Jump To Lightspeed Archive

---

Tumbler2002 wrote:

---

Cobra2468 wrote:

it really doesnt matter, if a tie interceptor hits a target with all 4 of its blasters it does the same damage that it would if only one of them hit the target and because of that its a bigger advantage to NOT have them converge because you can hit stuff easier with a wider field. think of a shotgun that will blow a hole in you no matter how many of the pellets hit you.

---

I agree with this statement. I flew an interceptor for a while and found that even though it looked like only 1 beam was hitting in some cases, full damage was still happening. As far as I can tell there is no convergence, the guns operate in parallel and either you hit or you don't. If convergence mattered you'd need each gun to be mounted seperately and have it's own damage. As long as any part of your shot hits it should do normal damage for that weapon.

Unless they want to change the way weapons are mounted there is no point in making the lasers converge.

---

i religiously played all the xwing/tie fighter games. i dont EVER remember there being an option for convergance or not. If it was, i never used it. I also dont have any problems killing things in this game with the non convergent lasers. They are silent on it because its a stupid thing to complain about. Sorry guys.

---

ZandaarDokedros wrote:
i religiously played all the xwing/tie fighter games. i dont EVER remember there being an option for convergance or not. If it was, i never used it. I also dont have any problems killing things in this game with the non convergent lasers. They are silent on it because its a stupid thing to complain about. Sorry guys.

---

You don't remember does not mean it's not there. The laser convergence in XWA is on by default. I still play XWA from time to time, so I know that very well. In other X-Wing games, lasers also converge at default distance, which means you don't have to do anything unless you're really into it and want to change the default setting. In JtL there's nolaser convergence implementation whatsoever.Sure you don't have a problem because you flyImperial ships most of time. I didn't have a problem either until Igot myFiresprary.

Message Edited by Amuro0079 on 12-16-2004 02:19 PM

well obviously the debate is whether u need convergence at all, or if u do full damage if only one laser hits. which is exactly why the devs need to say something on the matter.

---

Ditolus wrote:
well obviously the debate is whether u need convergence at all, or if u do full damage if only one laser hits. which is exactly why the devs need to say something on the matter.

---

would depend on how they are placed. if different weapons are firing in a way where its unlikely that beams of more than one weapon will hit, then its still a problem, simply because it would be useless to fire 2 or more weapons if only one of them hits anyway. that in turn would make sluggish ships with many weapons rather useless, as you could do the same damage with a faster ship. doesnt seem to be an issue with most ships, but still with some.

---

Ditolus wrote:
trienco do u think that by not having convergence that its implied that ships with center mounted guns are more for dogfighting and ships with further away mounted guns(firespray, kimo, bwing) are for bigger targets like cap ships?

---

seeing how the weapon placement in most cases is dictacted by the movies one would have to ask the people creating the models what they had in mind. but especially with the b-wing i would expect that to be more for looks than reasoning, just placing weapons wherever they could. for pure effectiveness i would bundle them close together to increase the chance of punching through the hull in one spot instead of merely scratching it at 10 different places. even more so with heavily armored capital ships than small fighters that should fall apart one way or another. placing them far apart could have any reason from heat to making sure you still have a few working guns left after taking a heavy beating.

random points:

it would be pointless to say "this is meant for cap ships, so lets make small targets hard to hit". nobody in his right mind would place tons of weapons all over the ship just to "imply" that its not for dog fighting. even in ww2 nobody would waste lots of ammo by having weapons mounted completely parallel and basically forcing half your ammo to miss. also, bigger targets would rather call for more missiles or torpedoes and not more capacitor leeching weapons (if you need to shoot at your target for long enough then it doesnt matter if you have 4 weapons and spend a lot of time waiting for the cap to recharge or just have 2 weapons and fire nonstop).

the real problem is that nobody knows how jtl is doing its hit detection, for all i know it could do full blown realistic detection on the server (unlikely) or just fake it by comparing the screen distance of reticle and target point to an abstract and scaled ship size. they could use just a single ray shooting out right from the center for all fired weapons or multiply the ascii value of the second letter of today with bigfoots shoe size and compare it to the averaged birthdate of all people with the name armstrong.

