PPB Rebalance Poll

[Taera]

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.

[Deathstalker]

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 ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Vote for yes, other.
Make Phased Versions of a bunch of regular weapons, with reduced firepower.

[tesco samoa]

and increase phased shielding hit points.

Can you make armor that will absorb it ???

P.S.

I did vote. before i wrote this

[Baron Munchausen]

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 ]

[Phoenix-D]

"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

[Alpha Kodiak]

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.

[oleg]

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

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by oleg:
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 <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, he acknowledged that this was wrong and tried to fix it in a long-ago patch. It didn't work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I'm hoping he will try again but I think it's tied to the whole 'damage allocation' issue which is quite a mess. You know about things like damage being transfered from shields to armor and from armor or inside components when different types of weapons hit in succession? I think he's going to have to completely revamp his damage allocation system sooner or later.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"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<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah... it's still the same starting cost as APB in the default config. I've changed it to start at 20000 in my own personal mod. That makes lvl V cost something like 300000. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[raynor]

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.

[Phoenix-D]

"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

[raynor]

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

[Phoenix-D]

"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

[raynor]

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.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by raynor:
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.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, I'd give the WMG a bit more range than any other 'beam' weapon and a higher damage ratio than any other beam weapon since it's supposed to be the 'ultimate' but then I'd give it an even slower rate of fire. Look at the cartoons it's extracted from. They spend entire episodes waiting for the WMG to charge up & fire. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif So, range 10, max damage of 280 (4-1 ratio) then increase ROF to 4 or maybe even 5. This would produce a weapon of awesome power in capital ship mounts but you'd have to wait 4 or 5 turns to fire it and you'd be pummeled in the meantime.

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 ]

[Phoenix-D]

"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

[Andrés]

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.

[Taera]

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.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 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. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OK. I will explain my own opinion.
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.

[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!

[kalthalior]

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)?

[oleg]

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.

[Baron Munchausen]

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?

[Andrés]

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.

[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<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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!<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 (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 -&gt; halving effectiveness http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif , larger size -&gt; 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 ]

[geoschmo]

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 ]

[Rollo]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
&lt;snip&gt;Therefore I suggest we adopt the 40Kt per component size as suggested earlier in the thread, AND raise the tech level cost to 10000. &lt;snip&gt;

Agree/Disagree?

Geoschmo<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 ]

[Tenryu]

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.

[PDF]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie.:
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.<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

[Master Belisarius]

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.

[tesco samoa]

i voted leave it alone as well.

[Rollo]

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

[Suicide Junkie]

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)<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.

[Andrés]

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?

[Phoenix-D]

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

[Quikngruvn]

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

[Tenryu]

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

[Master Belisarius]

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 ]

[rextorres]

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.

[Phoenix-D]

"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

[Krsqk]

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.

[AJC]

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 ]

[geoschmo]

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

[Phoenix-D]

"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 ]

[Phoenix-D]

Running some of my own tests in the simulator, same ship configs. 18 APB, 12 PPB. Strategy: default optimal weapons range.

APB: 0 won
PPB: 9 won (lost 7, 0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 4, 3, 2)
Ties: 1 (APB: 13L PPB 8L)

that's with the APBs as player 1.

With APBs as player 2:
APB: 1 won (lost 4)
PPB: 9 won (lost 1, 4, 2, 4, 2, 1, 5, 3, 3

overall: APB wins 1, PPB wins 18, 1 tie.

this may be a case of the simulator being jacked, I'll try and run some real-world tests tommarow.

Phoenix-D

[Andrés]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif :DI think I found the solution to our problem! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Original Problem:
PPB seems to be unbalanced, being very cheap to research and comparable or superior to the strongest weapons, such as APBs that at their highest level cost almost 6 times PPBs at their highest level.

Opposite positions in the discussion were.
a- it is one of the few late game weapons left. Don't touch it. If any change needs to be made, just increase the research cost.
b- weapon must be weakened. And it must be reduced to a "support" weapon role. Reducing damage, increasing size or reload rate are just different ways to achieve the same result.

To solve the question if PPBs should be a main weapon or only a support weapon, I went back to SE3, and found that PPBs were a MAIN weapon in SE3.

IMHO this entire problem was originated when weapons were converted from SE3.
In SE3, weapons (or any other component BTW) couldn't have different tonnage. Weapons could only be balanced by changing their damage and reload time.
A good balance was achieved and you had a good palette of different interesting weapons.
When weapons were copied from SE3 into SE4, they were assigned different tonnage values, while damage and range were simply scaled up in the same way for all weapons.
That's when SE3 balance was lost, damage rating of "heavy" weapons was lowered while that of "light" weapons was increased.

