|
PPB Rebalance Poll
Hi all.
So, i thought i'd try to make a poll and ask about the possible changes to the PPB, which is considered the most pwoerful and overpowered weapon in the game. Thanks for the input already. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I too think PPB is too powerful (or just too easy to get). In my modd I 'fixed' it this way, PPB tech was givin many more levels, the first few levels produced a weapon that did small damage (5 or 10 points) but 4X damage to shields (the Quad option), then progressed to normal PPB later on and then to a 2 ROF weapon that skipped all shields late in the game. That and of course I had small phased shields developed really early on (Hard Shields, minimal strength). I also had Plasma Missiles skip normal shields as I deemed them way too weak on their own.
[ May 27, 2002, 23:06: Message edited by: Deathstalker ] |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Vote for yes, other.
Make Phased Versions of a bunch of regular weapons, with reduced firepower. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
and increase phased shielding hit points.
Can you make armor that will absorb it ??? P.S. I did vote. before i wrote this |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I must disagree that the PPB is a huge problem for game balance. It would be hardly any problem at all if Emissive Armor worked properly, but even without good emissive armor it's not an over-whelming game breaker. It's real damage/size ratio is less than the APB, for a much larger initial research cost -- though by the time you get to APB lvl 12 you may have spent as much or more than PPB V. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Also, the window during which the total damage protection lost due to normal shields being skipped is greater than an equivalent amount of armor is not very large. Unless tech costs are very high or you are having trouble with generating research (in which case you are probably losing anyway) you will have Phased Shields not long after your enemy has PPB. Unless you get caught flat-footed with no shields researched and your enemy already has PPB V... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif But as I said, that means you're probably losing anyway. If Emissive Armor worked properly by reducing each hit even when the damage was more than the emissive rating of the armor the PPB would just be an inconvenience requiring you to use slightly different ship designs against different opponents. If you insist on 'balancing' then I suggest making the component 40kt so fewer of them fit on a ship. This will reduce the damage/size ratio further but still preserve the basic damage rating so it won't lose too badly against Emissive Armor should it ever be fixed. I think that reducing the ROF without increasing the damage would make it unsuitable as a primary weapon. You would have changed it to a torpedo then. If you do that then any race that uses the PPB should be changed to use it only as a secondary weapon and stick with a ROF 1 weapon for main armament. [ May 28, 2002, 01:05: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
"though by the time you get to APB lvl 12 you may have spent as much or more than PPB V."
4 times as much actually. From a low tech start anyway. Phoenix-D |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I think that PPB has an edge but I wouldn't want a dramatic change to it. I think that increasing the research cost would help, either that or increasing the number of levels to make it more like APB. Either of those solutions would work IMO.
I have to agree with the Baron that reducing rate of fire would make it unsuitable for the role of a primary weapon. Increasing size might not be a bad idea, but I really think that increasing the research effort would be all that is needed. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Baron, give up on emmisive armor. It is virtually impossible that MM will finally return to SE III model. He is certainly very well aware that he made it to work this strange way and he has some reasons to stick to the change. However, I can not find even a single one myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
In my opinion, the problem with the current tech tree is that there isn't a significant advantage to researching weapons higher up the tech tree. Certainly, the Null Space Projector is an exception because it is great against Starbases that may have tons and tons of both armor and shields. But it seems like most of the other weapons that you get further down the way are seriously underpowered due to their low rate of fire.
Would anyone disagree with giving the Wave Motion Gun a ROF of 2 instead of 3, increasing its range by 4 and upping its damage by 50%? What about the Graviton Hellbore? What happens if we double its range altogether? The PPB seems to be the poster child for problems with the tech tree. But I wouldn't modify just this weapon. Still... I guess if you reduced the power of this weapon, then it would make the WMG and Grav Hellbore seem less inadequate. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
"Would anyone disagree with giving the Wave Motion Gun a ROF of 2 instead of 3, increasing its range by 4 and upping its damage by 50%?"
