<!--quoteo(post=1781326:date=Jul 21 2010, 11:36 AM:name=BRICE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BRICE @ Jul 21 2010, 11:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1781326"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The more simple the equipment the more mass production friendly it is. Just looking at "estimated AK47's in circulation" right now 90+ million. Take those and add pistols shotguns etc. You will have a colonization arsenal that lasts you for decades meanwhile you develop future.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This! The TSA fights in all kinds of enviorments under different conditions, so it's better to have simple and reliable equipment instead of frickly hight tech stuff with lots of complicated small little parts (more parts means higher chance of something breaking)....
What is a marine gonna do if the flux compensator inside his Plasma Launcher MKIV breaks when he's out in the field? Not much unless he's an tech specialist and has specialised equipment with him to repair it.
What is a marine gonna do if the stock of his projectile based rifle breaks? Search for a piece of metal and tape it on the gun, repair done!
I believe this is also one of the reasons why the US had so much trouble in vietnam, they had the technically superior M16 vs the Vietcongs AK47's. The M16 would often break/jam because of all the little small parts in such an dirty enviorment while the AK47's where rather simple, sturdy and easy to break down/clean/repair because it has less small frickly parts.
If i'm wrong with that some gun-nut feel free to correct me, it's something i read somewhere/saw in some documentation and as i have zero reallife experience with firearms i don't really know how much of it is actually true.
Weapons that have their "fuel" integrated into the ammunition will be around for some time, because they require 0 electronics to work.
The weapon works completely mechanical and energy needed to subdue a target is store chemically.
The reason why it is stored in small heaps ( every bullet comes with its own energy reserve) is that we cannot draw a small amount of energy from a large energy pool without complicated, error prone, mechanics or electronics.
And electronics can be easily corrupted by strong electromagnetic fields.
Then there is the small problem of energy weapons with a high enough output to actually kill produce large electromagnetic fields of their own, meaning you have to shield your own weapons electronics from your buddys e-field.
<!--quoteo(post=1781322:date=Jul 21 2010, 05:49 AM:name=RobB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RobB @ Jul 21 2010, 05:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1781322"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What about the horrible accidents where personal is teleported instead of enemys? Try to explain that to the public media...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wouldn't be at all that different from explaining how you liquefied a few team members brains with your automatic rifle.
Hey we are going to loose this war if we don't start cutting through the red tape and rolling out the BFG9000's! FFS the current issue TSA primary weapon is barely an improvement from the weapons from 3 centuries ago!
The main advantages of a laser are that it's instant hit and has no recoil. The disadvantages of lasers are that they use sensitive optics, require huge amounts of power, and are entirely useless in environments with atmospheric inteference like smoke, steam, and water spray because all of those will disperse the laser.
So either when fighting aliens you can take a shotgun, which is robust, powerful, carries its power source with its projectiles, and which is easy to hit with, or you can take a laser which is super accurate, making it hard to hit fast moving aliens at point blank with as any LMG user will tell you, requires you to run around with a small power plant on your back or carry large heavy batteries, and which breaks if you drop it.
Projectile weapons are amazingly powerful, a normal bullet carries about as much force as being hit with a baseball bat compressed into an area the diameter of a AA battery, a shotgun shell can blow fist sized holes in most materials including people, and with better explosives, gun barrels, and machining technology you can increase that further. If you can build armor that's harder than steel and grenades that can vaporise half a deck, you can build shotguns which can shoot holes in said armor and would make quite effective mincemeat of aliens. Technology doesn't really change war that much except in terms of range, the range extends but soldiers can still die from one bullet just as they did centuries ago, even tanks die in one shot from a modern rocket launcher. It's reasonable to assume the aliens are actually using armor that's stronger than titanium or something, and the marine shotguns are firing super depleted unobtanium pellets.
Plus NS's design is all about the gritty industrial scifi look, so boomsticks and rust are the order of the day.
It's nice to see the majority of the responses backing up the gritty feel of NS. I remember back in the day of old-school NS forums when new players would come on and fight over and over that NS needed laser weapons and plasma cannons. ... ... Hm, maybe it's because most people on the forums now are veterans from NS1
I'm sure it's actually much more futuristic than it seems. Take the progress being made today for instance: everything is being made sleeker, more efficient and more environmentally friendly. So sure, the guns use bullets, but the bullets are made of 100% recycled materials, the shells are biodegradable and the combustion creates zero greenhouse gases! Now that's war Al Gore can believe in!
