Fixed Cannon Shot Speed Outrage VS Gimbal Cannon

[StiTch]

And that makes gimbals "overpowered"?
And a "balanced" way to address this would be to have a countermeasure that renders them almost entirely useless the a all the time?

I don't think I said that at all. In fact I even pointed part of the blame at ship survivability.

In essence the issue is with the level of advantage gimbals give you compared to their offset. This would have been far, far more balanced if the sensor adjustments had ever made it in game. Of course, that would have meant having engaging content, and we can't have that.

Fact is that, a lot of the time gimbals only remain locked within a tiny "window" near the point-of-aim anyway.
I can rarely just open up with the lasers on my cutter and see them track a target all the way to the edge of the screen.

Course, I notice that a lot of PvP currently seems to involve weapons that cause a ship to run so hot that it starts to take damage.
Maybe if PvPers stopped hammering high-heat weapons and, instead, fitted more modest weapons they wouldn't run so hot and they wouldn't be so easy to track with gimbals?

Then you're doing something a little wrong, and have certainly never heard of emissive.

As it happens almost every one of my ships uses a low emissions plant and at least one heat sink launcher, with some of those ships being MC focused. I'm actually very heat conscious. Of course that all goes out the window when something like emissive comes into play; one pulse laser modded for it, and your thermal signature is instantly maximised, with silent running rendered utterly useless.

When options like that are in play there is little encouragement to do anything than go for shield/SCB heavy builds and play evasively until you can draw an opponent's chaff out.

But I don't think you actually have any experience in PvP, do you? 'cos I'm seeing largely baseless accusations either in aid of defaming PvPers, or blindly protecting what you feel to be easy to use weapons.

 

[ArchEmperor]

Gimbals makes cannons flimsy. Fixed cannons can be optimized and carry more firepower. I see no problem that Fixed cannons have much higher projectile speeds. It is realistic.

 

[Stealthie]

I don't think I said that at all. In fact I even pointed part of the blame at ship survivability.

In essence the issue is with the level of advantage gimbals give you compared to their offset. This would have been far, far more balanced if the sensor adjustments had ever made it in game. Of course, that would have meant having engaging content, and we can't have that.




Then you're doing something a little wrong, and have certainly never heard of emissive.

As it happens almost every one of my ships uses a low emissions plant and at least one heat sink launcher, with some of those ships being MC focused. I'm actually very heat conscious. Of course that all goes out the window when something like emissive comes into play; one pulse laser modded for it, and your thermal signature is instantly maximised, with silent running rendered utterly useless.

When options like that are in play there is little encouragement to do anything than go for shield/SCB heavy builds and play evasively until you can draw an opponent's chaff out.

But I don't think you actually have any experience in PvP, do you? 'cos I'm seeing largely baseless accusations either in aid of defaming PvPers, or blindly protecting what you feel to be easy to use weapons.

I see,

So you're critical of chaff because it doesn't provide a long-term defence against gimbals AND you're critical of emissive ammo because it amplifies your ship's thermal signature?

So, if gimbals are so great, how come they're not the "meta" for PvP?

Simple fact is that you make choices and those choices have consequences.
Choose gimbals and you have less powerful weapons that are easier to hit with but are vulnerable to CM (and are more expensive, heavier and use more power).
Choose fixed weapons and you can do more damage providing you can hit what you're aiming at.

If you think combat is reaching a stalemate because you can't achieve an insta-kill against any opponent, you either need to come up with a new idea or you need to accept that you can't win every fight.

 

[StiTch]

So, if gimbals are so great, how come they're not the "meta" for PvP?

Er, they are.

Skilled players will use fixed weapons for the challenge and kudos, and rails/PAs are fixed only, but it's accepted in PvP that in a 1v1 with similar loadouts a gimballed player will beat a fixed player - because there is the lack of offset we have now both discussed. The slightly lower DPS and other inconsequential stat changes (though I don't know where you got "heavier" from) just do not make up for the auto-aim and ability to fire at an angle while manoeuvering.

If you think combat is reaching a stalemate because you can't achieve an insta-kill against any opponent, you either need to come up with a new idea or you need to accept that you can't win every fight.

