Improving bad convergence hardpoints for Fixed Weapons

[bn]

I literally cannot play with the Clipper and Courier (the way I want to play - with fixed weapons) because of the terrible convergence. With the possible exception of large ships intended to use turrets (and buffing turrets is a whole other issue) I think all hardpoints should be viable with fixed. Solutions/ideas:
-improved micro gimballing (baseline) so hardpoints always fix in on center mass of target (or at a certain distance). We sorta have this right now but it is no where near enough to compensate for bad hardpoints like the Clipper's wing nacelles.
-new fixed enhanced micro gimballed weapons (maybe more expensive and/or do a tiny bit less damage than regular fixed).
-actually redoing/moving ship hardpoints so most hardpoints have good fixed convergence or at least having the option to spend credits to move hardpoints
-possible engineering mod to fixed weapons

I just can't get over how agile ships like the Courier and Clipper have bad fixed convergence. It's almost like it is just the result of aesthetics. By far I think the best solution is just increased micro gimballing for fixed hardpoints as this already appears to be programmed into the game.

 

[Koma Pahu]

Use gimbals. That’s kinda the point of them.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

If the Clipper had good weapon convergence I can't think of a reason I would want to fly anything else.

 

[BackToTheMud]

By far I think the best solution is just increased micro gimballing for fixed hardpoints as this already appears to be programmed into the game.

This is a terrible idea. You want to destroy skill based combat because you don't want to accept that ships should have flaws.
Micro gimballing shouldn't be a thing at all (It's incredibly dumb that it's easier to snipe a pover plant from 5 km than it is from 500 m.)
What they should do is making it so we can set, and change, the convergence for a ships weapons. This should not be hard to implement.

 

[KRISXR]

I have thought about fixed weapons and hard point placement before. Me as an individual thought being able to set convergence points would be cool. Like 600m out or 1km, or 2 would be fun. A player could find their optimal sweet spot for engagement ranges. This may make fixed op, and a whole balancing issue arises, then numbers tweaked, so on and so on... Idk, just use gimbals.

 

[bn]

Some of you guys absolutely miss the point.
I don't want convergence to the point of being able to easily snipe powerplants any better than ships with good convergence have. I want the awful hardpoints (like Clipper's wing nacelles) to be viable for fixed. Either have them gimbal towards the center more or move them on the ship (or have option to move hardpoints). How is this negating skill? Does this mean all ships with good hardpoint convergence should have some of them moved out like the Clipper? I do not like gimbals and greatly prefer fixed (railguns and beams usually). I'm running a Krait right now and will probably get Corsair and Cobra 5. Why am I forced into those ships when I'd prefer using the Clipper and Courier?
I can't believe people actually like stuff like this. It's like there's a bunch of masochists playing/designing the game. I highly doubt bad weapon convergence was even intentional; I'll bet it was purely a result of aesthetic choices (placement of hardpoints). This is why a lot of the newer ships are getting good convergence. I don't think anyone really wants a ship to have artificially bad weapon convergence. The only sense it makes is on larger ships like Cutter. And then we have the issue of turrets being really sub optimal.
A lot of people harp on about the simulation aspect of Elite/realism. Well in real life probably every single small and most medium ships would be designed with very good fixed convergence (like the Krait and Corsair have).

 

[Koma Pahu]

Seriously, if you want to fly the iClipper you have to accept the hardpoint placement. Don’t start slagging people who have decided to play the game we have. Use gimbals, or missiles, whatever you want just not fixed weapons out on the extremities of the ship.

Me as an individual thought being able to set convergence points would be cool.

I actually think this is a really good idea. Having a manual convergence could be really useful for gauging distance from your target.

 

[aRJay]

As someone who dislikes Fixed weaponry and how OP it is I am not that enthusiastic for suggestions that make it even better to use.