Can we say "overkill"? Remember that the WMG gets a 30% bonus to hit, and if the WMG ship has superior speed it can pop in and out of range. Painful. One *maybe* two of those would be good, but all three would be too much. Actually just the range increase alone, maybe with a slight boost to to-hit, would be enough. That and make the Ripper and Incinerator beams seperate weapon families. Phoenix-D |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Some numbers:
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) That Last one is the Graviton Hellbore V. Wow. I didn't realize that one was so easy to get compared to the Wave Motion Gun. Which would you rather put on your ship: a weapon that costs 1/14th as much to research and fires 50% more often and weights 10Kt less... Wow! (Granted, its damage definitely falls off over distance.) Here are some other numbers: Null Space Projector skips shields *and* armor and does this damage: NSP III 60..60 (5) 50Kt 187,500 (ROF 3) I might set the rate of fire on the Wave Motion Gun to 1 and let it fire every turn for a total research cost of 4.2 million and twice the size of the APB XII that costs a third as much to research. With an ROF of 3, you could put 2 APB XII's on a ship and get 270 damage points at max range 8 every three turns compared to a single WMG doing only 140 damage points at the same range during the same timeframe. Plus... the WMG is more likely to miss and do no damage at all. Anyways... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
"Which would you rather put on your ship: a weapon that costs 1/14th as much to research and fires 50% more often and weights 10Kt less... Wow!"
Key difference: the Hellbore *does not get a bonus to hit*. The WMG DOES- a 30% bonus. That means the WMG is a heck of a lot more likely to connect at max range. Phoenix-D |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Yep. You're right. The Graviton Hellbore doesn't fare very well against the WMG. In addition to the 30% bonus of the WMG, that cliff-like drop-off of damage possibly plays a role as well.
So, let's go back to comparing the PPB to the WMG. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Because of the tech cost difference, I don't think it is fair to assume a ship with the WMG is going to have the speed advantage sufficient to maintain maximum range. So, the PPB devastates the WMG ship. With a speed benefit of 3 to the WMG ship, it seems like the two ships are in a dead heat. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
I'd give the Graviton helbore a new damage type, like Skips All Shields. It doesn't get a bonus to hit and it has a VERY steep range attenuation. It's worthless as a standard damage weapon. I don't know why the default races were setup to use it since it's a step down from torpedos. Since it's supposed to be a 'gravity' tech weapon I thought that skipping all shields would make it worthwhile for races like the EEE and Fazrah to actually use it. The PPB could be balanced by increasing its size slightly and/or increasing its research cost somewhat. [ May 28, 2002, 06:37: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
"Because of the tech cost difference, I don't think it is fair to assume a ship with the WMG is going to have the speed advantage sufficient to maintain maximum range."
OTOH, remember that a decent chunk of the WMG's research cost is in Propulsion. Hmm. Personally just dropping the cost of High-Energy Discharge might do it.. but you do get three types of weapons in one field there. Phoenix-D |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I disagree with the idea of making research harder. If you do that you'll never get them before the enemy has phased shields and will never be able to exploit their special damage type.