What I think is that you should come back when you actually understand the topic you're arguing. I would be more than happy to point you in the right directions, but right now you're arguing about the mechanics of something you don't care for and clearly don't understand - and trust me, it shows. Any notion of insta-kills will get laughed out by a serious PvPer.

 

[Stealthie]

Er, they are.

Skilled players will use fixed weapons for the challenge and kudos, and rails/PAs are fixed only, but it's accepted in PvP that in a 1v1 with similar loadouts a gimballed player will beat a fixed player - because there is the lack of offset we have now both discussed. The slightly lower DPS and other inconsequential stat changes (though I don't know where you got "heavier" from) just do not make up for the auto-aim and ability to fire at an angle while manoeuvering.

I dunno if you're deliberately being disingenuous or whether it's simply an unavoidable consequence of the point you're making but you're being pretty slippery here.

It's daft to say "with similar loadouts a gimballed player will beat a fixed player" because limiting yourself to fixed weapons which are similar to gimballed ones would be daft.
That's never going to be the case, though, is it?
A player that opts for fixed weapons isn't going to choose a "similar loadout" to a player that opts for gimbals.
They're going to choose weapons such as PAs or Rails, which deliver much greater damage than any gimballed weapon that could be mounted to the same hardpoint.

That brings us back to the DPS vs ToT issue, which is pretty well balanced already, especially when you consider the effect of CMs.

What I think is that you should come back when you actually understand the topic you're arguing. I would be more than happy to point you in the right directions, but right now you're arguing about the mechanics of something you don't care for and clearly don't understand - and trust me, it shows. Any notion of insta-kills will get laughed out by a serious PvPer.

And I think you should come back when you're capable of being objective rather than assuming that PvPers should always have some fundamental advantage over other players in combat.

Either that or get together with all your PvP buddies and agree not to use the stuff you think is overpowered.
Just don't go ganking any non PvPers in case they kick your butt with their evil overpowered gimbals.

 

[StiTch]

A player that opts for fixed weapons isn't going to choose a "similar loadout"

Dude, the title specifies "fixed cannon shot speed". This entire thread is around a couple of hundred m/s difference between fixed and gimballed cannons. We are very much discussing the nuances between fixed and gimballed variants of the same weapon.

Not that it should matter. Saying "well fixed players will pick the fixed only weapons" is a thinly disguised way of avoiding balancing variants of weapons that do have both. Just because fixed only weapons exist, doesn't mean we need to forget about balance on the rest.

And I think you should come back when you're capable of being objective rather than assuming that PvPers should always have some fundamental advantage over other players in combat.

I started a very objective discussion with you, with justification for any point I've made. All you've done is look for footholds to further your "whining at PvP" agenda. If you have nothing more productive to add to this discussion, we are done here

 

[Stealthie]

Saying "well fixed players will pick the fixed only weapons" is a thinly disguised way of avoiding balancing variants of weapons that do have both. Just because fixed only weapons exist, doesn't mean we need to forget about balance on the rest.

Just as well they are pretty well-balanced then, eh? [up]

I started a very objective discussion with you, with justification for any point I've made. All you've done is look for footholds to further your "whining at PvP" agenda. If you have nothing more productive to add to this discussion, we are done here

We were "done" when the only way you could assert that fixed weapons are lacking compared to gimbals was by attempting to ignore all the more powerful weapons available to users of fixed weapons.

 

[StiTch]

We were "done" when the only way you could assert that fixed weapons are lacking compared to gimbals was by attempting to ignore all the more powerful weapons available to users of fixed weapons.

So as far as you're concerned, if a gimballed variant exists, it must be more powerful.

Glad we cleared that up. Thankyou for your input

 

[Imgran]

See, this is what bugs me about when people insist on things in the name of "realism".

ED is not "realistic" in various fundamental ways so it's beyond me why people would demand "realism" of minor features.

Unless, of course, somebody can explain to me how a round of ammunition becomes less powerful and moves more slowly when fired from a weapon with a servo-actuated mounting system.

In theory... a fixed system can have a better recoil system since it's on a fixed mount, all the space that goes into moving a gimballed gun can go into cushioning recoil in a fixed gun, so it can give more "action" and take more "reaction" than a gimballed cannon.

