Anyone else think fixed weapons on large ships should point slightly inward?

[Alexander the Grape]

I'd love "half-gimbal" weaponry. Fixed on one axis, gimballing on another axis. DPS in between Fixed and Gimballed, and has jitter only on its gimballing axis.

Would solve convergence issues without needing complicated convergence setting

Also, if you're issues are related to vertical convergence, then you can use projectile speed to autoconverge.

For instance, my FDL's Huge cannon is slightly faster than the upper 2 Medium PAs. That way, they converge against an enemy I'm pitching up into

 

[Drelthar]

My answer is yes, but, what angle? who decides?

The best answer to that would be, the pilot decides, in out fitting what angle the weapons point at, then they are fixed on that angle.

That's complex though, and as mentioned, would affect balance to some extent.

I'd still prefer it, there's no way I would set up my Clippers fixed beams the way they are... it's stupid.

 

[Xious]

The convergence seems fine to me.

 

[FurtivePygmy]

Nope they are not unusable, you can use fixed weps in a clipper easily by having one large fixed and a gimbal on the other, or 2 medium fixed and 2 large gimbals, or 2 fixed firing them on separate triggers.

You just can't fire an all fixed alpha strike salvo of doom.

Story time: Mainly just out of spite, I did actually run my Clipper at one point with two large rails on separate triggers and just alternated aiming back and forth between them. It was during that exercise that it really sunk in how ridiculous it is to have weapons mounted on a vehicle that don't even converge within their maximum effective range. That's like putting a scope on a rifle angled up so far that it can never actually match the point of impact. Sure you can just always take it upon yourself to aim 6 ft high, but *the setup* itself makes no sense. Ah, its one of those "balanced" rifles I guess, one that would be too op if it actually functioned properly.

In seriousness though, I'll admit it was mildly amusing at first to try to master having multiple aimpoints while running that loadout, but ultimately it got very tedious and annoying pretty quickly. I totally respect that military ships ought to have combat advantages, but realising an intended balancing disadvantage in this form of irrational gun placement is pretty silly to me. Why not just disallow certain weapon types for certain ships? Maybe have "military grade hardpoints" like we have extra module slots already? That would completely make sense as a method for balancing things, but "let's make it so your guns don't shoot where you'd obviously want them to" is a pretty weird and round about way to do it, no?

Besides, as I pointed out before, even with a convergence setting for fixed, military ships would still win out due to more flexible engagement ranges. Basically if your guns are already centered, you can hit anything from 50m out to 3km with just the built in micro-gimbal action, whereas a Clipper with convergence set to 1km would likely only have 100m or so on either end of that range to land the shot. The only difference is that your guns would actually function like would reasonably be expected instead of just pointing off into infinity.

P.S. If we had gimballed PAs and rails I'd prolly be using them, but I'm pretty sure those haven't happened mainly for more understandable balancing reasons.

 

[FurtivePygmy]

Also, just to be clear, I'm really not sure how extensive of a code overhaul would be required to accommodate such a change, so I'm not necessarily advocating that FD do anything about this. If it would be easy to implement, then I'd love to see it, but if not, no biggie. In general though, I do think that it makes way more sense to have weapon convergence than to not.

 

[Stigbob]

Story time: Mainly just out of spite, I did actually run my Clipper at one point with two large rails on separate triggers and just alternated aiming back and forth between them. It was during that exercise that it really sunk in how ridiculous it is to have weapons mounted on a vehicle that don't even converge within their maximum effective range. That's like putting a scope on a rifle angled up so far that it can never actually match the point of impact. Sure you can just always take it upon yourself to aim 6 ft high, but *the setup* itself makes no sense. Ah, its one of those "balanced" rifles I guess, one that would be too op if it actually functioned properly.

In seriousness though, I'll admit it was mildly amusing at first to try to master having multiple aimpoints while running that loadout, but ultimately it got very tedious and annoying pretty quickly. I totally respect that military ships ought to have combat advantages, but realising an intended balancing disadvantage in this form of irrational gun placement is pretty silly to me. Why not just disallow certain weapon types for certain ships? Maybe have "military grade hardpoints" like we have extra module slots already? That would completely make sense as a method for balancing things, but "let's make it so your guns don't shoot where you'd obviously want them to" is a pretty weird and round about way to do it, no?