IMHO PPB should be balanced to make them useful ONLY when you can exploit their special ability and become obsolete once phased shields come into play. A solution to acieve this should involve rebalancing not only PPBs but also SGs and PSGs (I recall complains about shields being too weak) I had the idea of finding a formula relating all features of a weapon, and then modding all weapon to get the same balance result. Something like AverangeDamage/Size/ReloadTime but making it more complex to involve things such as range, to hit bonuses, weapon type, special damage type, cost and research cost. I had made a spredsheet with that but could never find a formula because the role of most of those factors, and their relative importance will vary with the situation. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
Quote:
You might notice that in the game all weapons with some special abilities are support weapons - NSP has RoF 3, Ionic Dispenser have been fixed, Tachyon Projector is expensive and has ROF 4. Repulsor/Tractor weapons are limited in their strenght by size tonnage.Shield depleter is shield depleter, no damage to anything else. Shield dustruptor is just same as Tachyon Projector, a hell expensive thing. Same with Computer Virus. So all the weapons with "special ability" are made this way that even while being mostly not any difficult to reach, having disadvantages from "normal" weapons and thus being reduced to support weapon scale, what they are supposed to be. Very similar thing was in SEIII - the PPB was reduced in effect due to being not too easy to research and having 2/3 of the damage the PPB does have, plus to the deal that Emmisive Weapon was stopping it completely. The point is that PPB is supposed to be a "special" weapon, support weapon, call it however you want. But in the SEIV the PPB is brought to the point of being one of the cheapest techs to research (50+100 research, and then 5 levels beginning from 5k -- cheap), having damage superior to most weapons of the same time, including APB at most levels and being averagely cheap with tonnage of 30kT only. I realy wish to see the weapon reduced back to its special place. There are many ways and each one is good. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I agree with those who suggest that the problem isnt necessarily PPB's but the fact that there are no better weapons further up the tech tree. WMG's rate of fire is too slow for it to be an automatic replacement for PPB's.
What we need are additional weapons (like in MOO2) such as disruptors, phasors, Gauss Cannons, Neutron BLasters, Stellar Converters, Plasma Bolts, etc..... Sounds like a few of us need to come up with some additional components! |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I usually don't get involved in controversial subjects like this, (being somewhat new to the game, and esp. new to the board!) but I guess I will put in my two cents. Has anyone proposed making PPB a 40kt weapon? Doing that (making mounts alot less effective for the size at 60kt/80kt etc.) and upping the research a trifle could make it bring it more into line with the other DF weapon families. I have to agree with whomever said that the entire weapons/damage structure should be looked at in its entirety. I am especially confused about Mesons and APB, what is the point in having two DF weapons so much alike? Maybe Mesons should skip armor (which I think someone proposed awhile back)?
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Change size can also work, but 30 to 40 is
almost 33% drop in damage per size. MB are easier to research and at first they give more damage than APB. But as time goes APB outgun MB. This part of tech tree is very nicely balanced, IMHO. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
It's bizarre how someone can say something three times and still someone else will bring it up as a 'new' suggestion in the same thread. Is our computer-driven haste making us that absent minded?
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I agree with Taera, PPB should be a "special" support weapon, and not a main super weapon.
That's why I think that they should not be more difficult to research but have a lower damage ratio, no matter if that's achieved by lowering damage, increasing tonnage or increasing reload time. Most complains are from people that is too used to use it as their main weapon, and fear that their strategies will crumple once you take away the weapon they depend on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You have the same problem with AI. Many of the best AI races use or abuse the advantages of PPB, and if it's changed they will suffer. Changing the data files locally for a personal mod does not solve the problem, unless you want to edit every AI race, what would be a great mod. Removing the advantage in PPB, although it enhances overall balance, will certainly disrupt the status quo, and AI races will have to be updated accordingly. That is why we're discussing and trying to reach an agreement. If we can find a simple solution that most players like, then we can submit it to MM for inclusion, next patch in the official game. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Updating AI would not be that dificult. For example, change to APB will require substitution of "8" to "1" in ship designs, moving down physicsII in research file and substitution of polaron weapons by energy weapons (may require one ot two more entries if you want to optimize how fast to reach level 12). Should not take much time.
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
So here we go. Another perfect example of why "balancing" is never as simple or easy to do as it first appears.
From perusing this thread I can see TWO camps of people. One that feels the PPB is too strong of a weapon, and one that feels it's strength is just fine but that it's too easy to research. Of course there are individuals that agree with both, or neither, but those are the two main sides to the discussion. And within each group are several possible "fixes". Which is the right answer? Is there a right answer? Geocshmo |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
I don't know the RIGHT answer (all of them are fine with me), but I know the WORST answer: "Keep it like now". I disliked the way that the Ionic Disperser was fixed. But at least was fixed... I expect the same for the PPB and why not, for the PDC. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I'm in the camp that thinks "fixing" Phased Shields would solve the PPB problem. Unfortunately, that just shifts the debate to a different set of components; I've yet to see a "fix" for Phased shields that I agreed with, either.
|
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I agree with M.B.