So if your "bottleneck" on projectile velocity is what the mechanics can stand, a fixed cannon could, in theory, provide a higher projectile velocity if the recoil system can take a heavier punishment.

 

[Stealthie]

So as far as you're concerned, if a gimballed variant exists, it must be more powerful.

Glad we cleared that up. Thankyou for your input

That was your argument.

If you bother to read any of my posts you'll see that I've consistently asserted they are "balanced" because there are pros and cons to each.

HTH. [up]

 

[Stealthie]

In theory... a fixed system can have a better recoil system since it's on a fixed mount, all the space that goes into moving a gimballed gun can go into cushioning recoil in a fixed gun, so it can give more "action" and take more "reaction" than a gimballed cannon.

So if your "bottleneck" on projectile velocity is what the mechanics can stand, a fixed cannon could, in theory, provide a higher projectile velocity if the recoil system can take a heavier punishment.

That's the whole point though.
It's not realistic so suggest that a gimballed mount would be incapable of withstanding the recoil of a weapon mounted to it.

And, even if that was likely, we've got lasers which suffer the same drawback despite not having any mass and, thus, no recoil - which rather suggests the difference in ballistics isn't a result of de-rating the weapon for the sake of the mount.

 

[Jimbodiah]

Cannons are for nubs.

 

[Imgran]

That's the whole point though.
It's not realistic so suggest that a gimballed mount would be incapable of withstanding the recoil of a weapon mounted to it.

When you're designing a weapon, you try to make it all the gun it can possibly be. That means that you're trying to maximize the killing power, to the limit of some facet of the mount, either ability to draw energy, ability to cool the system and keep it viable, or the physical tolerance of the materials. The point is that you're pushing weapons to the peak point of some tolerance limit -- if you're not doing that, you're not doing your job as a weapons designer.

It is hard to imagine that a mobile mount such as a turret or gimbal mount, as opposed to a fixed mount, would NOT impose additional limits on a weapon's peak killing power based on its need to stay mobile.

With cannon, and this obviously includes multicannon, fragment cannon etc, the physical tolerance limit is probably the bottleneck. The harder you throw a physical object the more physical stress you put on the thrower. A machine with fewer moving parts obviously has fewer points of failure while under high kinetic stress and can devote more energy to the "throwing" part of the exercise and less to the "not falling apart" side.

With lasers of various stripes, it might be heat radiation. A fixed mounted laser might be capable of mounting a larger radiator so that the emitter take more peak heat without overheating and so can throw more power into the laser without melting. As it is those things have a safety that shuts down when thermal overload is reached, with a fixed mount radiating the heat faster, you could move that overload point outward a bit to gain a bit of performance in exchange

This is all an exercise in handwaving but the point is there's ways to rationalize the game balance decisions if you're creative.

 

[Stealthie]

When you're designing a weapon, you try to make it all the gun it can possibly be. That means that you're trying to maximize the killing power, to the limit of some facet of the mount, either ability to draw energy, ability to cool the system and keep it viable, or the physical tolerance of the materials. The point is that you're pushing weapons to the peak point of some tolerance limit -- if you're not doing that, you're not doing your job as a weapons designer.

It is hard to imagine that a mobile mount such as a turret or gimbal mount, as opposed to a fixed mount, would NOT impose additional limits on a weapon's peak killing power based on its need to stay mobile.

I disagree.

By your own definition, if you have to de-rate a weapon simply to ensure the mount remains operational, you're failing in your job as a weapons engineer.

You'd build a stronger mount.

 

[Pauciloquent]

I still just want consistency between cannons, frag-cannons and multi-cannons velocity wise, like I suggested back at post #68.

I disagree.

By your own definition, if you have to de-rate a weapon simply to ensure the mount remains operational, you're failing in your job as a weapons engineer.

You'd build a stronger mount.

A stronger mount might not be an option if your constraind by size and weight like weapon classes are... but then there's that sturdy mount mod... Hmmmmm....

As for lasers... hmm well maybe it's a cooling circuit constraint, but then you can still overcharge them and they still won't blow up or melt down... ?????????

I think if we had the same damage for fixed and gimballed (and also turrets) waepons we would have reduce tracking speed or add a delay/lag to the tracking like a target update rate or something.

