[vorlon31]

One of the things that seems odd to me in jumpgate is its weapons placements.

It feels as though the position of the weapon hardpoints on many of the ship models was considered only as an after thought to their design which results in inconsistencies between ship types when using same type weapons.

In other words, put a gun set on one ship and your accuracy is as you expect, put the same weapons on another ship and its all gone to pot (beyond ship turn properties etc). As an extreme example, a plasma Tensy shoots and aims aok but a plasma pioneer shoots like a dog and your aim is way off what it was in the Tensy purely because your gun placement is so different (way overhead on the pioneer and so offset further from the standard duelist targeting routine).

So, as a suggestion I would like to ask that some thought be put to consistency when placing weapons hardpoints on the new ship models for Jumpgate Evolution, even if on a per faction basis.

[ELPIRATA]

Does a spitfire fire the same as P51? or a Me-109? or my favorite.... the P-38. The first 3 are very similar, but the P38 isnt. Different ships, different fighting styles IMHO, else... everything is the same and boredom sets in.

But this brings an interesting thing that I'm throwin in another thread..... to avoid hijacking

ELP

[Wild_Bill]

I'm with Vorlon on this. I hope more time is put in deciding the gun hardpoint locations to make them more effective. Elpirata makes a valid point, but in real war, most pilots don't do that much ship swapping while in Jumpgate Classic it's almost mandatory to change ships fairly often. Especially for those of us who are somewhat "combat challenged" ever little bit makes a difference good or bad.

[ELPIRATA]

Well, if all ships felt the same... dont you think people would get bored faster?

ELP

[dahalb]

Yes they would get bored but more importantly there would be little to separate them so everyone would just end up flying the same ship(s) all the time. There would be no need to learn the strengths/weaknesses of each of the ships you wish to fly, no need to learn the subtleties of how to fly them to best advantage and no need to learn how to take advantage of their weapons loadouts. It would be cookie cutter central.

No thanks!

[vorlon31]

Elpirata and d, your missing my point I feel and trying to steer it elsewhere.
Ill try again.

Try hitting a target holding a gun above your head.
Try hitting the same target holding the gun where you can see it.

Thats the same thing as in my post, that's what I'm talking about.

Your brain cant see to aim the gun above your head just as a single coded targeting computer can not aim for weapons positioned further away from its optimal setup position.

Altering gun hard points so that they all aim right wont make for cookie clutter ships, it wont de-skill pilots and it wont alter the need to learn the advantages of differing ships.

It just puts the metaphoric eye behind the sight of the weapon so the targeting computer works right. The ships would still have their unique attributes that allow for pilot choice, for their advantages, disadvantages and differing gun loadouts (size, type, number) etc, but they wont be inadvertently handicapped (however slightly) because whatever guns they do have.. just don't aim right.

Those diff planes you mentioned, I'm sure that they ALL had their guns calibrated for their unique gun positioning, so that the pilot could hit things when desired and the answer to that in a game, to do the same thing is..

1) have 50 diff targeting reticule routines for the 50 ships and 50 diff hard point placement combinations (or however many)
2) position the weapon hardpoints so that they all fire optimally.
or
3) code x targeting routines, 1 for each of the player factions and have factionaly optimised gun placements.

Thats the suggestion, not making all ships turn the same, carry the same guns and handle the same - just aim the same. I could even be barking up the wrong tree entirely and the targeting for Jumpgate Evolution IS more ship tuned, but if Im not Ive made my point.

[dahalb]

OK, i understand you a little better now. My opinion on gun placement still holds tho from a boredom perspective. If all ships had the hard-points in the same place it might get a little dull after a while. That said, i would most happily agree with X number of targeting routines per faction or one per hard-point set-up. I'm not sure it makes that much difference tho. I might have to try this in sim before i make up my mind fully.

[netburnr]

While it something to be considered I don't think its as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.

Example, I started as Oct and learned on the Nix, then I moved to the tense. No major differences, but the tense was slightly different in the way you need to aim. I then moved to the quant bomber and it was way different, you had to learn how to hit with all 4 guns because they were placed so far apart, but after a little learning and practice I was able to hit all 4 guns most of the time.

[Sephiroth]

You aren't holding a gun at all in Jumpgate. You are flying a ship with guns on it. I vote no, I like diversity!

[SingleShot]

Guns converge anyway.

[Injustice]

Originally Posted by SingleShot

Guns converge anyway.

Some more than others though. The gun placement on the nado was one of it's weak points.

[netburnr]

Originally Posted by Injustice

Some more than others though. The gun placement on the nado was one of it's weak points.

Seriously thought, it wasnt that bad, yes they were kind of wide spread, but that only matter if you were right on top of someone, if you used a good circle fight at the right distance you could hit all 4 guns almost everytime.