It does NOT matter how PPB is fixed, but something should be done. Raising research cost is best and impliest solution, it will bring PPB in line with APB and phased shields. There will be more variety: one person can still go for PPB ASAP, another will invest in shields. And neither way will put you in disadvantage, like it is now. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Quote:
I would really enjoy seeing someone design a truly long ranged weapon early in the tech tree that doesn't have much punch. Then, create another weapon family in the middle of the tree that ramps up the damage. Then, at the end of the tech tree let the weapon do WMG damage with a 1 ROF. |
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
|
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
Quote:
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? |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Rollo, you left out something. Namely damage and range.
A PPB V does 60...50 out to range 6. A APB V does 35...20 out to range 6 A APB VI does 40..25 out to range 6. They may cost less, but the effectiveness drops quite a bit as well. Especially if shields are in play.. Phoenix-D |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Bumping up the research cost of PPB's seems to me the easiest fix. Another idea would be to increase the cost of PPB's by a third to a half of their current costs. As Rollo pointed out, PPB's can get expensive in a hurry... make 'em even more expensive, and they may not be so pervasive.
Also, has anyone else noticed something odd about the PPB damage progression? Check the damage for each level of PPB's: 1: 30 25 25 25 20 20 2: 45 40 40 40 35 35 3: 50 45 45 45 40 40 4: 55 50 50 45 45 45 5: 60 55 55 55 50 50 It's almost as if there are three levels missing that could go between levels 1 and 2. Stick those three levels of research in, and suddenly you have a nice orderly progression from level 1 to the highest level (now 8). That would help balance too in that you'd have to throw that much more research into PPB's to get reasonably effective weapons. Quikngruvn |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I've attached a bit of an old component file I saved from 1.49 stuff. I honestly can't remember whether I got this piece from somewhere/someone or made it myself. I think it is mine as I did 'rebalance', LOL, most of the weapons long ago. After Gold I never moved anything over.
Maybe this can help confuse the issue more. Maybe it might help. Name := Phased - Polaron Beam I Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 175 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 40 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 1 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 1 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 15 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 Name := Phased - Polaron Beam II Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 200 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 50 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 2 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 2 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 Name := Phased - Polaron Beam III Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 225 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 60 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 3 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 3 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 25 20 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 Name := Phased - Polaron Beam IV Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 250 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 70 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 4 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 4 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 25 20 20 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 Name := Phased - Polaron Beam V Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 275 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 80 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 5 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 5 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 25 20 20 20 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 Name := Phased - Polaron Beam VI Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 300 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 100 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 6 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 6 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 30 25 25 25 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 Name := Phased - Polaron Beam VII Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 350 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 150 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 7 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 7 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 35 30 30 30 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 Name := Phased - Polaron Beam VIII Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 400 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 200 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 8 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 8 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 40 35 35 35 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 Name := Phased - Polaron Beam IX Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 450 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 250 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 9 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 9 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 