

Machine Gun Ammo.
#1
Posted 02 November 2013 - 09:18 AM
At least IMO 3500 rounds pr ton would be a ideal, would also make MG's more viable as you would have less to worry about.
(Damage for ammo explosions would still have to scale as it already does)
#2
Posted 02 November 2013 - 10:14 AM
TimePeriod, on 02 November 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:
At least IMO 3500 rounds pr ton would be a ideal, would also make MG's more viable as you would have less to worry about.
(Damage for ammo explosions would still have to scale as it already does)
If anything 2000 per ton is insanely high, its the machine gun that is lacking in effectiveness.
#4
Posted 02 November 2013 - 10:33 AM
I don't see the need to update its explosion damage as it's been untouched throughout the several previoius changes. It still does 0.04 instead of the new bullet damage of 0.1. Disparities between weapon damage and their explosion damage are fairly common. Artemis ammo, for example, explodes for a larger amount than the weapon's missile's can ever deal, while standard ammo explodes for less.
#5
Posted 02 November 2013 - 11:36 AM
1 ton = 2000lbs.
2000 / 35 = ~57.14 so about 57 x 100 = 5700 rounds of .50 cal bullets.
Lets assume Mechs use a much bigger bullet. roughly twice the size of the .50 Cal.
That still should be around 2500 to 3000 rounds per Ton of ammo.
But remember. in the calculation we've INCLUDED the weight of the BOX itself. So lets hope 57 Metal boxes would weight equal or around the Loading Mechanisms.
so Roughly between 2000 to 3000 rounds per ton would be good. Why not bump the ammo up to 2500 and be done with it?
#6
Posted 02 November 2013 - 12:01 PM
#7
Posted 02 November 2013 - 12:05 PM
Enzane, on 02 November 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:
1 ton = 2000lbs.
2000 / 35 = ~57.14 so about 57 x 100 = 5700 rounds of .50 cal bullets.
Lets assume Mechs use a much bigger bullet. roughly twice the size of the .50 Cal.
That still should be around 2500 to 3000 rounds per Ton of ammo.
But remember. in the calculation we've INCLUDED the weight of the BOX itself. So lets hope 57 Metal boxes would weight equal or around the Loading Mechanisms.
so Roughly between 2000 to 3000 rounds per ton would be good. Why not bump the ammo up to 2500 and be done with it?
Don't start trying to apply real life mechanics to giant walking death tanks. Down that path lies madness.
#8
Posted 03 November 2013 - 08:24 AM
aniviron, on 02 November 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:
Don't start trying to apply real life mechanics to giant walking death tanks. Down that path lies madness.
Not to mention the AC/1 aka Machine Gun is roughly 4 times the size of a .50 cal.
Notice a human can carry a .50 cal, good luck carrying a 1/2 ton machine gun.

#9
Posted 03 November 2013 - 08:26 AM
#10
Posted 03 November 2013 - 08:34 AM
FupDup, on 03 November 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:
I'd honestly settle for an increase in range to 150m along with giving them triple range for falloff like other ballistics, instead of the double they have now.
#11
Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:56 PM
The MGun right now only get 120 damage per ton. Ac20 get 140, rest get 150.
The MGun is a pathetic weapon and should never be used in arrays less than 4.
Its a bad weapon and PGI has no intentions of making it good. Much like the flamer.
#12
Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:57 PM
mwhighlander, on 03 November 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:
The MGun right now only get 120 damage per ton. Ac20 get 140, rest get 150.
The MGun is a pathetic weapon and should never be used in arrays less than 4.
Its a bad weapon and PGI has no intentions of making it good. Much like the flamer.
Actually the damage per ton of ammo is 200 (0.1 damage per bullet x 2000 shots). Regardless, the weapon could still use some lovin'.
#13
Posted 03 November 2013 - 07:59 PM
FupDup, on 03 November 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:
Is it now? I haven't noticed. Probably because the only ones shooting at me with them are spiders frantically running away.
Edited by mwhighlander, 03 November 2013 - 07:59 PM.
#14
Posted 04 November 2013 - 05:41 AM
#15
Posted 04 November 2013 - 05:42 AM
like an AMS?
#16
Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:49 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users