Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

I have read a lot here regarding the phased energy beams but haven't heard anyone mention the null-space.

I always use null-space over the phased-polaron as they ignore both shields and armor.

Any thoughts or comments about this??

Jason2

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

I completely agree. The null space cannons are VERY good. I tend to research up DUCs and capital ship missiles as my early game weapons, and then switch to a combination of phased polaron beams and null-space cannons as my main mid game weapons. The PPB weapons still have the edge, given the higher rate of fire than NSC's (until everyone starts using advanced shields, anyways). So on larger ship hulls, I tend to use one or two large/heavy mount NSCs, augmented with the PPBs.

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

NSP III: 50kt, 3 reload, 60 dmg, range 5
PPB V: 30kt, 1 reload, 50-60 dmg, range 6

Assuming only 50 dmg for the PPB, these weapons perform as follows:
NSP: 0.4 dmg/kt/turn
PPB: 1.67 dmg/kt/turn

The PPB deal 4.17 times more damage. Now, the NSP skips shields and armor. A quick check on Daynarr's Sergetti reveals they run around 5% of their ships' kt armor and 20% kt in shield generator.

Assuming a ship is dead when only armor remains, the NSP must do on average 0.95 times the kt of the ship to kill it. The PPB, OTOH, must deal 1.2 times the kt to deal with the armor, and 1.875 to account for Phased Shields V, for a total of 2.25 times the kt of the ship to kill it.

IOW, the PPB has to deal 2.37 times more damage than the NSP to kill a ship. As we saw above, it does 4.17 times more damage.

YMMV, especially in the opening volley, since NSP's kill components while PPB's are still beating down shields.

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

YMMV?? Yo Mamma May Vent?? what is YMMV?

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

Your Mileage May Vary

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

I use null-space weapons all the time. They are a lot better than PPB because I use them with in a combo with repulser beams. Repulser beams give time to NSP to reload.

Even more powerful is to use ripper beams and tractor beams.

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

IMHO, the Phased Polaron Beam is the best general purpose weapon in the game. It is extremely cheap to research, does very good damage, has adequate range and fires every turn. The fact that it penetrates non-phased shields is an added benefit but is less than 1% of the reason why I use the PPB. Lately, I have been disabling this tech area because I think it unbalances the game--esp. when the AI doesn't research Phased Shields fast enough except on medium/high bonus games.

Even if a weapon which only fires every three turns did/does more damage than the PPB does in three turns, I think the PPB would still be a better weapon because it has an increased chance of hitting the target with three separate to-hit die rolls.

I like weapons that fire every turn because it makes the combat go faster and seems to require much less micro-management of umpteen million battles. I prefer the PPB over shorter range weapons like the Ripper/Tractor combo because you can also use the PPB to knock out satellites/WEP's with shorter ranges.

One Last comment: I think it is interesting that the null space weapons are so heavily penalized--i.e. they only get to fire--I think Zanthris said--every three turns? But the PPB fires every turn?!? That is the main reason I think this weapon is unbalanced. In every game I've played, I haven't found any weapon further up the tech tree which does more damage per turn than the PPB. Once again, IGNORE the fact that it penetrates shields. Even without that ability, it's still the best weapon out there with perhaps the Meson BLaster coming in second doing less damage but allowing you to mount more weapons--thus increasing your to-hit probability, I would guess.

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

I think that's the distinction to make: 'General Purpose'. The Null Space Projector is a great thing to have when you need to crack a base ship or a starbase. It starts destroying components immediately and saves you 10 turns or more of breaking down shields. 10 turns against a starbase-sized collection of weapons is an eternity. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif But it doesn't fire very fast and a bunch of little ships with plain old APB or MB will knock down YOUR shields while you're waiting for it to recharge. The PPB is a normal once-per-turn beam weapon that also penetrates first generation shields. Nice weapon, and I can see why some think that it is unbalancing. I can't think of any reasonable way to restrict it, though, except perhaps to make it harder to research. Make it Physics level three, maybe? Or require that Phased-shields be discovered first? That would make some sense.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 07 February 2001).]

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

I would at least change the Phased-Energy Weapons research cost. It's, what, 5000 right now? Try making it 50000 and it might be more reasonable. My main problem is I can regularly get PPB's around turn 30 at medium research costs.

For that reason, my weapon research is as follows: DUCII, PPB. That's it. The DUCII and CSMI hold me over until I get PPBs.