 

[Tryohazard]

Not having convergence is definitely an oversight. Its like forgetting to sight-in a rifle. You set the crosshair so that when you fire it should hit where the crosshair is pointing at a given range. Maybe it could just be any weapon's max range. This would mean it will still adjust based on hardpoint location and hit your target as long as its not so close and small or very far away

 

[BackToTheMud]

Some of you guys absolutely miss the point.
I don't want convergence to the point of being able to easily snipe powerplants any better than ships with good convergence have. I want the awful hardpoints (like Clipper's wing nacelles) to be viable for fixed. Either have them gimbal towards the center more or move them on the ship (or have option to move hardpoints). How is this negating skill? Does this mean all ships with good hardpoint convergence should have some of them moved out like the Clipper? I do not like gimbals and greatly prefer fixed (railguns and beams usually). I'm running a Krait right now and will probably get Corsair and Cobra 5. Why am I forced into those ships when I'd prefer using the Clipper and Courier?
I can't believe people actually like stuff like this. It's like there's a bunch of masochists playing/designing the game. I highly doubt bad weapon convergence was even intentional; I'll bet it was purely a result of aesthetic choices (placement of hardpoints). This is why a lot of the newer ships are getting good convergence. I don't think anyone really wants a ship to have artificially bad weapon convergence. The only sense it makes is on larger ships like Cutter. And then we have the issue of turrets being really sub optimal.
A lot of people harp on about the simulation aspect of Elite/realism. Well in real life probably every single small and most medium ships would be designed with very good fixed convergence (like the Krait and Corsair have).

No no, we get your point. Problem is that you seem completely oblivious to that buffing micro gimballing angles would be an absolutely massive buff for fixed hit scan weapons, as well as both a huge buff and a huge frustration for every other fixed weapon. The impact on pve might be limited...If annoying...it would have a huge impact on pvp.
And while last years new ships does have what seem to be a more thought out weapon placement, do you know what they also have? An undersized power distributors. You know, a flaw.

It's also exceedingly funny that you complain that the clipper has poor weapon placement for aesthetic reasons. It's fracking gutamaya! Form over function is their entire thing.

In the end it comes down to something multible people has already expressed in different ways: if you like a ship, embrace that ship, flaws and all.

 

[bn]

No no, we get your point. Problem is that you seem completely oblivious to that buffing micro gimballing angles would be an absolutely massive buff for fixed hit scan weapons, as well as both a huge buff and a huge frustration for every other fixed weapon. The impact on pve might be limited...If annoying...it would have a huge impact on pvp.
And while last years new ships does have what seem to be a more thought out weapon placement, do you know what they also have? An undersized power distributors. You know, a flaw.

It's also exceedingly funny that you complain that the clipper has poor weapon placement for aesthetic reasons. It's fracking gutamaya! Form over function is their entire thing.

In the end it comes down to something multible people has already expressed in different ways: if you like a ship, embrace that ship, flaws and all.

I'm not talking about introducing micro gimballing (for fixed) for hardpoints that already have good convergence (like Krait 2) . I'm talking about fixed weapons on horrible hardpoints like the Clipper's wings/nacelles gimballing towards the center a little more to be on par with the Krait. And I don't mean perfectly gimballing in on powerplants, etc... just center in on target at range to mimic decent fixed hardpoint placement. If what you say is true (they cannot gimbal them more without somehow breaking balance) then allow us to move the hardpoints (upgrade the ships) or set convergence (as was done on WW2 fighters I believe) for the bad ones so more ships are viable for fixed hardpoints.

At the end of the day I'm for anything to get better fixed placement on ships where it makes sense. I totally disagree with you that this breaks the game, breaks ship balance, removes skill, etc... It would simply make more ships viable with fixed. I'll stand by this - I don't think the devs ever intended for ships like the Courier, Clipper, Mamba to have bad convergence; I think it's purely an oversight and just a result of designing for aesthetics (this looks like a cool place for a hard point). The only sense 'bad' fixed hardpoint placement makes sense is for larger/less agile ships (especially ships intended to use turrets where good turret placement contradicts good fixed placement). Not an expert but I'd argue for better turrets as my understanding is they are quite weak.

