As we all know, ships with wide weapon placements like the imperial clipper and any of the big three are virtually impossible to use entirely fixed weapon loadouts on against anything other than other very large ships. The anaconda can get away with using mostly fixed weapons if you really want it to, but it will still be impossible to hit smaller ships with all 8 weapons at very close range. While I understand that weapon placement for fixed mounts could be seen as a balance avenue, I'd still like to know if the community would be interested in seeing full fixed builds being more viable on larger ships, as gimbled and turreted weapons already offer significant advantages over fixed on those ships due to their lesser turning radii. Basically, if large ships could have all their fixed weapons rotate slightly inward towards a target so that they could all hit a small target at once despite their spacing, would that be fair and balanced? Would it go against the entire concept of a fixed weapon for it to turn inward so that many spaced out weapons can hit the same target since it'd be moving like a gimbled weapon in order to do so? Personally I'd love to see fully fixed weapon builds be much more viable on large ships as they make PVP much more skillful and interesting, and I simply enjoy using them more even in PVE.
Anyone else think fixed weapons on large ships should point slightly inward?
- Thread starter Rexoplex
- Start date
In the later X-wing games you could toggle "laser convergence" on and off. It made your lasers meet at the range of the target ship. Good when turned on in an x-wing for concentrated fire, and good when off for spreading your fire against something hard to hit.
I think it would make ships in ED overpowered though if it was included retrospectively. Take the corvette, you've got the two huge mounts positioned perfectly for fixed weps, with twin PA's you can already one shot the shields of anything up to an asp, and knock massive amounts of hull damage off anything insanely fast. It would be too much with even more, the way it is now you fit a variety of weapons which makes it more interesting.
I think it would make ships in ED overpowered though if it was included retrospectively. Take the corvette, you've got the two huge mounts positioned perfectly for fixed weps, with twin PA's you can already one shot the shields of anything up to an asp, and knock massive amounts of hull damage off anything insanely fast. It would be too much with even more, the way it is now you fit a variety of weapons which makes it more interesting.
Yeah, as primarily a Clipper pilot, it would be nice to have more than 1 fixed weapon at a time. Current solution is to have one fixed on one side and gimbal the other side so they can actually converge (though it isn't centered then and makes the aiming really tricky up close).
What I really wish if we are going to stick with truly *fixed* weapons (i.e. not just make them basically like gimbals) would be the ability to set my own convergence distance in outfitting (or even on the fly). I'm almost always within a certain range for engagements anyway, why not let me set my 2 PAs to converge at like 1 km. It would give incentive to maintain a certain combat distance. Rails you might want further out, etc. On the fly 'zeroing' of fixed weapons in cockpit would be awesome if I could set a number of presets in outfitting (500m, 1km, 3km, & infinity for instance). Then just cycle through convergences based on situation (like we do with fire groups).
What I really wish if we are going to stick with truly *fixed* weapons (i.e. not just make them basically like gimbals) would be the ability to set my own convergence distance in outfitting (or even on the fly). I'm almost always within a certain range for engagements anyway, why not let me set my 2 PAs to converge at like 1 km. It would give incentive to maintain a certain combat distance. Rails you might want further out, etc. On the fly 'zeroing' of fixed weapons in cockpit would be awesome if I could set a number of presets in outfitting (500m, 1km, 3km, & infinity for instance). Then just cycle through convergences based on situation (like we do with fire groups).
Useful = yes
Should it happen = no
There's a reason ships are like this, as above balance.
Technically the Conda has greater FPS than the vette which is insane since the Vette is a warship and the conda is multirole. Anyway as Stigbob said, what most people fail to realise is that the Conda has convergence issues whereas the vette hasn't... or at least less issues. That allows greater use of fixed weapons which in turn allows greater DPS and an edge over the multi-role if the pilot is good enough.
Should it happen = no
There's a reason ships are like this, as above balance.
Technically the Conda has greater FPS than the vette which is insane since the Vette is a warship and the conda is multirole. Anyway as Stigbob said, what most people fail to realise is that the Conda has convergence issues whereas the vette hasn't... or at least less issues. That allows greater use of fixed weapons which in turn allows greater DPS and an edge over the multi-role if the pilot is good enough.
I don't use fixed weapons but I am amazed that there is no harmonization of them. Surely they should be aligned so that their line-of-fire converges / is harmonised at the effective range of the weapon?
Even better would be as Pygmy intimates, to be able to assign a harmonisation distance in outfitting.
P.S. In case some people don't know about it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_harmonisation
[arrrr]
Even better would be as Pygmy intimates, to be able to assign a harmonisation distance in outfitting.
P.S. In case some people don't know about it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_harmonisation
[arrrr]
Last edited:
I have genuinely managed to shoot two ships with one volley from a Clipper 
Fixed weapons 100% should adjustable and are easy to balance with 2 simple options,
1) Require a reboot/maintenance sequence to perform the adjustment, the player can then use either yaw or headlook to dial them in (like side mirrors on a car of today and within certain boundaries of adjustment) and lock them in place to finish the maintenance sequence (probably the most convincing solution)
2) Only be doable at docking stations/engineers, probably only ones that sell that specific weapon system.
In either case, the CMDR would have to make a decision about his preferred combat range etc, and that's what a good combat pilot SHOULD be thinking about. To me that is something to be promoted, putting deeper thought put into your build and strategy etc
There is a lot of talk about Corvettes and Condas in here, I think the ships hurt the worst by poor convergence are ships with fewer hardpoints, like the Clipper and Courier (though its small enough in relative size to most ships that the wingspan isn't a big problem). The Clipper man, talk about limiting someone's options......
