I saw this remark earlier, and instead of using PM's or going offtopic I thought I'd just post it as a thread (Steve knows I'm using the quote, and I'm not criticising him or anyone else, btw - it's just a jumping off point).
I know there's a perception amongst some in the community that gimballed is somehow a bit of a cop-out - because it requires less skill, and if you can roll with the added damage output of fixed, then that's the discussion ended.
I suppose I can see the appeal if we're going off gameplay alone, especially given skill with fixed yields better rewards. However, isn't more automated systems on a space vessel rated for combat just downright logical? Generally, as weapons systems advance, automation and everything which can give an edge to targeting, tracking, or destructive effectiveness increases - there is no honour in war or deadly combat, there are only survivors and the dead.
Be it a conflict between two people wielding swords, or two ships in space firing lasers at each other, the end result is all that really matters, and the least effort for the best result is ideal.
And judged in terms of mechanical gameplay, I'd say the most relevant concern for weapons is what's effective on your ship, i.e. angle of tracking, heat efficiency, placement, etc.
Still, personally whenever I upgrade to a Vulture for a dedicated fighter, I won't be installing fixed because even if the pitch rate is good enough to hold on more or less any target, maximising DPS is more important to me. There is no spoon cheating - there is only maximising DPS windows. ;-)
So, is there a generally dismissive or skeptical view of gimballed weapons around here, or even across the broader ED community?