Besides, as I pointed out before, even with a convergence setting for fixed, military ships would still win out due to more flexible engagement ranges. Basically if your guns are already centered, you can hit anything from 50m out to 3km with just the built in micro-gimbal action, whereas a Clipper with convergence set to 1km would likely only have 100m or so on either end of that range to land the shot. The only difference is that your guns would actually function like would reasonably be expected instead of just pointing off into infinity.

P.S. If we had gimballed PAs and rails I'd prolly be using them, but I'm pretty sure those haven't happened mainly for more understandable balancing reasons.

When I'm using my FDL the gimballed beams can hit anywhere above center line, once shields are down I add in the huge multi and have to bring the nose up to do it, to bring the PA's to bear I have to nose down (usually) making the multi useless (for a bit), railguns or missiles instead of the PA's changes it again as both have different lead distances.

Bringing different weapons to bear from different hardpoints with different aim points is a fun mini-game.

I don't want massive alpha strike capability, it would make the game far too easy.

 

[StiTch]

The best answer to that would be, the pilot decides, in out fitting what angle the weapons point at, then they are fixed on that angle.

That's complex though, and as mentioned, would affect balance to some extent.

I'd still prefer it, there's no way I would set up my Clippers fixed beams the way they are...

This is precisely why I say that ships need to retain their "personality". The iClipper is not a born and bred combat ship, and lacks the military slots that any military ships gained. It's perfectly conceivable its form was conceived for a MR ship and weapons added around this, leading to less-than-perfect combat traits. Convergence is a part of every ship, and is a strangely engaging part of considering your loadout.

I'm totally not against making fixed more feasible but as you already pointed out, solutions need to avoid being too complex. I'd actually rather fixed weapons gained some other kind of buff, and we accept that if you want ease of targeting then that's why we have gimbals (but they'd still be subject to the same line-of-fire issues if blocked by parts of the ship).

P.S. If we had gimballed PAs and rails I'd prolly be usingthem, but I'm pretty sure those haven't happened mainly for more understandable balancing reasons.

The discussion comes up every now and then, and the best way to answer this is that if we start giving all weapons every kind of utility possible, you a) run the risk of introducing further cheese builds/super-meta tools, and potentially worse - if you intend to balance these weapons at all - run the risk of making weapons increasingly homogeneous.

For example, before the plasma change to give it absolute damage, someone was somewhat dramatically calling for gimballed PAs...and calling objections unfounded because we can just lower the damage of PAs to make it balanced, and still be able to use gimballed weapons with single-shot slow-moving projectiles.

Several pages in and there was still no explanation as to why that's basically not a large cannon they're describing. *shrugs*. Let weapons be unique.

 

[Stigbob]

Hang on commanders reality check.

If you could set your weapons to converge, what would happen to the rest of the beam/rounds after convergence. The forum would melt under the sheer weight of comedy friendly fire carnage.

 

[FurtivePygmy]

This is precisely why I say that ships need to retain their "personality". The iClipper is not a born and bred combat ship, and lacks the military slots that any military ships gained. It's perfectly conceivable its form was conceived for a MR ship and weapons added around this, leading to less-than-perfect combat traits. Convergence is a part of every ship, and is a strangely engaging part of considering your loadout.

I'm totally not against making fixed more feasible but as you already pointed out, solutions need to avoid being too complex. I'd actually rather fixed weapons gained some other kind of buff, and we accept that if you want ease of targeting then that's why we have gimbals (but they'd still be subject to the same line-of-fire issues if blocked by parts of the ship).




The discussion comes up every now and then, and the best way to answer this is that if we start giving all weapons every kind of utility possible, you a) run the risk of introducing further cheese builds/super-meta tools, and potentially worse - if you intend to balance these weapons at all - run the risk of making weapons increasingly homogeneous.

For example, before the plasma change to give it absolute damage, someone was somewhat dramatically calling for gimballed PAs...and calling objections unfounded because we can just lower the damage of PAs to make it balanced, and still be able to use gimballed weapons with single-shot slow-moving projectiles.