45 40 40 40 35 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 Name := Phased - Polaron Beam X Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 500 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 300 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 10 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 10 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 50 45 45 45 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 Name := Phased - Polaron Beam XI Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 550 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 350 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 11 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 11 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 55 50 50 45 45 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 Name := Phased - Polaron Beam XII Description := Multi-phasic energy beam which can penetrate normal shields. Pic Num := 20 Tonnage Space Taken := 30 Tonnage Structure := 30 Cost Minerals := 600 Cost Organics := 0 Cost Radioactives := 400 Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone Supply Amount Used := 5 Restrictions := None General Group := Weapons Family := 2007 Roman Numeral := 12 Custom Group := 0 Number of Tech Req := 1 Tech Area Req 1 := Phased-Energy Weapons Tech Level Req 1 := 12 Number of Abilities := 0 Weapon Type := Direct Fire Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone Weapon Damage At Rng := 60 55 55 55 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapon Damage Type := Skips Normal Shields Weapon Reload Rate := 1 Weapon Display Type := Beam Weapon Display := 2 Weapon Modifier := 0 Weapon Sound := ppbeam.wav Weapon Family := 8 |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Dear Rollo:
Honestly, I don't know how can you compare APB VI with PPB VI. The only that you compare is the range and mineral/radioactives. I was doing my own numbers with normal ammounts for the weapons: APB Damage Tech Min/Rad VI 40/35/35/30/25/25 280000 175/60 VII 40/40/35/35/30/30 402500 200/70 VIII 45/40/40/35/35/30/30 562500 225/80 IX 50/45/45/40/40/35/35 765500 250/90 X 50/45/45/40/40/35/35 1015000 300/100 PPB Damage Tech Min/Rad II 45/40/40/40/40/35 165000 350/150 ... ... ... ... VI 60/55/55/55/50/50 290000 500/300 Please note that PPBII have aprox the same firepower, SKIP STANDARD SHIELDS, and it's a LOT more cheap to research than APB VIII. Although APB VIII is more cheap than PPBII (225/80) vs (350/150), and have a little advantage of range, I can bet that more ships will not save you, because your ships will be unable to skip the shields of your enemy. Also 562500 research points are a lot more than 165000, then, probably for the time that you could reach APB VIII, you will have a dead empire... The difference with radioactives is worthless (who was out of radioactives?). And for some more cost in mineral, that I could get colonizing more planets, after remove over them my opponents... don't think that the PPB is balanced!!!!!! My point is: in games with small/medium galaxies, is worthless research other weapon than PPB (Duc for the early game). Simply like this. The facts with the people playing multiplayer have demonstrated it, not my numbers. Finally. I want to challenge here ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif yea!), to play a PBW hand to hand game against me, everybody that STILL think that PPB is a balanced weapon!!! - small galaxy. - not full tech game. - 2000 Racial Points. - I can use only DUC (for the first rounds, of course!), and PPB for later. - My opponent can use everything except PPB. With the new Ionic Disperser unable to skip shields, I don't know a way, to play with success against PPB in small/medium galaxies, without use PPB too! EDIT: whow, I have started my post, but needed to do other things (with a little baby here, you can bet!), and now I can see more detailed numbers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Anyway, still I will be happy to challenge everybody that think that PPB is a balanced weapon! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif EDIT 2: a few tipos. [ May 29, 2002, 04:12: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ] |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I used to think that PPB was the killer weapon until I started playing PBW and ran into a fleet armed with APB XII. PPB is great in the middle game, but its short range counteracts any supposed advantage.
I don't bother with shields until they are phased, anyway, because they are too expensive compared to armor. In any size galaxy whoever can expand the fastest wins not who has PPB. IMO if you want to take aim at an unbalanced component it's the talisman - I think played right it is virtually unbeatable. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
"into a fleet armed with APB XII."
Which costs over a MILLION research points more..you could research PPB V 6 times over for the cost of getting APB XII. Phoenix-D |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
I haven't heard this idea yet, which surprises me (considering I'm usually about three steps behind everybody). Why not make the PPB a supply hog? Right now, both APB and PPB use 5 supplies/shot. With the new no-supplies/no-firing thing, supplies become a lot more important. I realize the QR negates this disadvantage. It also negates the cloaked-ship-constantly-decloaking-to-attack-then-recloaking supply penalty, and a bunch of other things, too. Maybe we should start a QR Rebalance Poll. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Anyway, as Mac says, just some ideas. |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
IMO- I dont think the PPB is too powerful.