 

[bn]

Not having convergence is definitely an oversight. Its like forgetting to sight-in a rifle. You set the crosshair so that when you fire it should hit where the crosshair is pointing at a given range. Maybe it could just be any weapon's max range. This would mean it will still adjust based on hardpoint location and hit your target as long as its not so close and small or very far away

Thank you! Disbelief at the people here who think bad fixed convergence is a good thing on anything but larger ships/ships with low agility intended to use turrets.

 

[aRJay]

Yes turrets and gambled weapons were deliberately made weaker and less accurate in an over the top attempt to make fixed weapons attractive.

 

[bn]

Yes turrets and gambled weapons were deliberately made weaker and less accurate in an over the top attempt to make fixed weapons attractive.

To be clear = In no way, shape or form am I suggesting fixed weapons become stronger (such as automatically gimballing in on power plants any more than they already do). It's more about allowing fixed to be viable on more ships (where it makes sense). I'm talking about allowing lousy hardpoints to be workable with fixed (either move the hardpoints, let player set a convergence distance or allow fixed weapons on the lousy hardpoints to automatically converge on target in center reticle to mimic good hardpoint placement; for example Clipper's awful hardpoints would center in a bit more to mimic the Krait 2's good hardpoints). You have agile, 'jet-fighter' type ships like the Courier and Clipper with awful hardpoints for fixed - it makes no sense for balance, gameplay-freedom of choice nor in Universe 'realism' or suspension of disbelief.

Gimballing might be the wrong word and why some people are misunderstanding me - I'm not talking about fixed weapons suddenly becoming gimballed to the point of tracking the target outside of the center reticle. I'm taking about them just converging better into the center reticle to mimic good fixed hardpoint placement.

One thing I cannot stand at all is the constant chaff that renders turrets and gimbals basically useless. If gimbals and turrets are going to do less damage I wonder if chaff should be removed, Otherwise let them do the same damage as fixed. Other solutions would be modules, engineering, etc... that somehow counter chaff or having an increased cooldown on chaff launchers. I don't think Point Defense can target/shoot chaff - that would also be another possible change.

Turrets absolutely need a buff IMO.

 

[KRISXR]

Turrets are pretty weak, my biggest gripe is they fire all the time and when cycling through targets they will shoot at friendly targets. I think being able to set convergence points is a cool idea, maybe just numb them up a bit to keep the balance, but not down to gimbaled numbers.

 

[Insane4un]

I literally cannot play with the Clipper and Courier (the way I want to play - with fixed weapons) because of the terrible convergence. With the possible exception of large ships intended to use turrets (and buffing turrets is a whole other issue) I think all hardpoints should be viable with fixed. Solutions/ideas:
-improved micro gimballing (baseline) so hardpoints always fix in on center mass of target (or at a certain distance). We sorta have this right now but it is no where near enough to compensate for bad hardpoints like the Clipper's wing nacelles.
-new fixed enhanced micro gimballed weapons (maybe more expensive and/or do a tiny bit less damage than regular fixed).
-actually redoing/moving ship hardpoints so most hardpoints have good fixed convergence or at least having the option to spend credits to move hardpoints
-possible engineering mod to fixed weapons

I just can't get over how agile ships like the Courier and Clipper have bad fixed convergence. It's almost like it is just the result of aesthetics. By far I think the best solution is just increased micro gimballing for fixed hardpoints as this already appears to be programmed into the game.

No, making Fixed weapons even more dominant is not a good idea, period. The solution to your problem is simple - use LL LM hardpoints for fire group 1 and RL RM hardpoints for fire group 2. That's how you suppose to use fixed weapons on I-Clipper. You slide from one side of hull to the other. Alternatively you can get gimballed weapons like Concord cannon and put them into 2M slots. This will work very nice with any thermal weapons in your L slots. But if you absolutely need fixed options, you can go with 2 fire groups and 2 different weapon types. 2 plasma + 2 rails for example and slide from one side of hull to another before shooting.