Several pages in and there was still no explanation as to why that's basically not a large cannon they're describing. *shrugs*. Let weapons be unique.

Hmm, I wasn't aware there was such a kerfuffle about it. I don't disagree with them being fixed only. Ultimately, I kinda like that some weapons have a much steeper learning curve and can't just be gimballed.

As far as ship personality goes, I mainly agree, but I still don't think that allowing a convergence setting in outfitting would really change that personality much. The Clipper would still be fast and big and have X, Y, and Z handling characteristics. It would still lack military slots and have vastly less than ideal hardpoint placement. We'd just gain a bit more freedom in choosing sensible loadouts. I personally think that running 2 PAs (as opposed to the one PA and gimbal Large Cannon I currently use) wouldn't make that big of a difference in an engagement, but if you have the power capacity and want to do it, then I say more power to you (no pun intended)! Right now, though, such a loadout makes no sense since there isn't even the possibility of both those shots connecting (unless you are fighting a corvette perhaps).

When I'm using my FDL the gimballed beams can hit anywhere above center line, once shields are down I add in the huge multi and have to bring the nose up to do it, to bring the PA's to bear I have to nose down (usually) making the multi useless (for a bit), railguns or missiles instead of the PA's changes it again as both have different lead distances.

Bringing different weapons to bear from different hardpoints with different aim points is a fun mini-game.

I don't want massive alpha strike capability, it would make the game far too easy.

I know what you mean, and on my FDL I've ultimately chosen a loadout to minimize that kind of thing. Of course, the matter of projectile speeds, lead times, and gimbal ranges is one of the great nuances of choosing a combat loadout, and I usually have a lot of fun tinkering around with builds to see what feels good. I'm not proposing that any of that change. Dealing with weapon characteristics and aimpoints is all part of being an effective pilot, but my point with the story was that for me at least there comes a point where (as the pilot) you feel like you're compensating far too much for unreasonably poor design choice. It is one thing to keep a target 20 degrees high to maintain your trajectory relative to him and then nose up to bring fixed weapons to bear once you have an opportunity. It is another thing imo, to continuously rock the stick back and forth on a 1 second interval like someone endlessly stirring cake batter so you can keep up consistent rail fire from your alternating guns. To me that goes beyond tactics and pilot skill and simply becomes a chore.

 

[FurtivePygmy]

Hang on commanders reality check.

If you could set your weapons to converge, what would happen to the rest of the beam/rounds after convergence. The forum would melt under the sheer weight of comedy friendly fire carnage.

Lol, actually I think this could be just another interesting combat nuance to deal with. If you are in a wing, you need to worry about overshooting, and doubly so if your convergence setting means your fire is going far to the sides of you! In fact, that itself might be a reason to set your convergence close to your max range, just to mitigate such a danger.

 

[MottiKhan]

They should be left as is. One of the ways of being able to survive an encounter with the Clipper is to get up close, between the weapons if you have a small ship. The Clipper is already faster than most ships, so having it able to train all of its weapons on a small ship would make it overpowered. If convergence is allowed, the speed should be nerfed to make up for this.

Perhaps cut the speed and agility in half to make this work.

 

[Mohrgan]

Shouldn't large ship have even the tiniest inconvenience? It's just fine with me is the Large Ship experience comes with some downsides. It's not like anything can really threaten one of the big 3, why shouldn't all of the benefits of using a large ship, be coupled with a few downsides? One of the considerations taken when purchasing a ship has to be the Hard Points, and their placement. Wouldn't all the Large ships benefit from more hard points, or by increasing their sizes?

What negative would be needed to balance out the positive of better, or adjustable, convergence? It's not like even the iClipper needs a lot of help.

 

[StiTch]

Right now, though, such a loadout makes no sense since there isn't even the possibility of both those shots connecting (unless you are fighting a corvette perhaps).

Completely true, but it's exactly what I'm advocating! Suppose we just have neatly differing views on this. Just bear in mind the iClipper will always be the most dramatic example of the convergence thing, and is the only ship that could be considered for revisiting by itself, even if I would personally leave it as is.

