Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
 

Geoschmo, you forget about a third group of people that say: "Leave it as it is." I admit they haven't been posting much on this thread, but if you look at the poll, that group is fairly large. I totally agree with you that balance issues are very hard and "right" answers (if they exist) are hard (if not impossible) to find.

M.B., oleg - I strongly disagree that any fix is better than the current state.

Let us just assume that PPB is "fixed" in some way. Than what? Is there then a new "strongest weapon" that needs to be fixed? Will that be the APB (edit:or the meson bLaster as Geo presumes in the following post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )? Needs that to be fixed as well.... Sorry, I am rambling...

Back to the topic: I do not think the PPB needs to be fixed, simply because I think it is fairly well balanced. I discourage any drastic changes (increase ROF -> halving effectiveness http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif , larger size -> AI modding nightmare). Do not forget that PPB is more expensive than for example APB. This not only makes PPB fleets expensive to maintain, but (more importantly) longer to build.

I have also made some comparisons of the research investments it takes to make a "standard" PPB ship and compared it other desigs of the same research cost (I can give you details, if you want) and did not find the PPB overwhelming. In fact if you account for the longer build rate the PPB were inferior in many cases. Build 8 ships with APB for the same time and prize as 6 ships with PPB and you win.

I admit that the PPB is a fearsome mid-game weapon (and if you talk about direct-fire weapons , so is DUC in the early game), but that's what it really is: a mid-game weapon. It is definately not the most powerfull and unbalancing weapon there is.

So here is my plea: Do not change the PPB, it is fine as it is! If anything, do not do drastic changes. If you insist on changes no matter what, here is my suggestion: Raise the base research cost from 5000 to 10000, but that is as far as I would go.

Rollo

[ May 28, 2002, 22:30: Message edited by: Rollo ]

Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
 

I would disagree strongly that doing something is always better than doing nothing. If the fix is worse then the problem, is different better then?

All it will take to get the stock PPB changed is for someone to convince Malfador that it's a problem I think, and one that can be fixed relativly painlessly.

I am not totally convinced that PPB's are so radically out of whack as many of you. And I definetly DISAGREE with reducing their power. I think they should be an option as a primary weapon, not relegated to secondary weapon status, as reducing their damage or ROF would do, as someone pointed out previously. There are already too few realistic choices for primary direct fire weapons in the stock game. Reducing that numebr by one is the wrong way to go IMHO.

Changing the research cost some would be a reasonable modification. If all you change is the level cost some you can effect a serious change in the research balance without requiring a rework of any AI research files. Although some AI that are heavily geared towards PPB's will probably want to change some or they will get so tied up researching them at the upper levels that they will be dificent in other areas.

Baron's idea to increase the size of the component is also a good one. Making them 40Kt with the current damage levels and range would still allow their use as a primary weapon, without allowing so many of them to be crammed on a ship.

However changing either of these or both is going to make the Meson BLaster that much more attractive. Already I am seeing as many or more of them in games than I am PPB's. I guess they are next on the balance hit list. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Anyway, if we want to get this changed we should try to reach a consensus on what the new settings should be. Therefore I suggest we adopt the 40Kt per component size as suggested earlier in the thread, AND raise the tech level cost to 10000. (EDIT: I said 15K here at first, but as soon as I said it I realized that's too much. Rollo's right. 10K, if it needs changed at all.)

If this seems acceptable to the majority someone should put it in an email and send it to Malfador.

Agree/Disagree?

Geoschmo

[ May 28, 2002, 22:17: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey, seem to typing at the same time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Disagree. Raising the component size will cause problems with the AI. Not enough room for other stuff, therefore major reworks of the designs.

Rollo

edited quote, because original post was edited http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 28, 2002, 22:25: Message edited by: Rollo ]

Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
 

I voted to leave them alone. Basically, I agree with God Empoeror and raynor on this, make more new, better/cooler weapons. It is not the ppb that is "broken", I just think we may be lacking incentives to research beyond them.

Just my 1 cent worth.

Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I voted for "reduce damage" as it seemed to me the simpler way of balancing PPB, but now I definitely support SJ. proposal : it has the big advantage of giving a new choice/trade-off to players, and will end the "PPB rules all" of AI designs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
 

Rollo: of course that I respect your opinion, ok?

But please see again the numbers that Raynor posted:

Wep Damage Rng size Research Cost(medium)
APB XII 65..45 (8) 30Kt 1,600,000 (ROF 1)
Meson VI 35..35 (6) 20Kt 510,000 (ROF 1)
PPB V 60..60 (6) 30Kt 290,000 (ROF 1)
WMG III 140..140 (8) 70Kt 4,212,000 (ROF 3)
GHB V 145..40 (8) 60Kt 290,000 (ROF 2)

It mean that for only 290,000 of research points, you have one of the BEST weapons in the game (and IMHO, the best weapon because WMG and APB are very expensive to research and can't skip standard shields).
The PPB is great even against Phased Shields! And if your opponent have lots of Phased Shields V, you can use a cheap Shield Depleter to help.

The only problem with the PPB was their range: against ships with the old Ionic Dispersers had strong problems. But with the fixed Ionic Disperser, the PPB is more powerful, IMHO of course.

Again IMHO, think that's something wrong if you can have the best weapon in the game, for only 290,000 research points!!!

I have noted that in my PBW games, I don't need to use more weapons than PPB (some times Shield Depleters and Boarding Ships)!

Until now, I never have moaned about it, because believed that the standard weapons never would be changed again by MM, and because believed that the general idea was "you don't like a weapon, then just mod it in your way, because the SE4 standard weapons will be not changed again."
But after the Ionic Disperser fix, now I want to see fixed the PPB and PDC (man, the missiles are a very bad option!).

About your point that if the PPB is fixed, then, the next should be fix the APB or something else, I disagree: now is very expensive research a good weapon like APB XII or WMG III, then, are balanced weapons in my view.

Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
 

i voted leave it alone as well.

Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
 

M.B.,
I also always respect your opinion (Well, except maybe that any change is better than none http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).
I am well aware of the numbers that Raynor posted. One thing that is missing, though, is cost of the weapons.

PPB V: 500 min, 300 rad
APB V: 150 min, 50 rad
APB VI: 175 min, 60 rad

notice that I didn't compare to APB XII, because APB V or VI is what you get for the cost of PPB V (it goes without saying that APB XII is superior to PPB V. Now, I said it. D'oh! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). If you stick to APB V instead of APB VI, you can use 100k worth of research to use for better sensors and/or ecm.

a basic LC design with PPB V costs 7600 min
a basic LC design with APB V costs 5500 min
so when comparing ships you should do in a 3:4 ratio. run some tests. hopefully you will agree that it balances out

a small weapon platform stuffed with PPB costs 3170 min
a small weapon platform stuffed with APB costs 1070 min
this can be very important for "Last minute" defense

I stand by my opinion that "balancing" the PPB (if that is needed at all) is just a matter of doubling the cost. This will "blow" another 140k worth of research (IMHO, better spent elsewhere http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ).

Rollo

Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have you considered making phased shields weaker than normal shields, but available at roughly the same tech level?

If phased weapons were set to be 60% of the strength of normal weapons, and you had the choice between a phased shield, and a normal shield that was 50% stronger, which would you choose?

You can keep both types of shields useful, while phased weapons become support rather than main-guns.

Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
 

I just though of this possible solution. I would require hard code changes:

What if phased shields were totally invulnerable against PPB? or if at least PPB would do half damage against phased shields?