And finally, you can get Corsair and forget that I-Clipper ever existed. Cause with Corsair I-Clipper is now obsolete at everything. After the moment when Corsair will be available to everyone, we might as well just delete I-Clipper from the game, and we won't even notice that it's gone.

 

[aRJay]

To be clear = In no way, shape or form am I suggesting fixed weapons become stronger (such as automatically gimballing in on power plants any more than they already do). It's more about allowing fixed to be viable on more ships (where it makes sense). I'm talking about allowing lousy hardpoints to be workable with fixed (either move the hardpoints, let player set a convergence distance or allow fixed weapons on the lousy hardpoints to automatically converge on target in center reticle to mimic good hardpoint placement; for example Clipper's awful hardpoints would center in a bit more to mimic the Krait 2's good hardpoints). You have agile, 'jet-fighter' type ships like the Courier and Clipper with awful hardpoints for fixed - it makes no sense for balance, gameplay-freedom of choice nor in Universe 'realism' or suspension of disbelief.

Gimballing might be the wrong word and why some people are misunderstanding me - I'm not talking about fixed weapons suddenly becoming gimballed to the point of tracking the target outside of the center reticle. I'm taking about them just converging better into the center reticle to mimic good fixed hardpoint placement.

One thing I cannot stand at all is the constant chaff that renders turrets and gimbals basically useless. If gimbals and turrets are going to do less damage I wonder if chaff should be removed, Otherwise let them do the same damage as fixed. Other solutions would be modules, engineering, etc... that somehow counter chaff or having an increased cooldown on chaff launchers. I don't think Point Defense can target/shoot chaff - that would also be another possible change.

Turrets absolutely need a buff IMO.

But just by improving the convergence on those ships you will make fixed weapons stronger or more effective as all the damage will be concentrated at the convergence point.
Turrets and Gimbals are nerfed by having higher jitter/inaccuracy as well as reduced damage, OK the jitter is explainable the mounts have more moving parts more joints and they are longer so it is understandable that recoil etc has more effect, I have much more trouble believing the damage reduction per hit is explainable other than as a nerf.

Turrets are pretty weak, my biggest gripe is they fire all the time and when cycling through targets they will shoot at friendly targets. I think being able to set convergence points is a cool idea, maybe just numb them up a bit to keep the balance, but not down to gimbaled numbers.

I haven’t used Fire at Will in eight years of using turrets, set to Target Only and they only shoot at the targeted ship they might hit the occasional friendly especially while being chaffed but usually manage to pause fire when the idiot flies between me and the target. My SLF is an exception of course but that’s OK it is basically just ammunition anyway. Of course if you target the wrong ship…

 

[Insane4un]

I haven’t used Fire at Will in eight years of using turrets, set to Target Only and they only shoot at the targeted ship they might hit the occasional friendly especially while being chaffed but usually manage to pause fire when the idiot flies between me and the target. My SLF is an exception of course but that’s OK it is basically just ammunition anyway. Of course if you target the wrong ship…

Fire at will is needed to manually control fire groups of turrets, not the targets. That mean, with Fire at Will you can create all kinds of fire groups with only 2 buttons to use and non of which would activate turrets. You will never need to press any button to activate turrets and by switching fire groups you can switch numbers and positions of active turrets as well. So, for example I have 4 groups in which only 1LB+1ML+2SLR hardpoints are active on corvette, second group is 1LB+1MR+2SLR hardpoints, third group 1LB+1MR+1ML+2SLR and finally last group is without LB turret to conserve capacitor to fire main guns. That mean I can cycle fire groups to fire turrets only on the left or right side and I can conserve capacitor when needed by removing LB from fire group. I can also completely switch off all turrets and continue using main fixed guns when dealing with chaffs. And because of Fire at Will, I won't need to press any button to do that. So I still can play with even more guns in fire groups. Turrets (fire at will, no need to use buttons) + Fixed gun (button 1) + Gimbal (button 2) or another fixed gun of different class - like cascade rail for example. Also, with Fire at will you can't missclick another target and get bounty for that. Fire at will only activates when there's enemy or whenever someone starts attacking you.