<!--quoteo(post=1781544:date=Jul 21 2010, 07:07 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 21 2010, 07:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1781544"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plus NS's design is all about the gritty industrial scifi look, so boomsticks and rust are the order of the day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This <u>and only this</u>. By attempting to justify it from a realism perspective you only give credence to the fact that it can be, when it can't. The truth of the matter is, as Cory said, it is purely a stylistic choice: "low-fi dirty-tech". For all the same reasons no one attempts to justify the physics behind steampunk.
<!--quoteo(post=1781675:date=Jul 22 2010, 10:00 AM:name=TSS)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TSS @ Jul 22 2010, 10:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1781675"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They do use bullits.
To shoot the android walking human computers that they created. But still, bullits.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do!
And they have super advanced technology, like jump drives. Yet they still use bullets instead of energy based weapons. What could this mean? Maybe that weapons which use chemically stored energy to propel a projectile are vastly superior to energy based weapons. Especially in space, when you don't have to counteract friction.
<!--quoteo(post=1781717:date=Jul 22 2010, 11:20 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Jul 22 2010, 11:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1781717"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think some people obviously want to play Tom Clancy's Natural Selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Rather have James Cameron's Aliens style Natural Selection plx
A conventional fire arm is far more better than some high tech weapon, easy to use, easy to maintain, easy to fix.
Get a malfunction with your fire arm? More than half the time the operator can fix it themselves with the right action drill; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whats wrong with it and fix it.
Fancy high tech stuff likes to break no matter what you do to protect it, funny how it works out. There's a reason for back up iron sights on weapons and why soldiers are taught how to read a map and use a compass.
Having your weapon go down in a fight will cost you and your friends greatly.... In NS it will make you a chew toy for aliens.
And they have super advanced technology, like jump drives. Yet they still use bullets instead of energy based weapons. What could this mean? Maybe that weapons which use chemically stored energy to propel a projectile are vastly superior to energy based weapons. Especially in space, when you don't have to counteract friction.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually space lends a lot of benefits to energy weapons.
A laser would not be affected by atmosphere or lose focus, charged particle weapons would not conduct heat into space, there's no dust or dirt to clog sensitive components. Space probably helps energy weapons more than it does projectile weapons, although space being close to an ideal environment generally makes everything work better.
Except heat management, hard to cool spaceships down because you can't conduct the heat away, only radiate it.
Lasers are extremely impractical for combat and impossible for a soldier to use in place of a gun because of the stupid power requirements. I doubt the Marines in NS have the technology to do this and even if they did, why the hell would they spend that kind of money?
<!--quoteo(post=1782075:date=Jul 23 2010, 05:22 AM:name=Lemming Jesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lemming Jesus @ Jul 23 2010, 05:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782075"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lasers are extremely impractical for combat and impossible for a soldier to use in place of a gun because of the stupid power requirements. I doubt the Marines in NS have the technology to do this and even if they did, why the hell would they spend that kind of money?
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxcwlJ30uAw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxcwlJ30uAw</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> To be fair, because we are spending the money right now.
We have lasers right now. It's just a matter of time before "impossible" becomes possible. Not only that, but efficient, too. Hell, no one in the 1200's would have EVER thought that soldiers would be walking around with miniature cannons with incredible accuracy, low recoil, a rate of fire in measured in rounds/second, and light weight clips of ammunition for reloading. And now "they just make sense". That's because we're used to them now. A thousand years ago, the guns everyone now say are "practical" and "efficient" were pure speculative fiction and nothing more.
And a thousand years from now, lasers will "just make sense" and gamers will having an argument over why "Lasers are in my Sci Fi game?" and "What about anti-gravitational quantum variance feedback annihiliators? That's REAL Sci Fi." More probably in 200 years, given that the pace of technology gets exponentially quicker.