If it makes me a glutton for punishment, then baby, hit me - but I like that I can't just say "well on a med/large type ship I tend to use fixed MCs with a single FB rail, let's plonk it on this ship too". The fixed convergence is so poor gimballed is basically required, effectively forcing me to revisit what I'd like to fight with.

That immediately preserves a sense of personality. If you used fixed PAs everywhere normally, you now have to reconsider. Conversely, you might buy a ship and realise the convergence is amazing, allowing you to try a full-PA loadout you wouldn't have before.

 

[Stigbob]

Lol, actually I think this could be just another interesting combat nuance to deal with. If you are in a wing, you need to worry about overshooting, and doubly so if your convergence setting means your fire is going far to the sides of you! In fact, that itself might be a reason to set your convergence close to your max range, just to mitigate such a danger.

That's what I'd do, but the min-maxers would inevitably go for short range high damage crossover, then complain about the friendly fire and can't hit a fleeing target problems.

 

[FurtivePygmy]

Shouldn't large ship have even the tiniest inconvenience? It's just fine with me is the Large Ship experience comes with some downsides. It's not like anything can really threaten one of the big 3, why shouldn't all of the benefits of using a large ship, be coupled with a few downsides? One of the considerations taken when purchasing a ship has to be the Hard Points, and their placement. Wouldn't all the Large ships benefit from more hard points, or by increasing their sizes?

What negative would be needed to balance out the positive of better, or adjustable, convergence? It's not like even the iClipper needs a lot of help.

They should be left as is. One of the ways of being able to survive an encounter with the Clipper is to get up close, between the weapons if you have a small ship. The Clipper is already faster than most ships, so having it able to train all of its weapons on a small ship would make it overpowered. If convergence is allowed, the speed should be nerfed to make up for this.

Perhaps cut the speed and agility in half to make this work.

Just to be clear, HERE is where the disadvantage remains:

One could still avoid the Clipper's guns by being on *either* side of the convergence point. Of course, you may not know what that convergence point is going into an engagement, but you similarly might not know the loadout or RNGineering level of whoever pulls you over either. All I'd like to see is *one* point at which guns could converge. That hardly amounts to being a gimballed weapon or requiring a bunch of other nerfs to compensate. Big ships already have plenty of drawbacks, i.e. cost, landing pad size, handling (or lack thereof), super easy target, etc...

If I were arguing for a complete hardpoint relocation for the Clipper to make it all center-line, then I could totally understand all these points about balance, but I really don't think that allowing convergence would objectively make anything that much easier. It would just change the way one has to pilot the ship by forcing you to maintain an optimal range. Anywhere outside that tiny range would be exactly what we have right now: only one weapon will connect.

EDIT: also since I realize now it might be unclear, I'm talking about offering a single SET convergence point (defined in outfitting or something) that doesn't change or track the target, NOT some kind of limited gimballing action that dynamically adjusts convergence.

 

[FurtivePygmy]

Completely true, but it's exactly what I'm advocating! Suppose we just have neatly differing views on this. Just bear in mind the iClipper will always be the most dramatic example of the convergence thing, and is the only ship that could be considered for revisiting by itself, even if I would personally leave it as is.

If it makes me a glutton for punishment, then baby, hit me - but I like that I can't just say "well on a med/large type ship I tend to use fixed MCs with a single FB rail, let's plonk it on this ship too". The fixed convergence is so poor gimballed is basically required, effectively forcing me to revisit what I'd like to fight with.

That immediately preserves a sense of personality. If you used fixed PAs everywhere normally, you now have to reconsider. Conversely, you might buy a ship and realise the convergence is amazing, allowing you to try a full-PA loadout you wouldn't have before.

