PPB Rebalance Poll

[oleg]

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.

[geoschmo]

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

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

And within each group are several possible "fixes". Which is the right answer? Is there a right answer?
Geocshmo

Good question Geo. I leave the answer for God (our God Aaron)!
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.

[capnq]

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.

[oleg]

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.

[raynor]

Originally posted by God Emperor:
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!

I agree completely. Once you research the PPB, you might as well stop researching other ship-to-ship weapons. There just isn't anything else down the line that is going to compare.

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.

[Rollo]

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 (editr 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 ]