Proposal for a quick "balance mod": make tonnage of all weapons equal, say 30 or 40 kt.
Suddenly many "forgotten" weapons such as Torpedoes, Wave-Motion, Graviton Hellbores, Incinerator Beams are back among the highest damage weapons, and there is not a weapon far above the rest.
I think we can have SE3 balance back this way, and remove the unbalance I intuitively noticed since the first time I played SE4, but I didn't actually recognize until now.

You should be a little more careful with some weapons that were not in SE3, since some can grow too weak or too strong.
But there are A LOT of different late game options.

If you want I can show you some numbers to help you see my point. Or I can make and post this "SE3 balance" mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I admit that I initially though position B was right, and I voted to decrease PPB's power.
Now, after this observation I'm changing my vote to other.

My conclusion is that TONNAGE of ALL weapons, not just PPB needs to be revised.
Or if you want to keep current tonnage, compensate by changing damage.

If any change has to be made ONLY to PPBs, I'd agree that it should only be increasing its research cost to make it more fair to pay the same research points to get a similar weapon.
Tenryu's idea, increasing research cost by adding more techs levels and intermediate steps, instead of just increasing the initial cost sounds very interesting.

[ May 30, 2002, 04:44: Message edited by: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
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.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I only expected that Ashkan believed that the PPB doesn't need to be fixed! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Maybe I could have a chance to defeat him! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Honestly, the "challenge" was more a joke than other thing... but Rollo have accepted it and we're playing now! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Originally posted by geoschmo:

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.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok. No problem George, I understand.
But what argument changed your mind, because Rollo was wrong comparing APB VI with PPB VI...

About your experiment with Meson BLasters, looks interesting. I'm not against to try to find a work around, ok?
I'm against to play my PBW games (and solo games), using 95% of the time the same weapon...
And the sad thing, is that most of the trained players does the same than me... It mean games where all the people research PPB and Armors IV fast, Sensors and ECM, and not very often research Shields (only to avoid Boarding ships, and after the next patches, Ionic Dispersers).

Maybe the people is not very creative, could be. But I think that the people know that the facts, have demonstrated that is worthless spend research points in weapons that probably will have not time to use... because for the time to reach APB XII, your empire should be a dead meat from a long time ago... The problem is that most the games are with small/medium galaxies, and you usually start with a human neighbor...

PPB is the "über-weapon", not matter if it's something more expensive.
I don't support an special way to "fix" the PPB (although I have voted for change the cost to research it), but think that MUST be fixed, because the only drawback is some more cost in minerals, that will not keep me out to continue using it as main weapon in my games.

Somebody could say: "But if you're tired to use PPB, then use something else!" And maybe I'll start to use other weapons, only for enjoy... but the problem is that mostly I enjoy win! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Thei R'vek]

Geo, it took you THAT long to figure out that PPBs are the best weapon for short-term games? Everybody who ever played a game against any one of the old greats from the Ladder or the BC before the advent of SE4 knows that one! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fortunately, a good portion of good SE3 strategy carries over to SE4 strategy, we wouldn't want any of you pitiful SE3 players being able to hide forever would we? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[raynor]

Here are the tests I ran:

LC with 4 large APB VI and 2 Shield 5 costs 5200
LC with 4 large PPB V and 2 Shield 5 costs 7100

I compared seven APB to five PPB ships in the simulator.

The five PPB ships ALWAYS won against the seven APB ships.

I ran another simulator run using Shield 3's. This gave me ship costs of 4700 and 6700. So, I tested six APB ships costing 28,200 total to 4 PPB ships costs 26,800 total. In this test, the six APB ships won 1 out of 10 times.

Take a look at the damage potential of the ships:

The large APB VI's are doing 80..50 (6) damage compared to 120..100 (6) for the large PPB V.

If we say that you can build 18 APB ships to 12 PPB ships, that is a 3 to 2 cost ratio.

APB VI 3 * 80..50 =&gt; 240..140
PPB V 2 * 120..100 =&gt; 240..200

So, the APB and PPB are doing the same damage at point blank but the PPB has better damage at max range of six. This makes the weapons look fairly well balanced, right? The APB does less damage but is cheaper to build. They seem pretty well balanced, right?

But did I forget something? Oh yeah, the PPB skips shields.

With shield I's or maybe even shield II's, I guess the larger number of APB ships might defeat the smaller number of PPB ships. But by the time you reach shield III's, the PPB ships have an overwhelming advantage.

[rextorres]

Once PPBs come into the picture no one going up against the PPBs is going to have shields - they would be using armor - I know that's what I would do. So these tests lack a little realism.