Target Only works only if you press the button and this button requires to be pressed every time you're switching fire groups. This is extremely irritating and gets repetitive very fast. I honestly tired of Target Only as it sucks big time. Fire at will also ignores target lock breaker plasma effect, which is just additional bonus point.

That's why Fire at will > Target only and you won't be able to change my mind.

 

[BackToTheMud]

You know, @bn, I could keep arguing directly against you, but I'm going to try something different.

My favourite ship in the game is the Keelback. And while being a very flexible ship, it is, quite frankly, not a good one.
It's slow, it can't turn, the canopy will melt quicker than a smowball in a furnace, the power plant could be bigger, it's rather limited in its optional internals, the shield leave a lot to be desired, another utility mount wouldn't go amiss, the power distributor is severely undersized, and while the hardpoints do have pretty good convergence they also have a couple of peculiarities that limits them.
Now, Fdev could "fix" all this. But in doing so they would also remove all the character from the ship. And while there are 3 things I would like to tweek with the ship (those 3 changes combined doesn't come anywhere changing the feel of the ship as moving the hard point placement would change the clippers, or wreak the havoc your initial gimbal idea would) I love the ship as it is. After all, if I wanted a good ship I fly a Krait Mk II; they're basically the same ship anyway...

There's been a joke for years (probably because of the Pilot) that the Keelback is the only ship that comes with a soul. I already told you "if you like a ship, embrace that ship, flaws and all". I will take it further. I shouldn't like the Keelback. On paper it's anathema to how I think. But when I, as a noobie commander, first liften off in one it spoke to me. When I had all the engineers unlocked I came back to it, and I listened. While l knew what I wanted the ship to do, I listened to what the ship told me it needed to be able to donthat. I spent months changing and tweeking the build, always listening to the ship. And over the years since then a couple of tweeks have been made when the ship started to grumble. My Keelback talks to me, and in exchange for listening I got a ship that brings me endless hours of joy in ways a mere pixel space ship shouldn't be able too.

The point of this long, and somewhat psychedelic rant is, if you haven't already grasped it, this: If the clipper speaks to you, listened to it; don't force it to be something it isn't,. If it doesn't, maybe it's not the ship for you.

 

[aRJay]

Fire at will is needed to manually control fire groups of turrets, not the targets. That mean, with Fire at Will you can create all kinds of fire groups with only 2 buttons to use and non of which would activate turrets. You will never need to press any button to activate turrets and by switching fire groups you can switch numbers and positions of active turrets as well. So, for example I have 4 groups in which only 1LB+1ML+2SLR hardpoints are active on corvette, second group is 1LB+1MR+2SLR hardpoints, third group 1LB+1MR+1ML+2SLR and finally last group is without LB turret to conserve capacitor to fire main guns. That mean I can cycle fire groups to fire turrets only on the left or right side and I can conserve capacitor when needed by removing LB from fire group. I can also completely switch off all turrets and continue using main fixed guns when dealing with chaffs. And because of Fire at Will, I won't need to press any button to do that. So I still can play with even more guns in fire groups. Turrets (fire at will, no need to use buttons) + Fixed gun (button 1) + Gimbal (button 2) or another fixed gun of different class - like cascade rail for example. Also, with Fire at will you can't missclick another target and get bounty for that. Fire at will only activates when there's enemy or whenever someone starts attacking you.

Target Only works only if you press the button and this button requires to be pressed every time you're switching fire groups. This is extremely irritating and gets repetitive very fast. I honestly tired of Target Only as it sucks big time. Fire at will also ignores target lock breaker plasma effect, which is just additional bonus point.

That's why Fire at will > Target only and you won't be able to change my mind.

Just because you are wrong in your belief why should I try and change your mind.