In any case, Unknown Worlds Entertainment is right for not putting laser guns in their game. "Gritty" and "Laser gun" don't mix. Lasers don't work well with "dark, broody atmosphere" since they are a fantastical device. "Grimy Shotguns" do.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1782089:date=Jul 23 2010, 06:31 AM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Jul 23 2010, 06:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782089"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We have lasers right now. It's just a matter of time before "impossible" becomes possible. Not only that, but efficient, too. Hell, no one in the 1200's would have EVER thought that soldiers would be walking around with miniature cannons with incredible accuracy, low recoil, a rate of fire in measured in rounds/second, and light weight clips of ammunition for reloading. And now "they just make sense". That's because we're used to them now. A thousand years ago, the guns everyone now say are "practical" and "efficient" were pure speculative fiction and nothing more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure I buy that argument. The modern firearm operates on the same principle as a cannon, a slingshot or even a fist in that it launches a macroscopic projectile toward a target, utilizing the kinetic energy of the projectile to cause damage. Conceptually only the means of propulsion differs. If one were to try to extend this comparison to the future, it would lead to such weapons as railguns and coilguns, which accelerate macroscopic projectiles using electromagnetic means.
The main problem that I see with laser and particle beam weapons, at least in comparison to projectile weapons, is that they are easily stopped. A particle traveling at or near the speed of light has a much lower ratio of momentum to kinetic energy than a bullet moving only at several times the speed of sound. Whereas a bullet can penetrate the outer surface of a target and cause damage to its interior, a laser or particle beam weapon would transfer all of its energy to the outer surface - to damage the interior, you would have to completely vaporize all matter along the way. (Of course, the very vaporization of the surface would carry explosive force, which may damage the interior through shockwaves, and this could be considered the primary purpose of the weapon.) Additionally, light can be reflected (imagine using a laser against a white target) and charged particles tend to be stopped by intervening atmosphere.
<!--quoteo(post=1782110:date=Jul 23 2010, 02:03 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Jul 23 2010, 02:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782110"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not sure I buy that argument. The modern firearm operates on the same principle as a cannon, a slingshot or even a fist in that it launches a macroscopic projectile toward a target, utilizing the kinetic energy of the projectile to cause damage. Conceptually only the means of propulsion differs. If one were to try to extend this comparison to the future, it would lead to such weapons as railguns and coilguns, which accelerate macroscopic projectiles using electromagnetic means.
The main problem that I see with laser and particle beam weapons, at least in comparison to projectile weapons, is that they are easily stopped. A particle traveling at or near the speed of light has a much lower ratio of momentum to kinetic energy than a bullet moving only at several times the speed of sound. Whereas a bullet can penetrate the outer surface of a target and cause damage to its interior, a laser or particle beam weapon would transfer all of its energy to the outer surface - to damage the interior, you would have to completely vaporize all matter along the way. (Of course, the very vaporization of the surface would carry explosive force, which may damage the interior through shockwaves, and this could be considered the primary purpose of the weapon.) Additionally, light can be reflected (imagine using a laser against a white target) and charged particles tend to be stopped by intervening atmosphere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Laser wielding octopi!
First they squirt you with ink, then comes the LAZERS!
Just on a side note: Lasers can penetrate matter without destroying it and deliver their energy in deeper layers. This way tattoos are removed. However the wave length has to be very carefully adjusted, even to the distance to the target making electronics a necessity for a penetrating laser.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1781996:date=Jul 23 2010, 04:56 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 23 2010, 04:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1781996"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually space lends a lot of benefits to energy weapons.
A laser would not be affected by atmosphere or lose focus, charged particle weapons would not conduct heat into space, there's no dust or dirt to clog sensitive components. Space probably helps energy weapons more than it does projectile weapons, although space being close to an ideal environment generally makes everything work better.
Except heat management, hard to cool spaceships down because you can't conduct the heat away, only radiate it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except they are no in space, but in a life support system tailored for us fragile human. And guessing from drilling sites or other mineral extraction shizzle, I wouldn't want to call that particular a dust free environment. I won't even go into what the aliens do with their humid environment and what that does to weapon reliability :P
Comments
Just looking at "estimated AK47's in circulation" right now 90+ million.
Take those and add pistols shotguns etc.
You will have a colonization arsenal that lasts you for decades meanwhile you develop future.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This!
The TSA fights in all kinds of enviorments under different conditions, so it's better to have simple and reliable equipment instead of frickly hight tech stuff with lots of complicated small little parts (more parts means higher chance of something breaking)....
What is a marine gonna do if the flux compensator inside his Plasma Launcher MKIV breaks when he's out in the field?
Not much unless he's an tech specialist and has specialised equipment with him to repair it.
What is a marine gonna do if the stock of his projectile based rifle breaks? Search for a piece of metal and tape it on the gun, repair done!