Certain weapons are great for different strategic situations.

In a very small universe such as Universe Cup where a game Lasts 50 turns or less the DUC would be all that is needed. Anyone who goes after PPBs will get beat because the 100,000 points they used to start researching PPBs will be used for sensors, armor, or ecm be their opponent.

In any game Lasting over 90 turns anyone who sticks with PPBs again will get beat by long range APB Xs or better.

The point that people seem to keep making is that PPBs are so powerful there is no point in developing other main weapons - I disagree. If you go with PPBs and you don't knock out your opponent then you run the risk of having a VERY less effective weapon in the later game. In fact the Long Range APBs are so much better that the extra research is probably justified.

PPBs are great for a middle length game. The challenge IMO is to figure out if your in one.

Instead of going back and forth on the PPBs - How about this. I've always wanted to use a missile only race, but wouldn't dare in PBW. I think the missile system needs more tweaking than the PPBs.

[Rollo]

First of all let me say that I typed this post yesterday (May 29), but then couldn't get to the board all day. So it will not include answers to the latest Posts:

Whew, lots of answers to type. Good thing the board is currently down (Zulu 11:00). That gives me some more time to type, before even more Posts show up http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Andres - Phased weapons doing only half damage against phased shields is a good suggestion. That would certainly put more emphasis on PPB being a mid-game weapon.

Phoenix - Sorry I left out the damage. I figured those numbers would be pretty well known. Didn't want to state the obvious and wanted to give a new perspective (cost). No ill intent here. My point is: Just looking at damage without considering the cost, the PPB seems a lot stronger than it really is.

Also don't forget that not all people play with medium research cost. At low cost APB XII does not cost millions more, just about twice as much. Also at low cost you can have APB VI or Shields IV just for the 100k that opens up PPB.

Quikngruvn - Yeah, I also noted that weird progression of PPB. Rather than increasing the levels to eight, I would just tone down the lower levels. I still think PPB V is balanced, but PPB II is not. So here is a suggestion for the lower levels:

I 30 25 25 20 -- --
II 35 30 30 25 25 --
III 45 40 40 35 35 --
IV 50 45 45 40 40 40
V 60 55 55 50 50 50

Along with the raise of base research cost from 5k to 10k that could do the job (just one note: PPB III would now compare to DUC V damage-wise against unshielded opponents). A further increase in cost could also be a turn-off, but I wouldn't go as far as one third or one half extra. 20% extra cost (PPB V for 600 min) would be more than enough, IMHO (and with the changes just mentioned, I'd rather go without no additional cost).

Tenryu - Your suggestion makes PPB waaayyy too weak IMHO. For a 100k "admission fee" you get a PPB I with damage 15 10 00 00 ...? No offense, but that is just worthless. Using your system you'd have to have at least PPB V before even considering using them.

My dearest M.B. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif - How can I compare PPB V to APB V or VI? Simply because that is what you get for the same research prize. I thought that would be appropriate. I do know that the APB does less damage than PPB at those levels, but APB V (plus 100k of research to use for other things) is a good comparison. But I made one mistake: I only compared PPB V to the APB. I agree that PPB II is overpowered (see my reply and suggestion above). I agree that the cost of radioactives is not important, although I admit that I had some serious rad problems in some of my games...,but that was just because I didn't pay attention http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif .

I guess that challenge is directed at me. Your idea of duking it out is totally childish, immature, will not prove anything, nor will anybody change their opinion because of it. That is exactly why I love it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ! Anytime, anyplace... I love playing mano-a-mano and have never met you in a game, this should be fun.

Hope, I didn't forget anybody...

Rollo

[oleg]

Just a random thought:

The new ionic dispensor that does NOT skip shield
can actually balance PPB !!!

Imagine that your are against somebody who uses
normal shields (say lavel 4). Now, if you use PPB, ID as a secondary weapon is useless: it should down shields first ! If however you use APB/MB and ID...

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by oleg:
Just a random thought:

The new ionic dispensor that does NOT skip shield
can actually balance PPB !!!

Imagine that your are against somebody who uses
normal shields (say lavel 4). Now, if you use PPB, ID as a secondary weapon is useless: it should down shields first ! If however you use APB/MB and ID...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure if it was a serious comment, right?

Just in case that it was, I can bet that probably I will use PPB/ID and try to destroy the other ships before my shields are down... And considering that I will have PPB, my opponent probably will have only armors (or mostly armors), then, with the ID, the advantage still will be in my side...

