Suggestion: AMMO Rack/ Laser Amplifier

[M.E.A.T]

Ammo Rack

The idea for the Cargo Rack is not exactly new here, but i have not seen a serious discussion on this idea yet (or i may have missed it). Therefore I would like to bring it up n as we really need something to add variation to our beloved ship loadout.

The Ammo Rack should be internal module slot (naturally) and you may fill the rack with 1 type of ammo per rack. This will add variety to the loadouts for those that like to fight with projectiles/missiles type wep. No more stuffing the empty internal module slot with SCB because there's nothing else better to fit.

Laser Amplifier

Another idea would be a Laser Amplifier of some sort that increase Laser damage at the cost of heat + increase capacitor drain rate. the increase in power should co-related with the increase drain rate of the capacitor, so it would mean you do the total amount of damage per capacitor in a shorter time, i.e., burst damage. Higher rating reflect in the more efficiency in capacitor drain rate and heat generation (A rate increase total damage by 20%).

We could add charges to this module if we think it will be overpower, but if it is going to be implemented i would suggest we try with out charges first to see how it goes (FD can always change that). I haven't thought it through whether this module should be internal or external though.

 

[Magic Man]

Ammo Rack

The idea for the Cargo Rack is not exactly new here, but i have not seen a serious discussion on this idea yet (or i may have missed it).

You missed it. Been done to death. Ammo is ammo, cargo is cargo. You couldn't convert a ship to switch to and feed from an ammo container in the hold without a huge amount of modification. Not "realistic", too gamey. Basically an ammo buff request,

Laser Amplifier

Another idea would be a Laser Amplifier of some sort that increase Laser damage at the cost of heat + increase capacitor drain rate. the increase in power should co-related with the increase drain rate of the capacitor, so it would mean you do the total amount of damage per capacitor in a shorter time, i.e., burst damage. Higher rating reflect in the more efficiency in capacitor drain rate and heat generation (A rate increase total damage by 20%).

We could add charges to this module if we think it will be overpower, but if it is going to be implemented i would suggest we try with out charges first to see how it goes (FD can always change that). I haven't thought it through whether this module should be internal or external though.

Meh. just n'th variation of current laser calculations, another stat modifier for the sake of it. Bit pointless really, just incorporate the effect as a separate weapon variation rather than a modifier, but then we already have pulse, burst, beam - is there really much point in another variation?

 

[Arrichion]

You missed it. Been done to death. Ammo is ammo, cargo is cargo. You couldn't convert a ship to switch to and feed from an ammo container in the hold without a huge amount of modification. Not "realistic", too gamey. Basically an ammo buff request,

That's why ammo bays would be different from cargo racks. You really shouldn't drop words like 'unrealistic' into discussions like this, you know. The entire game hinges upon an extremely unrealistic proposition.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

That's why ammo bays would be different from cargo racks. You really shouldn't drop words like 'unrealistic' into discussions like this, you know. The entire game hinges upon an extremely unrealistic proposition.

I largely agree with Magic man, especially on the second point. It seems silly to add an internal compartment aspect to the game when we already have variations like focused lasers etc. For the most part I think ammo is okay. If thermal weapons did less damage to hull/subsystems I think everything would work itself out.

 

[Magic Man]

That's why ammo bays would be different from cargo racks. You really shouldn't drop words like 'unrealistic' into discussions like this, you know. The entire game hinges upon an extremely unrealistic proposition.

They'd only be different to serve a game mechanic of buffing ammo. Ammo is limited for a reason, it's not an unlimited supply space shooter.
"unrealistic" in this context is fine, the request is asking for things that wouldn't be considered because they are, ultimately, rather pointless. Just because it's a game doesn't mean we just throw away any semblance to common sense.
"The entire game hinges upon an extremely unrealistic proposition" - does it? really?

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

Oh no! More ammo or weapon amplifiers would actually force you to think about fitting anything else than SCBs for combat builds and would lead to imbalance - the Horror!

+1 to op

 

[Fendalton]

Ammo rack would be cool if you could target it as a module to see a massive, excessive explosion when you destroy it.

 

[Asphine Nytrix]

Ofc. that would be disadvantage of having more ammo. Another weak subsystem. So in the end it would work out perfectly.

 

[Arrichion]

"The entire game hinges upon an extremely unrealistic proposition" - does it? really?

Faster-than-light travel doesn't exist. Shocking, I know.

Either way, this IS an unlimited ammo space shooter, as long as you just equip lasers. Using lasers is currently the most efficient way to bounty hunt, but it gets pretty boring using the same weapons all the time. All ammunition restricted weapons have other inherent balancing factors incorporated into their design already, such as projectile speed, energy requirements, heat generation, etc. Ammunition should be a way of adding a cost to the use of a weapon, and the availability of ammunition racks would reinforce that aspect. Ammo would still be limited. Carrying more of it would cost you cargo space, jump range, speed, and maneuverability. Therefore, ammo is not a balance issue, it is a quality of life issue. Allowing people to carry more of it doesn't make them one bit more deadly, it just allows more time in the field.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Therefore, ammo is not a balance issue, it is a quality of life issue. Allowing people to carry more of it doesn't make them one bit more deadly, it just allows more time in the field.

Give me more ammo in my frag cannons and I'll show you exactly how much more deadly they become.

 

[Arrichion]

Give me more ammo in my frag cannons and I'll show you exactly how much more deadly they become.

Their combat characteristics would not change in any way, with the sole exception of how long you could use them in the field. They'd still do the same damage over time, they'd still cost you the same amount per shot, and they'd still require you to get very up close and personal to your targets. The weapon is balanced by its inherent properties, it is unduly limited by its ammo reserves.

I think the problem with ammunition limits currently is a disconnect between how the game is played and how the developers intended it to be played. From what I've read, the devs never intended for players in PvE to go out and kill legions of npc ships. In such a scenario, low ammo counts make sense if the intent is for players to kill a small handful of enemies and then return to base. That isn't how PvE is actually played, however. Bounty hunters make money by finding active resource extraction sites and staying as long as possible, or people go to conflict zones and fight until they can't fight any more. Weapons with low ammo counts are useless in both of these situations.

 

[Drucifer]

Their combat characteristics would not change in any way, with the sole exception of how long you could use them in the field. They'd still do the same damage over time, they'd still cost you the same amount per shot, and they'd still require you to get very up close and personal to your targets. The weapon is balanced by its inherent properties, it is unduly limited by its ammo reserves.

I think the problem with ammunition limits currently is a disconnect between how the game is played and how the developers intended it to be played. From what I've read, the devs never intended for players in PvE to go out and kill legions of npc ship. In such a scenario, low ammo counts make sense if the intent is for players to kill a small handful of enemies and then return to base. That isn't how PvE is actually played, however. Bounty hunters make money by finding active resource extraction sites and staying as long as possible, or people go to conflict zones and fight until they can't fight any more. Weapons with low ammo counts are useless in both of these situations.

This is correct. Like it or not (generally) the kind of person who digs this kind of game is hardwired to appreciate and strive for optimisation. And although min/maxers seem to get a bit of stick, this kind of game doesn't lend itself to much beyond min/maxing. An explorer will try to get the best range, and bounty hunter will try to maximise deadliness/hardiness, traders will try to make their trade runs as profitable as possible etc... And who says doing this can't be fun?

That said...

I would love to use some weapons the game has to offer they are just totally impractical; 100 shots before I have to go home to re-load? You can run out of ammo in the same time it takes you to go somewhere in the first place. The fact that laser weapons are unambiguously the best choice is a shame.