Pilot Archive
Thread: Can we get some convergence and dispersion please?
Message Edited by Zariell on 07-24-2005 02:15 AM
But in this case...
...you ARE aware you're essentially playing Quake 3 in space, right? This isn't I-War 2, LO:MAC, or Falcon 4.0. I consider it a minor miracle when people can manage to lead a target...adding something as complex as this...
...would turn more people off to piloting and rid us of most of the FS XP conversion and Jedi in Space threads.
My good man, you're a genius.
I definately agree with this, as a X-Wing vet, not having convergence makes it annoying to fly ships such as the ARC or Z95, even if it was not adjustable, having it at a set distance would be better than the current situation, only the central gun in the X-wing makes up for this rubbish and i would gladly sacrifice it if we could get convergance on the guns.
Never heard of divergance myself but i like the idea, being able to control it for different targets would be could,a wide divergance could be handy for those fast moving squints, and a narrow divergance would make taking down GBs and such much easier
KaylBreinhar wrote:
...would turn more people off to piloting and rid us of most of the FS XP conversion and Jedi in Space threads.
My good man, you're a genius.
Try coming to a stop. Target a friend and have him fly toward you. Notice what happens to the targeting hud.
Maybe there is kinda a sorta of a bit of a convergence.....
If a gun produces more than 1 bolt, (T/I or xwing for example) any one of those bolts hits, you do full damage for that gun. So for an X wing , you only have to hit with half of your spread to do full damage. If you hit with the entire spread you still do full damage as well. So what would be the point of convergance?
Ducimus wrote:
At this point i would like to say that lack of covergance is to your advantage.
If a gun produces more than 1 bolt, (T/I or xwing for example) any one of those bolts hits, you do full damage for that gun. So for an X wing , you only have to hit with half of your spread to do full damage. If you hit with the entire spread you still do full damage as well. So what would be the point of convergance?
To make the shots go where you are aiming. Not to both sides. I find it much easier to hit something with a regular TIE than with a TIE interceptor. I dont have to continually adjust to aim "off-center" to hit something. And the ARC andZ-95 are just plain ridiculous how far apart the fire pattern is.
As to dispersion, this is also not appropriate. We're not firing off "rounds" here. We're firing laser blasts. Real physics don't apply to what is, in effect, nothing but energy.
If Rapax is right, then convergence is more of a pychological issue than a real mechanics issue. Though I'll be the first to admit I was under the impression that multiple beams meant divided damage potential.
Dispersion in a laser weapon would be a matter of beam focus intensity. That is, you widen the focal point of the beam, reducing the damage per hit, but increasing the likelihood of a hit. A shotgun effect, each pellet does less damage than the full bullet, but you splash a greater area on the target.
Message Edited by JanuHull on 07-25-2005 11:18 AM
Treena_Daal wrote:
Have you looked at these ships? What leads you to believe that the blasts are supposed to converge? Nothing, from the way I look at things.
As to dispersion, this is also not appropriate. We're not firing off "rounds" here. We're firing laser blasts. Real physics don't apply to what is, in effect, nothing but energy.
Moxie_Chugster wrote:
I definately agree with this, as a X-Wing vet, not having convergence makes it annoying to fly ships such as the ARC or Z95, even if it was not adjustable, having it at a set distance would be better than the current situation, only the central gun in the X-wing makes up for this rubbish and i would gladly sacrifice it if we could get convergance on the guns.
Never heard of divergance myself but i like the idea, being able to control it for different targets would be could,a wide divergance could be handy for those fast moving squints, and a narrow divergance would make taking down GBs and such much easier
)
"--Michael Stackpole, RS IRC