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

r the meson bLaster as Geo presumes in the following post

)? 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

, 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 ]