if they use a really simplified version then convergence doesnt matter anyway, but it would be nice to know these little details to figure out which ship is "right" for someones preferences. lets say it IS simplified enough, then somebody might fall for the x- or b-wing thinking that having the weapon fire all over the place would increase his chances to hit with at least some of them. another one might avoid the b-wing thinking that 4 guns will just drain his cap in an instant while never hitting with more than 1 or 2 of them anyway.

one might even go so far and say that the whole discussion is just the result of highly misleading visual feedback that isnt even an approx. representation of whats really going on. like emptying your cap into a ship, getting "hit feedback" all the time -shield flashing etc.- when none of your shots really hit anything because the client based eyecandy is totally different from server side results (of course it might be even more irritating if there was a second or longer delay between the beam visually hitting and the shield lighting up).

after all, a single soe-side "convergence doesnt matter, because we use a simplified hit detection" could end the whole discussion in a second, but i guess some would call it a "game spoilers" and others "spoon feeding players with raw data" (while im not complaining about too little raw data, my screen is filled with useless numbers for pitch/yaw/roll without any unit or explanation what 1.7 even means, except that its bigger than 1.3 and therefore hopefully better.. or isnt it? after all they still keep naming things "speed" that are delays instead of using a sensible name or at least doing a simple 1/x before displaying the value).

the easiest way to solve it would be two players shooting each other and collecting some numbers, ignoring all "looks" and using only the stats-screen for their ships (but dont forget to select another component and then the shields again to get the right numbers).

good post tri. the easiest way though would be for the devs to do what i said in my first post. just tell us!!!!!!!!!!!!!

trienco do u think that by not having convergence that its implied that ships with center mounted guns are more for dogfighting and ships with further away mounted guns(firespray, kimo, bwing) are for bigger targets like cap ships?

---

truewildman wrote:

The only time my shots go around my target is when I'm less than 30m from it. At that point, convergence won't help, unless your guns can turn 90 degrees.

---

---

Amuro0079 wrote:

---

Tumbler2002 wrote:

---

Cobra2468 wrote:

it really doesnt matter, if a tie interceptor hits a target with all 4 of its blasters it does the same damage that it would if only one of them hit the target and because of that its a bigger advantage to NOT have them converge because you can hit stuff easier with a wider field. think of a shotgun that will blow a hole in you no matter how many of the pellets hit you.

---

I agree with this statement. I flew an interceptor for a while and found that even though it looked like only 1 beam was hitting in some cases, full damage was still happening. As far as I can tell there is no convergence, the guns operate in parallel and either you hit or you don't. If convergence mattered you'd need each gun to be mounted seperately and have it's own damage. As long as any part of your shot hits it should do normal damage for that weapon.

Unless they want to change the way weapons are mounted there is no point in making the lasers converge.

---

You obviously don't know how multiple guns are mounted on non-TIE ships, do you? As Tumbler2002 said, the Intercpetor has only one weapon, so one bolt registers a hit you do full damage, no problem. Now, look at the Firespray, it also shoots out four blots, the two bolts on the top come from the first gun, the bottom two belongs to the second gun, so you'll have to have one bolt from the top and one from the bottom to hit the target simultaneously to do full damge.

Also, I don't understand why people are against bringing laser convergence to the game, as it will only make the gameplay more sim like. If you think automatic convergence will make it too easy to hit, then do it manually. It's very easy to simply add a key to cycle through different laser convergence distance at 100m, 250m, 400m, 550m, and so on.

---

i think u hit the nail right on the head amuro. awings and tie fighters obviously dont need convergence. but bwings, firesprays, kimogilas definitely do.

trienco do u think that by not having convergence that its implied that ships with center mounted guns are more for dogfighting and ships with further away mounted guns(firespray, kimo, bwing) are for bigger targets like cap ships?