 

[Werewolf13]

That's what people call balancing. If you could hit more with a gimballed weapon and it would be more powerful there would be no reason for fixed weapons to exist.

Uhhhh...
Yeah! Fixed weapons in the 34th century. W.T.F! - why indeed would anyone want to use one? Why?

And missiles with a - what? - 5KM range? Please. We have air to air missiles now in the 21st century with ranges in the 40 to 50km range.

Did the idiocracy take over.

The amount of belief suspension that must take place in ED is overwhelming.

Then again not so overwhelming that this one can't enjoy ED - great game - emphasis on GAME! ED isn't a 34th century simulator. Never will be. Might be nice if it was but not gonna happen - ever.

 

[Crash1099]

Okay, it is no secret - we all know all gimbal weapon types are meant to do less damage:

Spoiler

https://i.imgur.com/G9mAzK7.jpg

However, unknown to me until now while umming and ahh-ing at weapon choices for my Huge hard-points on the Corvette, I notice this:

Spoiler

https://i.imgur.com/YKBgL93.jpg

Not only do the fixed weapons do more damage than intended, but the shot speed is also increased!?

I can't check all the cannons and multicannons at my current station, but this shot speed bias for fixed cannons (and possibly other fixed weapons) seems to be a bit under the radar, no?

Cannons aren't used enough as it is, and actually lowering the shot speed of gimbals is another kick in the teeth because it increases the miss rate - at 750m/s it is much slower than a Huge Plasma Accelerator slug traversing at 875m/s - of which, the Gimballed Huge Cannon does only 1/4 of the damage (much less after resistances).

Am I the only one that thinks this stinks for gimballed cannons (and possibly all other types of projectile weapons), when the damage has already been reduced?

Why should shot speed be different!?

No....I figure i give 2 fixed cannons on my corvette a try. wow nice with three fixed beams. It is the most powerful load out. Gimble is fine as is.

 

[Werewolf13]

We are not idiots, ok most of us... but imagine we actually would have missiles with a range of 50+ km. How much fun would that possibly be, what do you imagine?

I can assure you, in the year 3300 no real person would actually take place in a real spaceship and risking his life with shooting at other manned spaceships. The next big thing in the 21th century are drones (already there) and unmanned automatic AI guided weapons.

Would you really like to play such a game? I wonder if you would sell more than 10 copies of such a masterpiece of reality simulation.

This whole "we already have this and that in the 21st century thinking" just doesn't compute for fun gameplay. Try to stress your imagination a little bit to convince yourself what a nonsense that would be. With your thinking taking to a consequent end we wouldn't have a game at all at this point.

Obviously you've never played a quality sim like say Falcon 4 BMS, DCS or say Command: Modern Air Naval Operations all of which use beyond visual range weapons. Just because you can't see your enemy doesn't mean you won't crap your pants when his stealth missile shows up and you've got to jump thru multiple hoops to avoid it. I've played many a Harpoon scenario where the audio notification "Vampire, Vampire, Vampire" rang out and I near jumped out of my seat. That notification is a warning that missiles are inbound.

That said: You obviously didn't read my whole post - you know - the part about suspension of disbelief being necessary to enjoy ED - which I do.

But even with SODB some choices FD made are just plain silly, some are just plain STUPID. But that's another discussion entirely - one that's been beaten to death in the last two and a half years or so.

 

[Muetdhiver]

ED was never meant to be a sim in the sense of realistic simulator like DCS and such.

So, it's a bit silly to complain about the lack of realism (since it's more of an arcade game).
That does not mean that we should not hope for consistency, a department in which ED is quite
lacking TBH.

128t sensors that can't sense a multimegawatt powered ship past 5-6km...
Shooting armed targets with howitzer shells instead of SABOT rounds...
Missiles with a range of 5km... and generally weapons with point blank ranges...

I'm sure it could be improved without unbalancing things too much. To me it's way
more immersion breaking than instant ship transfer times, but hey, that's just me ^^

 

[Rubbernuke]

But 'fixed' weapons micro gimbal....

Back in beta there was the linking of sensors to gimbals that was backed away from, which made me sad. If we had that, it could be made so that A rated sensors see through chaff better / track faster, but are heavier.