I believe this is also one of the reasons why the US had so much trouble in vietnam, they had the technically superior M16 vs the Vietcongs AK47's. The M16 would often break/jam because of all the little small parts in such an dirty enviorment while the AK47's where rather simple, sturdy and easy to break down/clean/repair because it has less small frickly parts.
If i'm wrong with that some gun-nut feel free to correct me, it's something i read somewhere/saw in some documentation and as i have zero reallife experience with firearms i don't really know how much of it is actually true.
Why so serious...
Meh nevermind. I'll go stand on the sideline, lobbing rotten tomatoes at you LAZOR enthusiasts :P
Who cares what makes sense for the future... the low-fi style of NS is very cool.
The weapon works completely mechanical and energy needed to subdue a target is store chemically.
The reason why it is stored in small heaps ( every bullet comes with its own energy reserve) is that we cannot draw a small amount of energy from a large energy pool without complicated, error prone, mechanics or electronics.
And electronics can be easily corrupted by strong electromagnetic fields.
Then there is the small problem of energy weapons with a high enough output to actually kill produce large electromagnetic fields of their own, meaning you have to shield your own weapons electronics from your buddys e-field.
this is grimy and summy. The weapons match this. Bullets aren't clean.
Try to explain that to the public media...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wouldn't be at all that different from explaining how you liquefied a few team members brains with your automatic rifle.
Hey we are going to loose this war if we don't start cutting through the red tape and rolling out the BFG9000's! FFS the current issue TSA primary weapon is barely an improvement from the weapons from 3 centuries ago!
The main advantages of a laser are that it's instant hit and has no recoil. The disadvantages of lasers are that they use sensitive optics, require huge amounts of power, and are entirely useless in environments with atmospheric inteference like smoke, steam, and water spray because all of those will disperse the laser.
So either when fighting aliens you can take a shotgun, which is robust, powerful, carries its power source with its projectiles, and which is easy to hit with, or you can take a laser which is super accurate, making it hard to hit fast moving aliens at point blank with as any LMG user will tell you, requires you to run around with a small power plant on your back or carry large heavy batteries, and which breaks if you drop it.
Projectile weapons are amazingly powerful, a normal bullet carries about as much force as being hit with a baseball bat compressed into an area the diameter of a AA battery, a shotgun shell can blow fist sized holes in most materials including people, and with better explosives, gun barrels, and machining technology you can increase that further. If you can build armor that's harder than steel and grenades that can vaporise half a deck, you can build shotguns which can shoot holes in said armor and would make quite effective mincemeat of aliens. Technology doesn't really change war that much except in terms of range, the range extends but soldiers can still die from one bullet just as they did centuries ago, even tanks die in one shot from a modern rocket launcher. It's reasonable to assume the aliens are actually using armor that's stronger than titanium or something, and the marine shotguns are firing super depleted unobtanium pellets.
Plus NS's design is all about the gritty industrial scifi look, so boomsticks and rust are the order of the day.
+1 for gritty NS2!
wut he said
I don't remember star bucks clubbing someone with a jump drive...
They do use bullits.
To shoot the android walking human computers that they created. But still, bullits.
This <u>and only this</u>. By attempting to justify it from a realism perspective you only give credence to the fact that it can be, when it can't. The truth of the matter is, as Cory said, it is purely a stylistic choice: "low-fi dirty-tech". For all the same reasons no one attempts to justify the physics behind steampunk.
To shoot the android walking human computers that they created. But still, bullits.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do!
And they have super advanced technology, like jump drives.
Yet they still use bullets instead of energy based weapons.
What could this mean?
Maybe that weapons which use chemically stored energy to propel a projectile are vastly superior to energy based weapons. Especially in space, when you don't have to counteract friction.
Rather have James Cameron's Aliens style Natural Selection plx
KEEP
IT
SIMPLE
STUPID
A conventional fire arm is far more better than some high tech weapon, easy to use, easy to maintain, easy to fix.
Get a malfunction with your fire arm? More than half the time the operator can fix it themselves with the right action drill; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whats wrong with it and fix it.
Fancy high tech stuff likes to break no matter what you do to protect it, funny how it works out. There's a reason for back up iron sights on weapons and why soldiers are taught how to read a map and use a compass.
Having your weapon go down in a fight will cost you and your friends greatly.... In NS it will make you a chew toy for aliens.
Most armies wouldn't deploy a weapon in the field if it couldn't handle it. (M16's in Vietnam not withstanding)
And they have super advanced technology, like jump drives.