Although it may be prudent to increase the cost of researching it. There is no doubt that it is a nasty weapon in the early stages of the game. But I believe there are ways to counter it such as armor and keeping repair ships in the vicinity of your fleets. In fact when I faced a player using PPB extensively I didnt bother with shields and put alot of scattering armor and stealth armor on my ships which countered his advantage in weapon effectiveness until I had phased shields. I do however think that level 6 phased shields need to be at least as strong as level 5 non phased shields. [ May 30, 2002, 03:10: Message edited by: AJC ] |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
Master B, I have no doubt you could make short work of anybody using APB and you using PPB. However, I also have no doubt you could make short work of them with you using APB and them using PPB. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You are on a different level than most of us here as far as skill as a player.
I also respect your opinion in a great many issues, but on this one I must respectfully disagree. I had come to the conclusion that PPB was a bit cheap to research, and thus imbalanced, but Rollo's comments got me to reconsider. I did some experimenting today. I tried to make it as scientifically accurate as possible. I had three races all equal in characteristics. One researched PPB, one APB, and one MB (Meson BLasters, not THE MB http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) I had a three planet low tech start. I did no colonizing, just stuck with the three home planets for each. I researched until each race had Light Cruisers, and Shield generator 2, and as much as they could get of whatever their weapon tech was. On turn 33 (Remember I didn't expand, so it's a little slower, but I wanted to eliminate that frmo the equation. It should be the same for all three races) All the races had LC and Shields 2. PPB had got to lev 2, APB level 4, and MB level 3. By turn 48, PBB had got to level 5, APB to level 6, and MB to level 4. At that point I started building ships. Each race built a LC with 6 engines, 2 shields, and as many large mount weapons as they could fit. The PPB and APB could fit the same number of weapons on each ship. The MB race could fit more becasue they were smaller. The differance in cost though was telling. The APB race was able to build a ship every 2 turns, while it took 3 turns to build the PPB or MB ships. I built for 1.2 years and then started fighting. The APB had 18 ships, to 12 of each for the other 2 races. PPB and APB both consistantly beat the MB race. I guess the extra numebe of weapons couldnt make up for the weakness of them. Logical. The APB race consistantly beat the PPB race as well. Honestly though it was not as cut and dried as it was against the MB race. A couple of times the PPB race did mange to fight to a draw, but usually they were completely wiped out. Although the shield skipping did allow them to damage the surviving PPB ships more heavily obviously. This is fairly conclusive evedence that PPB's are balanced just fine, at least as far as in relation to APB. They are much stronger than MB, but that is more an issue of the MB being weaker as it is also weeaker than the APB. If anything we should be leaving the PPB's alone and talking about making the MB's a little stronger. Although early on the MB's do have an advantage. It's jsut that the PPB catch up fair;y quickly. So perhaps they are jsut more of an early game weapon. If we increase the level cost, or add two levels, or make the PPB's bigger, any of these suggestions, they will become too weak to be considered a legitimate choice. They are fine the way they are. The mineral cost of the comp makes up for the cheapness in research. This isn't raw numbers, this is a controlled experiment. It would actually be somewhat worse for the PPB's in the real world, becasue people who do not research PPB's would probably tend not to research shields, or build ships with them. At least if facing an enemy that was using them. I think the evidence is clear. Duplicate my expirement and see if my results were not accurate. Geoschmo |
Re: PPB Rebalance Poll
"If anything we should be leaving the PPB's alone and talking about making the MB's a little stronger. Although early on the MB's do have an advantage. It's jsut that the PPB catch up fair;y quickly. So perhaps they are jsut more of an early game weapon."
If they're just an early game weapon.. why bother? The PPB is more effective and costs the same, plus skips shields. Doesn't factor into any of the *other* weapons (torps, WMG/ripper/incin, grav hellbore) either..and I think they'd end up on the wrong end of the scale. EDIT: "I do however think that level 6 phased shields need to be at least as strong as level 5 non phased shields." Level 5 phased: 375 points Level 5 normal: 300 Doesn't go to 6. Phoenix-D [ May 30, 2002, 03:47: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.