Why do we not get autoconverge for fixed weapons?

Why do fixed weapons not have any form of convergence?

[...]

1. Fixed weapons already micro-gimbal

This is contradicting. Is it not?
This is a form of convergence and the mounts don't have any more slack than that.

And as mentioned it would damage the game if you could converge fixed weapons at closer range.
Managing your profile towards hostiles would become a lot less effective.
A small ship would suddenly frequently get hit by 5+ weapons instead of 1~2.
 
This is contradicting. Is it not?
This is a form of convergence and the mounts don't have any more slack than that.

And as mentioned it would damage the game if you could converge fixed weapons at closer range.
Managing your profile towards hostiles would become a lot less effective.
A small ship would suddenly frequently get hit by 5+ weapons instead of 1~2.

It isn't really contradicting, as it is literally how the game works right now - they don't converge insofar as actually snap in any direction, and one can do it without the other so they end up not converging. There is a bit of slack already, all this does is formalise it so it doesn't just snap when the target box is small. The fixed weapons in this game are hardly the spinal mount weapons they could be.

Small ships are already hit by 5+ weapons at range, except by some extreme ships like the Clipper. All this does is make it more consistent.

It also allows small ships who are closer to get more weapons on those subtargets, so it's double edged at the very least.
 
Last edited:
I see where you're coming from, but definitely not, imo. Fixed need a buff if anything, gimbals are still worth a lot more effective dps due to time on target in the hands of all but the very best. I could even argue that better convergence would go some way toward addressing this, but of course it will make those that are already good, even better.

I'm not in favour of autoconvergence, by the way, I'm happy with the way they are now. Toward balance, I would actually like to get a small heat reduction added to fixed weapons to go with the slight damage buff and slightly lower power draw.

True, true, which is why turrets are the best weapons in the game.
 
And here I thought "auto-convergence" meant "gimballed weapons"

No, just convergence for compensation for distance between hardpoints to make sure they always are aiming at the crosshair and target together.

Fixed weapons have a small amount of movement anyway, so it's not like it is adding anything like a full gimbal to it.
 
true, but he has indeed a point in that health potions and magic spells washed away most of it.

lol. Again, I don't agree.

Yeh to be honest, I don't mind that you hold that opinion, and I don't think you're wrong, per se, BUT I genuinely believe that statements like yours are why we are about to get engineering made a lot worse, without any attention to what actually needed attention (materials gathering). You seem to think engineering ruined balance, and between an engineered ship and a non engineered ship, it did, however it gave us something far more important, a means of becoming more powerful consummate with the effort we put in (perhaps the effort shouldn't be quite SO much, I concede). This is an absolutely critical mechanism in games like elite where progress is a time dependant activity, and is what we're about to lose.
 
This has bothered me since release. Why do fixed weapons not have any form of convergence?

good point. and it wouldn't necessarily have to be automatic, you could adjust your convergence while docked, so there's still a compromise to fixed weapons and the need to plan ahead for target distance. but it definitely makes no sense to build a spacecraft with no convergence at all. the mini-gimbal fixed weapons have is also a bit cheesy balancing.

anyway, i see this has degenerated already into a fixed/gimbal discussion. balance with respect to this imo was a thing originally but is largely moot at this point. and if anything, it's gimbals and not fixed weapons that would need a nerf. frontier actually tried to address that by reducing gimbal angles, but there was a huge outcry here on the forum. my interpretation is that it was mostly from a part of the pve crowd that had simply gotten too lazy (/ducks).
 
lol. Again, I don't agree.

just to clarify: not that it has affected hardpoint placement or targeting performance. it has completely disfigured ship character, in the big picture, by making most compromises of ship characteristic mostly irrelevant, not only hardpoints.
 
You make a good point. Why can't we oriented those hardpoints more into the centrum. This is a fixed weapon but you still can calibrate it. If you put two Mc in your car... You will probably make the line of sight not straightforward. But a little more centred.

As others said, maybe frontier want deliberately weapons to not be convergeant at all in some ships.
 
just to clarify: not that it has affected hardpoint placement or targeting performance. it has completely disfigured ship character, in the big picture, by making most compromises of ship characteristic mostly irrelevant, not only hardpoints.

I still can't agree...

The FGS its worst attribute was speed. It still is. Balance maintained.
The FDL, its worst attribute was agility and power plant, they both got buffed, but still it has below par agility. This isn't fixed with engineering, it is still not as maneuverable as an FAS with the same engines. Balance maintained.
The Python was always very sensitive to blue zone for its agility and therefore it was difficult to use with a lot of lateral or vertical thrust (which unless combined with smart throttle inputs takes you out of the blue zone). Again engineering did not change this, or its awful yaw...

I really could keep going with how the weaknesses of the ships are the same as they were by way of interrelationship between them before and after engineering. One ship that just went nuts OP (went from an interesting niche ship to being objectively the best in the game, pound for pound) overnight because of engineering, was the Courier, I'll certainly give you that.
 
Last edited:
The FGS its worst attribute was speed. It still is. Balance maintained.

dunno, i haven't flown the fgs much.

The FDL, its worst attribute was agility and power plant, they both got buffed, but still it has below par agility. This isn't fixed with engineering, it is still not as maneuverable as an FAS with the same engines. Balance maintained.

i strongly disagree. i've flown the fdl practically since it was born, even during the times it was overwhelmingly dismissed here on the forum. i opposed all buffs. the lack of agility has always been a myth just attributable to poor flying. in elite's flight model speed=agility and fdl has always had plenty of it. and it always has been a good hit and run ship because of its good shield, but now you can simply make a shield tank of it. character destroyed.