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zanthis:
I would at least change the Phased-Energy Weapons research cost. It's, what, 5000 right now? Try making it 50000 and it might be more reasonable. My main problem is I can regularly get PPB's around turn 30 at medium research costs.

For that reason, my weapon research is as follows: DUCII, PPB. That's it. The DUCII and CSMI hold me over until I get PPBs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I that case you don't want to run into Sergetti, they will eat you alive. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

Quite possibly, but I can often keep out of war with the AI until I get PPBs. Further, although it is technically a weapon tech, I should have mentioned I grab PD after DUCII while I'm still doing Physics.

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

I agree.. PPB's are way too easy to research now. PPB V costs only 150k+137.5k=287.5k http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon9.gif.
And it's one of the best beam weapons in the game, even without it's shield skipping ability. Forexample: Anti Proton Beam XII costs 50k+1627.5k=1677.5k=1677500 research points. Meson BLaster VI costs 50k+460k=510k and its clearly inferior to PPB V...

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

I think the best way to play balance the PPB is to make it fire every two turns.

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

Reload of two? Ouch. That drops the PPB quite a bit. It would only be useful then against normal shields. Keep in mind that the Meson BLaster rates a 1.5 compared to the PPB's 1.67 (2.0 at range one). Doubling the PPB's ROF would give it a 0.84 (1.0 at range one). I would probably not even bother researching it then.

However, I can see dropping five damage off across the board and increasing the size by five. That drops it to a rating of 1.28 at max range. Then, increase the research cost a little and I think things would be fine.

And while we're at it http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif, Energy Streaming Weapons needs fixing. APB's suck. APB XII rates a 1.0 at max range and only a 1.17 at the PPB's max range of six. And to get from Energy Streaming Weapons 11 to 12 with high research 720,000 points!!! Going all the way costs 3.25 million points.

[This message has been edited by Zanthis (edited 08 February 2001).]

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

I don't think PPB should be weaker but the other weapons should be stronger. I have modified the APB to give more punch for a buck, increased max range for Meson BLaster by 1 (it still does same damage), increased torpedo weapons range by +1 and added to hit bonus for quantum torpedoes +10 (torpedoes are taken directly from Star Trek universe and in that universe torpedoes are LONG range weapons), added the weapons mounts for point defenses and modified them for weapon platforms, etc. Now when I play AI has much more punch without using PPB and it also gives me a better list of weapons choices. All of this changes give AI a boost too since it uses all of these weapons as well.

I think this whole hassle with weapons been too weak (except PPB) started when MM decided to hype up the DUC. There is a huge difference between the DUC in the 0.51 demo Version and the DUC that is in full Version. It made it a players best weapon choice for a start of the game and since no standard AI uses them, it gave player a decisive advantage. Hell, I remember sticking with DUC V cannons for a long while after I researched it taking out all of the AI's no matter what they put against me. With all these changes I made, I am forced to go after something else (e.g. APB V now has 6 range comparing to DUC V's 5). It gives me much more variety and fun playing this game.

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

This is a really old idea but it seems to fit in this discussion. I would really love a random damage and range ability with this game. Also making the abilities of the facilities random in a small range also. If you didn't know exactly which weapon would have a longer range or more damage it would be a lot more fun to research because untill you researched it or met the weapon in combat you wouldn't know what the killer weapon would be. I envision just small changes but they would add up over the levels, for instance a level 1 weapon might have a range of 3 to 5 and a damage of 15 to 25 the range would go up one every 3 to 4 levels and the damage would go up 5 to 15 every level. That way if you always got a good random you could get a killer weapon that the next game would not be worth much. I know this is a lot to ask but it would add a lot to the replayability to have a bit more randomness. Play balance might take a hit but the one empire that had the killer weapon of the game would grow very strong this way.

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
the PPB's max range of six. And to get from Energy Streaming Weapons 11 to 12 with high research 720,000 points!!! Going all the way costs 3.25 million points.

[This message has been edited by Zanthis (edited 08 February 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hummh.. do you mean it costs 3.25 million with High technology costs option on? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon9.gif
In my experience its only 1677500 with normal tech settings. With high settings this is
50k+5k+(2*1622500)=3300000.

Here are tech level cost multipliers for medium tech costs:

TL1 :=1
TL2 :=2
TL3 :=4.5
TL4 :=8
TL5 :=12.5
TL6 :=18
TL7 :=24.5
TL8 :=32
TL9 :=40.5
TL10 :=50
TL11 :=60.5
TL12 :=72

Here are equations to count multipliers for different tech costs...

TL[Xhigh]=X^2
TL[Xmedium]=0.5X^2
TL[Xlow]=X

[This message has been edited by HreDaak (edited 08 February 2001).]

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

I was only mentioning the research cost for taking Energy Stream Weapons up to tech level 12 at high research cost. The sum of the squares of all new numbers between 1 and 12 is 650 (1 +4 +9 +16 +25 +36 +49 +64 +81 +100 +121 +144). 5000 (the base cost for ESW) * 650 = 3,250,000.

Ok, looks like you were including the cost of Physics 1 (50k).

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daynarr:
I don't think PPB should be weaker but the other weapons should be stronger. I have modified the APB to give more punch for a buck, increased max range for Meson BLaster by 1 (it still does same damage), increased torpedo weapons range by +1 and added to hit bonus for quantum torpedoes +10 (torpedoes are taken directly from Star Trek universe and in that universe torpedoes are LONG range weapons), added the weapons mounts for point defenses and modified them for weapon platforms, etc. Now when I play AI has much more punch without using PPB and it also gives me a better list of weapons choices. All of this changes give AI a boost too since it uses all of these weapons as well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That way lies 'inflation' of weapon and armor and shield values. You increase one and then discover that it unbalances the game somehow, so you increase the other. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Remember to consider reducing armor or shield power sometimes or you'll end up with all direct-fire weapons doing 10,000 points of damage and a range of 20. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daynarr:

I think this whole hassle with weapons been too weak (except PPB) started when MM decided to hype up the DUC. There is a huge difference between the DUC in the 0.51 demo Version and the DUC that is in full Version. It made it a players best weapon choice for a start of the game and since no standard AI uses them, it gave player a decisive advantage. Hell, I remember sticking with DUC V cannons for a long while after I researched it taking out all of the AI's no matter what they put against me. With all these changes I made, I am forced to go after something else (e.g. APB V now has 6 range comparing to DUC V's 5). It gives me much more variety and fun playing this game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. The DUC represents a solid projectile. It ought to do a lot of damage. The APB and MB represent first-generation energy weapons. They should not be a lot stronger, or maybe not even fully as strong, as the DUC. And in fact, the MB does less damage than the DUC. This is correct IMO. What the DUC ought to have as a disadvantage is a high loss of accuracy at range because the solid projectile is much slower than a particle/energy beam and so is harder to hit distant targets with. Unfortunately, there is only ONE global setting for percentage loss of accuracy per square of range. I think there ought to be a percentage loss of accuracy per square setting for each weapon. Then you could represent something like the DUC more accurately.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 08 February 2001).]

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
I disagree. The DUC represents a solid projectile. It ought to do a lot of damage. The APB and MB represent first-generation energy weapons. They should not be a lot stronger, or maybe not even fully as strong, as the DUC. And in fact, the MB does less damage than the DUC. This is correct IMO. What the DUC ought to have as a disadvantage is a high loss of accuracy at range because the solid projectile is much slower than a particle/energy beam and so is harder to hit distant targets with. Unfortunately, there is only ONE global setting for percentage loss of accuracy per square of range. I think there ought to be a percentage loss of accuracy per square setting for each weapon. Then you could represent something like the DUC more accurately.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 08 February 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, you have a point there. However DUC should have some disadvantage against energy weapons. The first one logical modification should be increasing the size of that thing. If it makes such damage it should be big. At least 40KT or even 50KT would give energy weapons some advantage.

Lower accuracy would be even better but I have dicovered some problems when I tried to give weapons negative 'bonus to hit' value in components.txt file. It appears that this bonus is added after everything else is calculated and can give a weapon a 100% chance to hit (this is a case with PD-it has +50% chance to hit). However, when you give a negative value to weapon you get problems.
Lets say that you shoot at enemy with a weapon that has -10% 'bonus to hit' and the chance to hit enemy ship is lower then 10%, you would get negative number. That negative number will cause range check error. I encountered this in 1.11 Version, so I am not sure if anything has changed by now.

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

Randomness is good.
I think this would be a great idea. You definately would have to be flexiable in your ship designs.

Re: Null-Space superior to Phased??
 

Daynarr, have you informed MM about this? They need to know that negaite to hit bonuses causes errors so they can fix it since you'll probably not the only that will try it.