The Current Method:
-
Elite Dangerous has three different mounting types for weapons: fixed, gimbaled, and turreted.
-
Fixed weapons fire straight ahead although they do provide a small amount of target lock traversal. These weapons arguably require the most pilot skill to operate.
-
Gimbaled weapons lock onto a target and follow it using an automated coaxial mount. This effectively creates a cone shaped area in front of the weapon where targets can be hit.
-
Turreted weapons can track an enemy in nearly every direction. The only blind spot for a turreted weapon is the plain of the ship to which the turret is mounted.
-
Using weapons that have a gimbaled or turreted mount allow the pilot to stay on target longer and thus do more damage. There are several in game factors that balance this advantage but there is only one that really matters.
-
Damage output is the primary method used by FD to balance gimbaled and turreted weapons. Weapons of the same type will typically be most powerful in fixed form, be less powerful in gimbaled form, and be least powerful in turreted form.
-
Other tools used to balance weapon types are cost, power draw, and accuracy. These are less important so I won’t go into them here.
-
I’ve never really liked the balance between these mounting types because it doesn’t feel realistic. For example why would the exact same weapon be half as powerful (or less) when in turreted form vs fixed form or why would turrets wobble so much? Ideally, I would like to do away with such inconsistencies but I was willing to accept them as necessary. After all, some type of balance between these weapon mounts was needed or everyone would run around with turrets.
-
My Proposal:
-
The current balance techniques are a kludge (IMO). I’ve come up with what I feel is a more elegant proposal. I hold no hope in this being implemented in game but I wanted to share all the same so here it goes.
-
First, separate the weapon and the mount. Instead of having three versions of each weapon (fixed, gimbaled, turreted) there is now only one (fixed) type. Second, create a gimbaled and turreted mounts to be purchased separately for weapon hard points.
-
The balance mechanism works like this: gimbal mounts can fit a weapon one size lower than their hard point rating and turret mounts can fit a weapon two sizes smaller than their hard point rating. The combinations come out looking like this:
-
-
Mounts can be incompatible with certain weapon types based on a recoil rating so as to preclude overly powerful combinations such as turreted rails.
-
There could even be an engineer that specializes in weapon guidance systems; but I digress.
-
That sums up my proposal. If you got this far, thanks for reading.
-
CMDR Cablefast
-
Elite Dangerous has three different mounting types for weapons: fixed, gimbaled, and turreted.
-
Fixed weapons fire straight ahead although they do provide a small amount of target lock traversal. These weapons arguably require the most pilot skill to operate.
-
Gimbaled weapons lock onto a target and follow it using an automated coaxial mount. This effectively creates a cone shaped area in front of the weapon where targets can be hit.
-
Turreted weapons can track an enemy in nearly every direction. The only blind spot for a turreted weapon is the plain of the ship to which the turret is mounted.
-
Using weapons that have a gimbaled or turreted mount allow the pilot to stay on target longer and thus do more damage. There are several in game factors that balance this advantage but there is only one that really matters.
-
Damage output is the primary method used by FD to balance gimbaled and turreted weapons. Weapons of the same type will typically be most powerful in fixed form, be less powerful in gimbaled form, and be least powerful in turreted form.
-
Other tools used to balance weapon types are cost, power draw, and accuracy. These are less important so I won’t go into them here.
-
I’ve never really liked the balance between these mounting types because it doesn’t feel realistic. For example why would the exact same weapon be half as powerful (or less) when in turreted form vs fixed form or why would turrets wobble so much? Ideally, I would like to do away with such inconsistencies but I was willing to accept them as necessary. After all, some type of balance between these weapon mounts was needed or everyone would run around with turrets.
-
My Proposal:
-
The current balance techniques are a kludge (IMO). I’ve come up with what I feel is a more elegant proposal. I hold no hope in this being implemented in game but I wanted to share all the same so here it goes.
-
First, separate the weapon and the mount. Instead of having three versions of each weapon (fixed, gimbaled, turreted) there is now only one (fixed) type. Second, create a gimbaled and turreted mounts to be purchased separately for weapon hard points.
-
The balance mechanism works like this: gimbal mounts can fit a weapon one size lower than their hard point rating and turret mounts can fit a weapon two sizes smaller than their hard point rating. The combinations come out looking like this:
-
- Small hard points can mount:
- no type of gimbal or turret
- A small fixed weapon
- Medium hard points can mount:
- A medium gimbal mount with a small weapon
- A medium or small fixed weapon
- Large hard points can mount:
- A large turret mount with a small weapon
- A large gimbal mount with a medium or small weapon
- A medium gimbal mount with a small weapon
- A large, medium, or small fixed weapon
- Huge hard points can mount:
- A huge turret mount with a small or medium weapon
- A large turret mount with a small weapon
- A huge gimbal mount with a large, medium, or small weapon
- A large gimbal mount with a medium or small weapon
- A medium gimbal mount with a small weapon
- A huge, large, medium, or small fixed weapon
-
Mounts can be incompatible with certain weapon types based on a recoil rating so as to preclude overly powerful combinations such as turreted rails.
-
There could even be an engineer that specializes in weapon guidance systems; but I digress.
-
That sums up my proposal. If you got this far, thanks for reading.
-
CMDR Cablefast
Last edited:
