose an internal slot
2. Risk having it blow up and damage other modules if destroyed.
3. Add more mass depending on size
4. Powerplant usage (which is a really big point on combat ships, would also make sense to have everything retracted)
5. Requires hard points to be retracted to use, and depending on grade auto-reloads at a certain speed, health and on size would the amount of ammo that can be stored. (C1, quarter of all ammo for a single weapon, C2, half of all ammo, C3, full of all ammo, c4, twice of all ammo, C5, twice of all ammo, C6, thrice of all ammo (with it being a cap, but improving health) etc, with improving health., or simply have fixed amounts per rack)

 

[Tryst]

But they are balanced as they are, you want them without the conditions. You want the big guns without the ammo limitation, i.e. to break the balance metric set for them.

The balance metric is the speed they fire and the magazine limit before reloading, not the max amount of ammo as such.

With the ideas that others have suggested, throttle to zero, FSD offline (ie: not in SC), weapons retracted and some significant time to replenish the ammo, it's not something you'd do on the fly in battle. Quite honestly, if this had to be done every time you had to reload the weapon to it's max again, there's no reason not to allow thousands of rounds to be carried for a Railgun for example, it would still cost the same as reloading each time at a station. All it's doing is cutting out the need to return to a station to reload for a bit longer, you still can't do it with someone shooting at you.

Plus:
1. You can stay out longer before having to return to a station to reload.
2. For those ships with power issues, something that uses no power would be more useful too, they would either have an empty slot or an empty cargo module there otherwise.

Minus:
1. Remember that pure combat ships wouldn't often have cargo modules so that slot would probably be used for shield boosters, repair modules or such and you are giving those up as well to have more ammo just to stay out a bit longer.
2. The ammo rack would also mean weight and that means reduced jump range too, so think in terms of the victim who can jump but now the predator can't follow due to limited range.
3. Imagine if this could be a "sub-system" target as well, that's one big bang if it goes up. Maybe harder to destroy than the power plant but a lot more satisfying BOOM when it does go.

There could actually be more downsides to having this than would first appear.


Edit:
Malactus: Seems like we both had the same ideas at the same time
Although I would say it should have better protection than the power plant due to the volatile nature of it.

 

[Tidings]

But they are balanced as they are, you want them without the conditions. You want the big guns without the ammo limitation, i.e. to break the balance metric set for them.

The whole point of this post is because while we all like the fact that ammo is a factor, it is not balanced like you're saying. If it were, you would see a pretty even spread of weapons being used in different configurations, which isn't the case. I DO want the conditions. I DO want the limitations. I also want to have another option that allows me to consider kinetic weapons other than multi-cannons, since right now it's just not balanced. If you think it's balanced then we just have a different opinion, which is fine.

Malactus, that summary is perfect. I think it's a reasonable approach to balancing the ammo limitations. You're deciding between either

a) Taking limited ammo kinetics (like rail gun) as they are now, with no downsides other than low ammo count.
b) Taking limited ammo kinetics with extra ammo in the hold, but with the downsides discussed to compensate for being able to spend more time away from a station.
c) Or just continue to use multi-cannons.

-Tidings

 

[RenegadeXV8]

If you want a viable downside, how about just emulating it from the MechWarrior series?

If someone blows up your Ammo Hold, it does significant hull damage and/or damages any other component around it. Special ammo, like for Railguns or Plasma Accelerators, do more damage than Multi-Cannon/Cannon ammo.

 

[RallyPoint]

No, let's not do this, not any of it.

I know it sounds like it's akin to what real life might be like, or even probably would be like. But in game world, that would make it way too easy to simply stay out in BH land for longer. "But why not?" I hear you cry. Well, because the way it works now introduces the need to think about managing your resources, and that's part of the gameplay. If you simply had loads of everything, it would be too easy, and no challenge. And - manual reloading already happens - have you noticed how long it takes? That's you getting off your butt to pop another mag into the gun.

What you're saying is that "challenge" = making more pit stops to buy ammo. That's not a challenge; that's a time sink. People already "beat" this challenge by simply running all lasers when hunting NPCs. They stay out indefinitely and have less cost.

These ideas actually add MORE challenge because you now have to juggle more modules. Want more ammo? Need to give up something! That's truly forcing you to manage resources.

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

The whole point of this post is because while we all like the fact that ammo is a factor, it is not balanced like you're saying. If it were, you would see a pretty even spread of weapons being used in different configurations, which isn't the case. I DO want the conditions. I DO want the limitations. I also want to have another option that allows me to consider kinetic weapons other than multi-cannons, since right now it's just not balanced. If you think it's balanced then we just have a different opinion, which is fine.

Malactus, that summary is perfect. I think it's a reasonable approach to balancing the ammo limitations. You're deciding between either

a) Taking limited ammo kinetics (like rail gun) as they are now, with no downsides other than low ammo count.
b) Taking limited ammo kinetics with extra ammo in the hold, but with the downsides discussed to compensate for being able to spend more time away from a station.
c) Or just continue to use multi-cannons.

-Tidings

Nobody is saying "without conditions" and in fact people are suggesting them. Like making them a selectable target, exploding on destruction causing hull damage, requiring a 'cool down' to load more ammo from storage to weapon system, etc. etc.

So don't tell us we want everything for nothing and just wan OP weapons because that's frankly an insult.

We are sick of having to run to the dang station every 2 to 10 shots! It's insane and boring.

 

[VATrevelyan]

If you want a viable downside, how about just emulating it from the MechWarrior series?

If someone blows up your Ammo Hold, it does significant hull damage and/or damages any other component around it. Special ammo, like for Railguns or Plasma Accelerators, do more damage than Multi-Cannon/Cannon ammo.

Actually I could only see gun ammo and plasma ammo being a bother that way. Those ammo types can be somewhat...volatile.

But railgun slugs are just chunks of metal. Blowing it out would just mean you have some scrap to clear out when you RTB.

Actually, here's my suggestion for rack damage effects:

GUN AMMO: Internal explosion for quite a bit of hull damage and some systems damage (losing pressure will deflect the worst effects into space).

RAIL AMMO: Rail bolt slag has melted and fused the mechanics of the bin's loader, meaning repair costs will shoot up to x10 normal (or more) to fix it. And can't be removed unless it's fixed first.

PLASMA AMMO: Plasma vented into space, so hull damage is much lower than cannon ammo explosion, but containment failure blows out heating for a few moments (better carry heat sinks!) and damages secondary systems (any gear mounted on a cargo rack, including shield generators) heavily.

BTW, I think this is an excellent idea to have ammo racks.

 

[Tidings]

There's been a lot of cool ideas that have come out of this! I would love to have all this implemented, but even if it's just a simple ammo rack that takes a module spot, that would already make equiping my ship more enjoyable.

-Tidings

 

[S0k4r0]

Has its incoming a new Update, i want to remind this posibility to every forum reader, i agree with the option to use Cargo racks as ammunition storage to.

 

[Velixar]

Actually I could only see gun ammo and plasma ammo being a bother that way. Those ammo types can be somewhat...volatile.

But railgun slugs are just chunks of metal. Blowing it out would just mean you have some scrap to clear out when you RTB.

Well when you have ships like the Anaconda. With multiple ammo rack. Mixed with different hard points like cannons multi cannon ammo. Then add Explosion mix with chunks of metal = shrapnel. Which add to the damage.