The Python was always very sensitive to blue zone for its agility and therefore it was difficult to use with a lot of lateral or vertical thrust (which unless combined with smart throttle inputs takes you out of the blue zone). Again engineering did not change this, or its awful yaw...

but it raised the bar so it's now very combat capable. in contrary of general belief, the python was never a dedicated combat ship, precisely due to it's lack of speed and slow butt, compensated only by its good hardpoints, spectacular power plant and internals availability, meaning it made a fairly good shield tank and could pack a punch. but it would be always prey to a dedicated combat build given two pilots worth their salt, because e.g. a fdl could fly circles around it. not anymore. in fact, almost any ship right now with dirty drives and charge enhanced distributor is now combat capable.

I really could keep going with how the weaknesses of the ships are the same as they were by way of interrelationship between them before and after engineering.

no need. a really striking example is the vulture. a dream ship for many brawlers that were ready to put up with its two main disadvantages: heavily power constrained and slow speed. however great turning rate, very good shield and juicy firepower (if you could power it, you had to choose one or the other!) made it the perfect brawler (if you could manage to fit it), with one big caveat: you had to be ready to fight to the death in it because if things got messy there was no escape to speak of. now you can simply overcharge the powerplant and load the thing like a christmas tree, plus slap a dirty drive on it, and it's free game for you. again, character totally destroyed. this is what engineers has done to the entire ship family more or less.
 
dunno, i haven't flown the fgs much.



i strongly disagree. i've flown the fdl practically since it was born, even during the times it was overwhelmingly dismissed here on the forum. i opposed all buffs. the lack of agility has always been a myth just attributable to poor flying. in elite's flight model speed=agility and fdl has always had plenty of it. and it always has been a good hit and run ship because of its good shield, but now you can simply make a shield tank of it. character destroyed.



but it raised the bar so it's now very combat capable. in contrary of general belief, the python was never a dedicated combat ship, precisely due to it's lack of speed and slow butt, compensated only by its good hardpoints, spectacular power plant and internals availability, meaning it made a fairly good shield tank and could pack a punch. but it would be always prey to a dedicated combat build given two pilots worth their salt, because e.g. a fdl could fly circles around it. not anymore. in fact, almost any ship right now with dirty drives and charge enhanced distributor is now combat capable.



no need. a really striking example is the vulture. a dream ship for many brawlers that were ready to put up with its two main disadvantages: heavily power constrained and slow speed. however great turning rate, very good shield and juicy firepower (if you could power it, you had to choose one or the other!) made it the perfect brawler (if you could manage to fit it), with one big caveat: you had to be ready to fight to the death in it because if things got messy there was no escape to speak of. now you can simply overcharge the powerplant and load the thing like a christmas tree, plus slap a dirty drive on it, and it's free game for you. again, character totally destroyed. this is what engineers has done to the entire ship family more or less.

I agree with about half of that. Your loyalty to your fdl is adorable too. My railguns can't wait to say hi! ;)
 
I agree with about half of that. Your loyalty to your fdl is adorable too. My railguns can't wait to say hi! ;)

my current build is extremely lightweight and doesn't really work in the new pvp craze. but glad to have a fight or two and see if you can at least land 10% of those rail shots on me ;-)
 
What I Wonder is why there are no restricted hardpoints (e.g. spinal mounts that can only get fixed weapons, or turret mounts that can only use those to
further differentiation)

That is a good idea.
I think that would make things interesting.

Some hardpoints on big ships might only accept turrets for example.
Or some hp on some ships might be specialized for missiles.
 
The FDL, its worst attribute was agility and power plant, they both got buffed, but still it has below par agility. This isn't fixed with engineering, it is still not as maneuverable as an FAS with the same engines. Balance maintained.

Rotational performance is only one aspect of agility, and even pre-1.5 buff, the FDL was quite agile. It's harder to leverage that agility with most control setups, but it's there.
 
That is a good idea.
I think that would make things interesting.

Some hardpoints on big ships might only accept turrets for example.
Or some hp on some ships might be specialized for missiles.

Yep, that would make them have some use.

Maybe spinal mount small ships that can only take an oversized fixed.

Or a ship with an excess of hardpoints and the distro to run them, but is limited to turrets.
 
Rotational performance is only one aspect of agility, and even pre-1.5 buff, the FDL was quite agile. It's harder to leverage that agility with most control setups, but it's there.

Yeh, and it's compensated for by the crazy vert and lat acceleration, I know. Plenty of time for you to teach me how to fly it. ;)
 
my current build is extremely lightweight and doesn't really work in the new pvp craze. but glad to have a fight or two and see if you can at least land 10% of those rail shots on me ;-)

Ask Morbad (who kicked by butt all around Ohm City last night, as expected, but it was still fun), if my aim is bad. ;) I'll be the first to admit I do have a lot to learn about pvp, but I'm a very good shot for a HOTAS user, my education is needed in other areas (I just didn't know what to do first, target a mdule, drop chaff or mess around with my pips, lol). If you can make me miss 10% I'll be impressed. I fire only if I can hit, so the question is can you limit how many times I shoot? There's no question of whether I'll hit you or not if I do actually pull the trigger. I will hit you. ;)

Anyway, yeh, I'm a complete newb at pvp, but it's my new goal in life, hit me up in I dunno, two months and I might have a chance. :D
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom