|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Running some of my own tests in the simulator, same ship configs. 18 APB, 12 PPB. Strategy: default optimal weapons range.
APB: 0 won PPB: 9 won (lost 7, 0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 4, 3, 2) Ties: 1 (APB: 13L PPB 8L) that's with the APBs as player 1. With APBs as player 2: APB: 1 won (lost 4) PPB: 9 won (lost 1, 4, 2, 4, 2, 1, 5, 3, 3 overall: APB wins 1, PPB wins 18, 1 tie. this may be a case of the simulator being jacked, I'll try and run some real-world tests tommarow. Phoenix-D |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif :DI think I found the solution to our problem! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Original Problem: PPB seems to be unbalanced, being very cheap to research and comparable or superior to the strongest weapons, such as APBs that at their highest level cost almost 6 times PPBs at their highest level. Opposite positions in the discussion were. a- it is one of the few late game weapons left. Don't touch it. If any change needs to be made, just increase the research cost. b- weapon must be weakened. And it must be reduced to a "support" weapon role. Reducing damage, increasing size or reload rate are just different ways to achieve the same result. To solve the question if PPBs should be a main weapon or only a support weapon, I went back to SE3, and found that PPBs were a MAIN weapon in SE3. IMHO this entire problem was originated when weapons were converted from SE3. In SE3, weapons (or any other component BTW) couldn't have different tonnage. Weapons could only be balanced by changing their damage and reload time. A good balance was achieved and you had a good palette of different interesting weapons. When weapons were copied from SE3 into SE4, they were assigned different tonnage values, while damage and range were simply scaled up in the same way for all weapons. That's when SE3 balance was lost, damage rating of "heavy" weapons was lowered while that of "light" weapons was increased. Proposal for a quick "balance mod": make tonnage of all weapons equal, say 30 or 40 kt. Suddenly many "forgotten" weapons such as Torpedoes, Wave-Motion, Graviton Hellbores, Incinerator Beams are back among the highest damage weapons, and there is not a weapon far above the rest. I think we can have SE3 balance back this way, and remove the unbalance I intuitively noticed since the first time I played SE4, but I didn't actually recognize until now. You should be a little more careful with some weapons that were not in SE3, since some can grow too weak or too strong. But there are A LOT of different late game options. If you want I can show you some numbers to help you see my point. Or I can make and post this "SE3 balance" mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I admit that I initially though position B was right, and I voted to decrease PPB's power. Now, after this observation I'm changing my vote to other. My conclusion is that TONNAGE of ALL weapons, not just PPB needs to be revised. Or if you want to keep current tonnage, compensate by changing damage. If any change has to be made ONLY to PPBs, I'd agree that it should only be increasing its research cost to make it more fair to pay the same research points to get a similar weapon. Tenryu's idea, increasing research cost by adding more techs levels and intermediate steps, instead of just increasing the initial cost sounds very interesting. [ May 30, 2002, 04:44: Message edited by: Andrés Lescano ] |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
Honestly, the "challenge" was more a joke than other thing... but Rollo have accepted it and we're playing now! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif Quote:
But what argument changed your mind, because Rollo was wrong comparing APB VI with PPB VI... About your experiment with Meson BLasters, looks interesting. I'm not against to try to find a work around, ok? I'm against to play my PBW games (and solo games), using 95% of the time the same weapon... And the sad thing, is that most of the trained players does the same than me... It mean games where all the people research PPB and Armors IV fast, Sensors and ECM, and not very often research Shields (only to avoid Boarding ships, and after the next patches, Ionic Dispersers). Maybe the people is not very creative, could be. But I think that the people know that the facts, have demonstrated that is worthless spend research points in weapons that probably will have not time to use... because for the time to reach APB XII, your empire should be a dead meat from a long time ago... The problem is that most the games are with small/medium galaxies, and you usually start with a human neighbor... PPB is the "über-weapon", not matter if it's something more expensive. I don't support an special way to "fix" the PPB (although I have voted for change the cost to research it), but think that MUST be fixed, because the only drawback is some more cost in minerals, that will not keep me out to continue using it as main weapon in my games. Somebody could say: "But if you're tired to use PPB, then use something else!" And maybe I'll start to use other weapons, only for enjoy... but the problem is that mostly I enjoy win! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Geo, it took you THAT long to figure out that PPBs are the best weapon for short-term games? Everybody who ever played a game against any one of the old greats from the Ladder or the BC before the advent of SE4 knows that one! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Fortunately, a good portion of good SE3 strategy carries over to SE4 strategy, we wouldn't want any of you pitiful SE3 players being able to hide forever would we? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Here are the tests I ran:
LC with 4 large APB VI and 2 Shield 5 costs 5200 LC with 4 large PPB V and 2 Shield 5 costs 7100 I compared seven APB to five PPB ships in the simulator. The five PPB ships ALWAYS won against the seven APB ships. I ran another simulator run using Shield 3's. This gave me ship costs of 4700 and 6700. So, I tested six APB ships costing 28,200 total to 4 PPB ships costs 26,800 total. In this test, the six APB ships won 1 out of 10 times. Take a look at the damage potential of the ships: The large APB VI's are doing 80..50 (6) damage compared to 120..100 (6) for the large PPB V. If we say that you can build 18 APB ships to 12 PPB ships, that is a 3 to 2 cost ratio. APB VI 3 * 80..50 => 240..140 PPB V 2 * 120..100 => 240..200 So, the APB and PPB are doing the same damage at point blank but the PPB has better damage at max range of six. This makes the weapons look fairly well balanced, right? The APB does less damage but is cheaper to build. They seem pretty well balanced, right? But did I forget something? Oh yeah, the PPB skips shields. With shield I's or maybe even shield II's, I guess the larger number of APB ships might defeat the smaller number of PPB ships. But by the time you reach shield III's, the PPB ships have an overwhelming advantage. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Once PPBs come into the picture no one going up against the PPBs is going to have shields - they would be using armor - I know that's what I would do. So these tests lack a little realism.
Certain weapons are great for different strategic situations. In a very small universe such as Universe Cup where a game Lasts 50 turns or less the DUC would be all that is needed. Anyone who goes after PPBs will get beat because the 100,000 points they used to start researching PPBs will be used for sensors, armor, or ecm be their opponent. In any game Lasting over 90 turns anyone who sticks with PPBs again will get beat by long range APB Xs or better. The point that people seem to keep making is that PPBs are so powerful there is no point in developing other main weapons - I disagree. If you go with PPBs and you don't knock out your opponent then you run the risk of having a VERY less effective weapon in the later game. In fact the Long Range APBs are so much better that the extra research is probably justified. PPBs are great for a middle length game. The challenge IMO is to figure out if your in one. Instead of going back and forth on the PPBs - How about this. I've always wanted to use a missile only race, but wouldn't dare in PBW. I think the missile system needs more tweaking than the PPBs. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
First of all let me say that I typed this post yesterday (May 29), but then couldn't get to the board all day. So it will not include answers to the latest Posts:
Whew, lots of answers to type. Good thing the board is currently down (Zulu 11:00). That gives me some more time to type, before even more Posts show up http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . Andres - Phased weapons doing only half damage against phased shields is a good suggestion. That would certainly put more emphasis on PPB being a mid-game weapon. Phoenix - Sorry I left out the damage. I figured those numbers would be pretty well known. Didn't want to state the obvious and wanted to give a new perspective (cost). No ill intent here. My point is: Just looking at damage without considering the cost, the PPB seems a lot stronger than it really is. Also don't forget that not all people play with medium research cost. At low cost APB XII does not cost millions more, just about twice as much. Also at low cost you can have APB VI or Shields IV just for the 100k that opens up PPB. Quikngruvn - Yeah, I also noted that weird progression of PPB. Rather than increasing the levels to eight, I would just tone down the lower levels. I still think PPB V is balanced, but PPB II is not. So here is a suggestion for the lower levels: I 30 25 25 20 -- -- II 35 30 30 25 25 -- III 45 40 40 35 35 -- IV 50 45 45 40 40 40 V 60 55 55 50 50 50 Along with the raise of base research cost from 5k to 10k that could do the job (just one note: PPB III would now compare to DUC V damage-wise against unshielded opponents). A further increase in cost could also be a turn-off, but I wouldn't go as far as one third or one half extra. 20% extra cost (PPB V for 600 min) would be more than enough, IMHO (and with the changes just mentioned, I'd rather go without no additional cost). Tenryu - Your suggestion makes PPB waaayyy too weak IMHO. For a 100k "admission fee" you get a PPB I with damage 15 10 00 00 ...? No offense, but that is just worthless. Using your system you'd have to have at least PPB V before even considering using them. My dearest M.B. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif - How can I compare PPB V to APB V or VI? Simply because that is what you get for the same research prize. I thought that would be appropriate. I do know that the APB does less damage than PPB at those levels, but APB V (plus 100k of research to use for other things) is a good comparison. But I made one mistake: I only compared PPB V to the APB. I agree that PPB II is overpowered (see my reply and suggestion above). I agree that the cost of radioactives is not important, although I admit that I had some serious rad problems in some of my games...,but that was just because I didn't pay attention http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif . I guess that challenge is directed at me. Your idea of duking it out is totally childish, immature, will not prove anything, nor will anybody change their opinion because of it. That is exactly why I love it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ! Anytime, anyplace... I love playing mano-a-mano and have never met you in a game, this should be fun. Hope, I didn't forget anybody... Rollo |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Just a random thought:
The new ionic dispensor that does NOT skip shield can actually balance PPB !!! Imagine that your are against somebody who uses normal shields (say lavel 4). Now, if you use PPB, ID as a secondary weapon is useless: it should down shields first ! If however you use APB/MB and ID... |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
Just in case that it was, I can bet that probably I will use PPB/ID and try to destroy the other ships before my shields are down... And considering that I will have PPB, my opponent probably will have only armors (or mostly armors), then, with the ID, the advantage still will be in my side... |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
My point being, if you go mucking with the ppb you will need to muck with darn near everything else, not to mention the AIs. I agree the issue of WEAPONs, {what they do, how they do it, how many types there are, what mounts they can use, what level they can be researched to, what they cost, and what they cost to maintain, what race can use them}, is important, but, it is not an issue amenable to a quick tweak. It would need the sustained attention by several modders completely familiar with the potential impacts on AI designs and behavior. In short, you would need someting like happened with the TDM Group to do it WELL. That group has a well articulated and focused area of attention. At the outset they set clearly defined bounds for the project. TDM has been a SUSTAINED, but CASUAL, group effort. It will be a difficult act to follow. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ May 30, 2002, 14:17: Message edited by: Tenryu ] |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
But, regardless of that my test was trying to find out whether they weapons were balanced at a point in the game when PPB was strongest. In real life the enemy would not wait for you to get to PPBV and LC's to attack. My APB and MB races were both well ahead of PPB in ship tech early on. They both had LC and level 2 of their weapon almost 6 months before PPB race had started on PPB's. They were still on destroyers and researching Physics 2. There very well may be a valid point that the PPB is imbalanced at certain points in the game. When it jumps to PPB II for instance. It also may be that that point in the game corelates with about the time when Master B is ready to move on any poor sap unlucky enough to start near him. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I still disagree that it is an uber-weapon. Yes, it is very popular with the better players. But is that why they are better? I think those people are just modest and don't realize that they would have much sucess regardless of which particular weapon they choose. But that is an argument for another thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Early on a PPB using race would have trouble against one that concentrated on DUC's. Late in the game the PPB race would have trouble against races with APB's. It's the mid game when the PPB's are king. But it's also the mid game when most games are won or lost. Any amount of changing we do to make them less powerul is going to make them less efective in the mid game when they are superior, but it will not make them any better in the late game when they are already inferior. Geoschmo |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I repeat what I had posted below.
Weapons were balanced in SE3, where all weapons had the same size. When they were copied into SE4 they were given different tonnage and that balance was lost. My proposal is give them the same tonnage again. Leave PPBs and APBs as they are, but decrease tonnage of other weapons such as torpedoes, high-energy weapons, graviton hellbores to 30 kt to RESTORE SE3 weapons balance and make them valid options again. PPB should still be among the best weapons, but be one among the many possible choices. Its final stats below APB compensate their initial advantage by skipping normal shields. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Andre, you have a different edition of SE3 than I ever saw. The very first weapons in the game, APB and MB have different sizes in SE3. APB is 3 spaces and MB is 2 spaces.
[ May 30, 2002, 21:24: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
The SE3 weapons may have all had the same number of hitpoints (1), but they certainly were NOT the same size. WMGs took up seven slots, MB took up 2. Sizes have simply been multiplied by 10 for SE4. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
[ May 30, 2002, 17:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie. ] |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
SE3 weapons had different sizes.
"Ok, it may be that. It also may be that in my "Real World" test I neglected to play with the fleet arangments and see if that had any impact. I left all that default so both sides wer staying in a nice V formation. It may be that this skewed my results in favor of the APB since it had the larger fleet." I didn't use ANY fleet formations http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It was just one huge furball after another. I don't use them in real games so I don't use them in sims. The only reason I even fleet my ships is experience and ease of movement. Phoenix-D |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Valid point about comparing the weapons to SEIII.
Unlike all what i said before i have to agree with most of the things said by most of the players here who are against rebalancing. Going back to SEIII and the mentioning of MoO brought me a solution. A difficult, requing some work to be done by Aaron, but i guess it will be the best solution. Read it here |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I would also like to point out that in SE III. Phased Poloron beams had a counter in addition to Phased Shields.
Emissive Armor. You pretty much slapped on at least one component of EA to counter Poloron Beams and reduce the effectiveness of several other weapons. To get around EA you needed Heavier Weapons to rip through it. I rather enjoyed the dynamic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif However with weapon mounts in SE IV pretty much negate the effectiveness of EA with just about every weapon. Just my thoughts. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Yes. Weapon mounts are fun but they take a big chunk out of balance and dynamic. OT.
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
This is looking more and more hopeless. Each faction looks at the same raw data, then interprets it as supporting their own position.
I'm beginning to think that whether PPBs are balanced mainly depends upon who's using them. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
CapnQ: Why, the Emmisive Armor in SEIII was giving complete protection from PPB at a long distance (reduced damage then) and was absorbing the whole damage & destroying in point blank (full damage was the same as EA defense).
I might agree with the second statement, but not the "balancing" but how the players do view the "balance". I personaly tend to play the "hard" way and not use any the-best solutions in most games, first of all strategic/tactic which SEIV is so i tend to not use PPB at all in my games and then i can see their strength when attacked by three AIs all with PPB V when all i have is DUC5 and low armor. Same with ID - i was using it for a while, then indentified it as one of the most powerful weapons in the game, and ENgine Overloading Weapons are no longer on my research list. Same with Null Space. When you dont use it you can see how much powerful is it from a "side view". |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Taera, I have faced opponents using PPB and lost, and faced opponents using PPB and won. It depended on the skill of the opponent, not his choice of weapons.
And as far as Null Space, not using them isn't exactly handicapping yourself. Their ROF makes them VERY weak compared to the other weapons. They are most definetly a secondary support type weapon. Good in certain circumstances, but not good for general use. Geoschmo |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I think the obsession over this fairly trivial issue is a sign that we've become too familiar with the game as a whole. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It's time for MM to add some new options. Either new damage types or weapon abilities or some other new feature that can be used to make the game less predictable and renew interest in the over-all game instead of people nit-picking at damage stats.
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Hear Hear Barron. The style of play is important, as well as diplomacy. If a faction uses ultimate weapons, the rest of the community should side against them.
Please, this is only a thoughtfull, if uninformed, opinion. But what better way to get response? |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
hey the victor always writes history.
I agree with you baron. I know the game very well. Scary thing is that I am still learning it. The 20000 units has really changed the style of game. The PPB ship is still powerful. But the unit counters them easily |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
So, we should send an email to MM saying we're all tearing our hair out at how boring the game has become and please add something quick? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Mounts restrictable by tech levels would be good. And/or mounts for shields and armor. Multiple weapon damage types for a single weapon, too. Then add new abilities like 'Double damage to Shields' and 'Half damage to shields' so weapons can have both advantages and disavantages. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I totally agree with Baron M.
LOL!!! We want more STUFF!! |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Seriously it isn't that overpowered. All games have something that just does wonders. Can't remember if it was Mech Inf or somethign before that in Civ2 but its just something you have to deal with. And believe me it can be dealt with. As easily as most other new inventions.
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Very well, i dont know. After a lot of thinking i agree that major changes to the weapon might hurt the game too much. Still, it is a powerful weapon and is too easy to research early on bringing you great advantage. So i still think it should be changed - either by decreasing damage a little or increasing the research cost.
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Personally, I like what I did with PPB in Proportions - I smoothed out the advances in damage, and then made PPB 1-5 into PPB 8-12, and added PPB 1-7 that start out short ranged and weak (except of course they go through shields!) kind of like SE III PPB's. So, the powerful PPB's are still there (though it's really a major research investment to get them in Proportions).
PvK |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
The idea is good and was mentioned before. still, people say it would cripple the AI
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Well no, i know what'll be "their" objection and i'd have to agree with it. With the extra 7 research levels it would be rather useless to research PPB - at the same cost minus 100k of physics lvl2. By the time you reach PPB 8-12 to make it actually useful the enemy will be in advantage in research and probably even will have phased shields to counter your high tech PPB. The deal is that PPB is NOT late game weapon.
I think i see the solution: Increase the levels to 7-8 and increase the starting research cost to 10k (same as MB). that'll even the things without crippling the weapon. Still the AI will be in advantage, but hey its AI |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Yes an increase to 7-8 levels might be more balanced for the standard set.
In Proportions people are stuck with unphased shields for longer, and there are higher levels of unphased shields, and fighters remain viable weapons but lack phased shields, and cost tradeoffs are more important, so PPB remains valuable even when weakened in Proportions. This sort of change is only a disadvantage to AI's designed to take advantage of the original PPB. Others won't use PPB's anyway, so they'll be better off. PvK |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
Still I'm working with my races to adapt them... |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
The next patch will probably address this. The current beta has no more shield-skipping effect for engine-damaging weapons.
PvK |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
Now I'm removing the ID for most of the Aquilaeian ships... trying to keep them still competitive after the new patch. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Why the ID still could be useful.
Add it as secondary weapon to a small size warship, say cruiser or so. this way it'll always have only 1 of the type. If the shields of the targets are down, it'll be nice. if they're not, the ID would help to get the job done. From now on the weapon can be considered an improvement over DUC. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
So.... do we have a decision relating to the PPB?
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I think we decided we can't agree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
LOL, great Avatar!
Big Geo is watching you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
well right. so nothing is going to change?
is it possible for the beta testers here to at least suggest this as a possible change to the game? Say the most popular Versions - decreasing the damage and enchancing the research way. Rollo: lol right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
But in the other hand, if you check the poll result, you will see that 71% of the people believe that the PPB should be changed in some way, and 29% believe that's ok like now. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
[quote]Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
Quote:
My point being that the poll results could also be viewed to support no change as that is the single largest vote getter of the choices given with 29%. You are assuming that everybody that voted for a particular change would support ANY change, and you cannot say that for sure. Geoschmo |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
good. Point. Geo.
I say leave it for the modders. It can be fixed that way. Also nice eyeball where did you get that ?? |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
I have done just that... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;f=23;t=005803 Please vote. Geoschmo [ June 04, 2002, 00:18: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
In my view, the only argument posted here to consider the PPB balanced, was some more cost in mineral/radioactives (and IMHO is a very very very very little drawback considering that you could kill your enemy if he is not using PPB too). I'll not write all the reasons to consider this weapon unbalanced again... I wrote several good arguments here (IMHO), and don't want to be redundant. What really make me feel somewhat frustrated, is that looking the numbers and comparing the PPB with others weapons, it's pretty obvious (at least to me) to see that doesn't exist a better weapon than PPB for most games, and in my view, is so easy to research that makes it an unbalanced weapon. As you said, the PPB is the king during the mid game (maybe the DUC or the Missiles are the king in the early, and the APB or WMG or Acid Globulae or Shield Depleter + Other Weapon, etc are the kings in the late game). But considering that most multiplayers games are decided before reach the late game, then, obviously the PPB is the answer. Anyway, I'm tired and dislike the endless discussions, then, I don't want to continue. Tesco Samoa: I expected to see fixed the PPB into the original SE4, because MM have fixed the ID... and because most of the PBW games use the standard SE4 [ June 04, 2002, 00:53: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ] |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Well MB, my intention was not to wear you into submission with endless argument, really. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I honestly just don't see this issue in as black and white terms as you do. I have been in as many or more SE4 multiplayer games as you, and while I don't consider myself near the skilled player as you are, perhaps my lack of success in games give me a perspective on the issue the you cannot appreciate. You always use PBW, and you always win. You have made the conclusion then that using PPB is a recipie for success. I cannot argue that you are sucessful, but I reject the notion that you are succesful because you use PPB, that is all. I have lost as many or more games that I have won. I have also tried several methods in my games. I have won and lost using PPB, and I have beaten and been beaten by players using PPB. In my opinioin, from my experience I do not see the extreme benefit that you see to using PPB. And I can see effective counters to a player that uses PPB, beacause I have had them used on me when I was using PPB. So for me the question has been not simply a matter of proving a preconceived notion as it appears to have been for you. When given the statment that PPB are unbalanced, I have attempted to view it dispationetly and objectively as is possible and come up with a way to define whether or not it is in fact unbalenced. I have attempted to view the argument from both sides, and have in fact changed my mind several times during the course of this thread. So for me at least this discussion has served a very valid purpose. I am sorry if you have become frustrated by it, but with a problem with as many variables as this it is not always so simple to reach a conclusion. At least not for me. But even if I disagree with you on this one issue, my respect for you as a strategist and Se4 player has no bounds. You have tought me much in our games (although they have been too infrequent to my liking http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) and even more in our discussions on this forum. Geoschmo |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Yes George, I know that you are not trying to keep me busy! Also, I know that you're very humble talking about your skills as SE4 player!
I understand your point. A good player without use PPB, can defeat a less trained player that's using PPB. I know (as Rollo told me in one of their mails), that a game is not only decided by the weapon: good start position, race design, expansion, politics, luck, etc,etc and the more important (as we discussed in other topic!) the Sensors + ECM + Aggressiveness + Defenssiveness + Stealth Armor + Scattering Armor + Training factors, are decisive in a game too. For example, if you have PPB but can't hit the ships of your enemy, surely you will lose anyway. But talking about "ideal" conditions, where both players have similar skills, similar luck, similar starting position, etc, if one guy is using the PPB but the other not... who is using the PPB will have the advantage, a big one. I have no more arguments. Maybe this is the reason because I'm frustrated! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.