1) Require a reboot/maintenance sequence to perform the adjustment, the player can then use either yaw or headlook to dial them in (like side mirrors on a car of today and within certain boundaries of adjustment) and lock them in place to finish the maintenance sequence (probably the most convincing solution)
2) Only be doable at docking stations/engineers, probably only ones that sell that specific weapon system.
In either case, the CMDR would have to make a decision about his preferred combat range etc, and that's what a good combat pilot SHOULD be thinking about. To me that is something to be promoted, putting deeper thought put into your build and strategy etc
There is a lot of talk about Corvettes and Condas in here, I think the ships hurt the worst by poor convergence are ships with fewer hardpoints, like the Clipper and Courier (though its small enough in relative size to most ships that the wingspan isn't a big problem). The Clipper man, talk about limiting someone's options......
Last edited:
I would say that having fixed hard points on large ships point slightly inward would be fine, if they have no traverse at all. You get one convergence point and if they're outside or inside that point you have to choose which gun you want to use.
Stay Frosty,
Cmnd Fulsom
Stay Frosty,
Cmnd Fulsom
Huh? No balance issues at all. This doesn't require vertical alignment, but horizontal. Because that's what convergence affects. The horizontal plane only.
And this is why there isn't a balance concern. Fixed have a slight damage advantage, but the cost is less time-on-target, due to the lack of tracking.
Alex, some ships have optimal weapon placement for fixed, and some do not have optimal hardpoint placement and can use fixed. That clipper having better fixed convergence is somehow a balance issue, despite FAS having the same hardpoints type, and much better weapon placement, somehow isn't.
Clipper and FAS have the same hardpoint class and count. One has massively better convergence due to the hardpoints being in a sane location. There is a distinct lack of critical thinking in this thread.
Last edited:
No it would not be fair or balanced.
Fixed weapons do actually have a slight snap-to-target capability, no reason to give them more. When you use fixed weapons you are trading higher damage for more difficult aiming and lower time on target. Unless you are specifically hunting large ships, you should have a balanced loadout that includes a few gimbals or turrets to deal with smaller, more agile targets.
Huh? No balance issues at all. This doesn't require vertical alignment, but horizontal. Because that's what convergence affects. The horizontal plane only.
And this is why there isn't a balance concern. Fixed have a slight damage advantage, but the cost is less time-on-target, due to the lack of tracking.
Alex, some ships have optimal weapon placement for fixed, and some do not have optimal hardpoint placement and can use fixed. That clipper having better fixed convergence is somehow a balance issue, despite FAS having the same hardpoints type, and much better weapon placement, somehow isn't.
Clipper and FAS have the same hardpoint class and count. One has massively better convergence due to the hardpoints being in a sane location. There is a distinct lack of critical thinking in this thread.
It's not often I agree 100% with you kofeyh, but this is one of those times.
Additoinally if you use the right hardpoints (it has to be the ones that are close together either under the ship or on either side of the cockpit), they do auto converge to a degree, especially as range increases. You can test this for yourself by mounting two rail guns to the medium slots in a DBX, mod them for long rang (at least 3k should be easy with grade 1 engi), then go out to 3k from a target and watch how they micro-gimbal all on their own. This is my main fighting tactic for my DBX, Joust, back off, snipe, joust, back off, snipe. Always hit both rails cos convergence is automatic at that distance.
Aside from that little titbit, as K said above, balance is good as it is, increased damage vs less time on target. fixxed are DEFINITELY non-optimal for all but the most accurate pilots. Gimbals give significantly more time on target.
If every ship had identical hardpoint placement, then sure. They don't. Not even close.
FAS and Clipper have the same hardpoint count and class (and this is just one example). Perhaps we should shift the class 3 hardpoints out onto the ends of the stubby little wings of the FAS then, to make it more balanced and so they also have problems converging with fixed?
Come on folks. Think!.
With nothing targeted, they point straight forward.
With something targeted they have about a third of a degree of auto-snapping to the center of what's targeted.
For weapons that are offset in the vertical plane, you need vertical adjustment to have convergence.
It's not often I agree 100% with you kofeyh, but this is one of those times.
It had to happen eventually! Statistically speaking at least. Yeah it's the usual "this sounds OP" but it's ignoring that hardpoint placement is done primarily based on "this looks sick!" as apposed "this is what normal engineers would do".
By far the biggest factor is horizontal. And we've got wildly variable ship designs with hardpoints in the most daft places possible. Convergence isn't 'mini-gimbal' it's causing them to 'toe-in' a bit so there's an actual convergence point.
Again; if every single ship had identical hardpoint placement, I could understand there's a balance issue. But this is not the case. Some ships are forced to use gimbals on at least one side because of the developer placing hardpoints beyond the approx 1/2º or whatever it is of movement fixed have (which exists, essentially, to provide a form of convergence).
In short, that wiggle room isn't enough. It's daft that clipper still cannot used fixed weapons because their convergence is far greater than weapon range. Frontier could either move hardpoints towards the center of mass, so they can actually converge properly within the existing mini-gimbal, or just fix convergence. One or the other. I don't really care which.
It's just mind blowing that this is still a thing. lol.
Last edited:
That depends on the ship and the weapons.
The Anaconda for example has weapons further apart in the vertical than in the horizontal, as do the Eagles. The Corvette also has it's large and huge hardpoints quite widely spaced in the vertical, even if the mediums are a bit wider.
I'm pretty sure the convergence or lack thereof is a conscious design choice to limit the short-range forward firepower of some vessels with fixed weapons and to encourage the use of gimbals/turrets, especially on larger/less agile vessels.