Yet they still use bullets instead of energy based weapons.
What could this mean?
Maybe that weapons which use chemically stored energy to propel a projectile are vastly superior to energy based weapons. Especially in space, when you don't have to counteract friction.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually space lends a lot of benefits to energy weapons.
A laser would not be affected by atmosphere or lose focus, charged particle weapons would not conduct heat into space, there's no dust or dirt to clog sensitive components. Space probably helps energy weapons more than it does projectile weapons, although space being close to an ideal environment generally makes everything work better.
Except heat management, hard to cool spaceships down because you can't conduct the heat away, only radiate it.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxcwlJ30uAw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxcwlJ30uAw</a>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxcwlJ30uAw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxcwlJ30uAw</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be fair, because we are spending the money right now.
We have lasers right now. It's just a matter of time before "impossible" becomes possible. Not only that, but efficient, too. Hell, no one in the 1200's would have EVER thought that soldiers would be walking around with miniature cannons with incredible accuracy, low recoil, a rate of fire in measured in rounds/second, and light weight clips of ammunition for reloading. And now "they just make sense". That's because we're used to them now. A thousand years ago, the guns everyone now say are "practical" and "efficient" were pure speculative fiction and nothing more.
And a thousand years from now, lasers will "just make sense" and gamers will having an argument over why "Lasers are in my Sci Fi game?" and "What about anti-gravitational quantum variance feedback annihiliators? That's REAL Sci Fi." More probably in 200 years, given that the pace of technology gets exponentially quicker.
In any case, Unknown Worlds Entertainment is right for not putting laser guns in their game. "Gritty" and "Laser gun" don't mix. Lasers don't work well with "dark, broody atmosphere" since they are a fantastical device. "Grimy Shotguns" do.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. The modern firearm operates on the same principle as a cannon, a slingshot or even a fist in that it launches a macroscopic projectile toward a target, utilizing the kinetic energy of the projectile to cause damage. Conceptually only the means of propulsion differs. If one were to try to extend this comparison to the future, it would lead to such weapons as railguns and coilguns, which accelerate macroscopic projectiles using electromagnetic means.
The main problem that I see with laser and particle beam weapons, at least in comparison to projectile weapons, is that they are easily stopped. A particle traveling at or near the speed of light has a much lower ratio of momentum to kinetic energy than a bullet moving only at several times the speed of sound. Whereas a bullet can penetrate the outer surface of a target and cause damage to its interior, a laser or particle beam weapon would transfer all of its energy to the outer surface - to damage the interior, you would have to completely vaporize all matter along the way. (Of course, the very vaporization of the surface would carry explosive force, which may damage the interior through shockwaves, and this could be considered the primary purpose of the weapon.) Additionally, light can be reflected (imagine using a laser against a white target) and charged particles tend to be stopped by intervening atmosphere.
The main problem that I see with laser and particle beam weapons, at least in comparison to projectile weapons, is that they are easily stopped. A particle traveling at or near the speed of light has a much lower ratio of momentum to kinetic energy than a bullet moving only at several times the speed of sound. Whereas a bullet can penetrate the outer surface of a target and cause damage to its interior, a laser or particle beam weapon would transfer all of its energy to the outer surface - to damage the interior, you would have to completely vaporize all matter along the way. (Of course, the very vaporization of the surface would carry explosive force, which may damage the interior through shockwaves, and this could be considered the primary purpose of the weapon.) Additionally, light can be reflected (imagine using a laser against a white target) and charged particles tend to be stopped by intervening atmosphere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Laser wielding octopi!
First they squirt you with ink, then comes the LAZERS!
Just on a side note:
Lasers can penetrate matter without destroying it and deliver their energy in deeper layers.
This way tattoos are removed. However the wave length has to be very carefully adjusted, even to the distance to the target making electronics a necessity for a penetrating laser.
A laser would not be affected by atmosphere or lose focus, charged particle weapons would not conduct heat into space, there's no dust or dirt to clog sensitive components. Space probably helps energy weapons more than it does projectile weapons, although space being close to an ideal environment generally makes everything work better.
Except heat management, hard to cool spaceships down because you can't conduct the heat away, only radiate it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except they are no in space, but in a life support system tailored for us fragile human. And guessing from drilling sites or other mineral extraction shizzle, I wouldn't want to call that particular a dust free environment. I won't even go into what the aliens do with their humid environment and what that does to weapon reliability :P