Fair enough, I'll admit that one of the big reasons why I've tried out a variety of ships is this very thing. The temptation of trying a 6 railgun loadout on the Asp, or the challenge of accommodating any fixed weapons on the Clipper is an interesting aspect of the game. I'm not saying it is terrible or broken currently. But the pesky voice of "things-should-make-sense-even-in-a-fictional-space-game-world" in the back of my mind still asks, "why on earth would someone design such a thing?!?" lol

 

[Mohrgan]

Just to be clear, HERE is where the disadvantage remains:

http://i.imgur.com/jltipNf.jpg

One could still avoid the Clipper's guns by being on *either* side of the convergence point. Of course, you may not know what that convergence point is going into an engagement, but you similarly might not know the loadout or RNGineering level of whoever pulls you over either. All I'd like to see is *one* point at which guns could converge. That hardly amounts to being a gimballed weapon or requiring a bunch of other nerfs to compensate. Big ships already have plenty of drawbacks, i.e. cost, landing pad size, handling (or lack thereof), super easy target, etc...

If I were arguing for a complete hardpoint relocation for the Clipper to make it all center-line, then I could totally understand all these points about balance, but I really don't think that allowing convergence would objectively make anything that much easier. It would just change the way one has to pilot the ship by forcing you to maintain an optimal range. Anywhere outside that tiny range would be exactly what we have right now: only one weapon will connect.

That's nothing more than attributing a negative that all ships share, to account for the benefit of improved time-on-target for a few ships. Friendly fire is an issue for every ship, good hard point placement or no. The negative, shown here is nothing more than just shifting where the dead zones are, it is not creating more, but changing the convergence would absolutely put more fixed weapons on a target at once. By using circle strafing, I can avoid fire from option 1, much more readily than in option 2. Those Effective Range boxes you drew are a bit too convenient, especially if we are talking during the shield phase of a fight. And, don't forget, even fixed weapons have some 'snap-to' targeting help, that would greatly expand the range window.

Changing the convergence of fixed weapons won't, naturally bring a negative that balances out the positive brought through improved convergence. Recently FD went and heartily buffed fixed weapons. If they added some form of convergence control, we should be looking at a roll back of some of those buffs.

 

[FurtivePygmy]

That's nothing more than attributing a negative that all ships share, to account for the benefit of improved time-on-target for a few ships. Friendly fire is an issue for every ship, good hard point placement or no. The negative, shown here is nothing more than just shifting where the dead zones are, it is not creating more, but changing the convergence would absolutely put more fixed weapons on a target at once. By using circle strafing, I can avoid fire from option 1, much more readily than in option 2. Those Effective Range boxes you drew are a bit too convenient, especially if we are talking during the shield phase of a fight. And, don't forget, even fixed weapons have some 'snap-to' targeting help, that would greatly expand the range window.

Changing the convergence of fixed weapons won't, naturally bring a negative that balances out the positive brought through improved convergence. Recently FD went and heartily buffed fixed weapons. If they added some form of convergence control, we should be looking at a roll back of some of those buffs.

Wait I don't think I understand how you are more easily avoiding the left hand situation through circle strafing. The point of the illustration is that on a ship (the left ship) with close together hardpoints, the effective range window at which both guns will hit you is much larger than on a ship (the right ship) with far apart hardpoints. Also, I make no claim that my quick MS paint drawing is to scale in any way

EDIT: Also, yes you are right, for some (maybe most) ships such a change would have almost no effect, but for a few it would be nice. It would serve to "level the playing field" in that sense, though I see how that could be construed as homogenizing the differences or personalities of ships as well.

 

[Non Grata]

Anywhere outside that tiny range would be exactly what we have right now: only one weapon will connect.

Not sure I agree - if you just set the convergence range to 50% of the max range of your weapon, then at ANY range there would be an improvement over what we have now. In reality setting it to 1km or so would give quite a large sweet spot - even on the Clipper the hardpoints aren't *that* far apart.

 

[FurtivePygmy]

Not sure I agree - if you just set the convergence range to 50% of the max range of your weapon, then at ANY range there would be an improvement over what we have now. In reality setting it to 1km or so would give quite a large sweet spot - even on the Clipper the hardpoints aren't *that* far apart.

That is fair, without doing some geometry and running some numbers I'm not really sure how much of a sweet spot there would be. At the very least though, you wouldn't be module sniping outside of a pretty small window, even if one of the other shots still connects with the ship.

In my own biased opinion, the hardpoints on the Clipper do feel *that* far apart sometimes... lol