[Tenryu]

Originally posted by Rollo:
Tenryu - Your suggestion makes PPB waaayyy too weak IMHO. For a 100k "admission fee" you get a PPB I with damage 15 10 00 00 ...? No offense, but that is just worthless. Using your system you'd have to have at least PPB V before even considering using them.

Rollo<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rollo, They skip shields. I 'rebalanced' ALL the other weapons, and the tech trees related to them, I also gave them to you after Physics 1. I was NEVER happy with my tweaking, the issue is very complex.

My point being, if you go mucking with the ppb you will need to muck with darn near everything else, not to mention the AIs.

I agree the issue of WEAPONs, {what they do, how they do it, how many types there are, what mounts they can use, what level they can be researched to, what they cost, and what they cost to maintain, what race can use them}, is important, but, it is not an issue amenable to a quick tweak. It would need the sustained attention by several modders completely familiar with the potential impacts on AI designs and behavior.

In short, you would need someting like happened with the TDM Group to do it WELL. That group has a well articulated and focused area of attention. At the outset they set clearly defined bounds for the project. TDM has been a SUSTAINED, but CASUAL, group effort. It will be a difficult act to follow.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 30, 2002, 14:17: Message edited by: Tenryu ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
this may be a case of the simulator being jacked, I'll try and run some real-world tests tommarow.

Phoenix-D<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, it may be that. It also may be that in my "Real World" test I neglected to play with the fleet arangments and see if that had any impact. I left all that default so both sides wer staying in a nice V formation. It may be that this skewed my results in favor of the APB since it had the larger fleet.

But, regardless of that my test was trying to find out whether they weapons were balanced at a point in the game when PPB was strongest. In real life the enemy would not wait for you to get to PPBV and LC's to attack. My APB and MB races were both well ahead of PPB in ship tech early on. They both had LC and level 2 of their weapon almost 6 months before PPB race had started on PPB's. They were still on destroyers and researching Physics 2.

There very well may be a valid point that the PPB is imbalanced at certain points in the game. When it jumps to PPB II for instance. It also may be that that point in the game corelates with about the time when Master B is ready to move on any poor sap unlucky enough to start near him. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I still disagree that it is an uber-weapon. Yes, it is very popular with the better players. But is that why they are better? I think those people are just modest and don't realize that they would have much sucess regardless of which particular weapon they choose. But that is an argument for another thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Early on a PPB using race would have trouble against one that concentrated on DUC's. Late in the game the PPB race would have trouble against races with APB's. It's the mid game when the PPB's are king. But it's also the mid game when most games are won or lost.

Any amount of changing we do to make them less powerul is going to make them less efective in the mid game when they are superior, but it will not make them any better in the late game when they are already inferior.

Geoschmo

[Andrés]

I repeat what I had posted below.
Weapons were balanced in SE3, where all weapons had the same size.
When they were copied into SE4 they were given different tonnage and that balance was lost.
My proposal is give them the same tonnage again.

Leave PPBs and APBs as they are, but decrease tonnage of other weapons such as torpedoes, high-energy weapons, graviton hellbores to 30 kt to RESTORE SE3 weapons balance and make them valid options again.

PPB should still be among the best weapons, but be one among the many possible choices. Its final stats below APB compensate their initial advantage by skipping normal shields.

[Baron Munchausen]

Andre, you have a different edition of SE3 than I ever saw. The very first weapons in the game, APB and MB have different sizes in SE3. APB is 3 spaces and MB is 2 spaces.

[ May 30, 2002, 21:24: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Weapons were balanced in SE3, where all weapons had the same size.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What are you talking about?!?
The SE3 weapons may have all had the same number of hitpoints (1), but they certainly were NOT the same size.
WMGs took up seven slots, MB took up 2.

Sizes have simply been multiplied by 10 for SE4.

[Suicide Junkie]

[ May 30, 2002, 17:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie. ]

[Phoenix-D]

SE3 weapons had different sizes.

"Ok, it may be that. It also may be that in my "Real World" test I neglected to play with the fleet arangments and see if that had any impact. I left all that default so both sides wer staying in a nice V formation. It may be that this skewed my results in favor of the APB since it had the larger fleet."

I didn't use ANY fleet formations http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It was just one huge furball after another.

I don't use them in real games so I don't use them in sims. The only reason I even fleet my ships is experience and ease of movement.

Phoenix-D

[Taera]

Valid point about comparing the weapons to SEIII.
Unlike all what i said before i have to agree with most of the things said by most of the players here who are against rebalancing.

Going back to SEIII and the mentioning of MoO brought me a solution. A difficult, requing some work to be done by Aaron, but i guess it will be the best solution.

Read it here (http://216.167.123.13/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=005751)

[Rich04]

I would also like to point out that in SE III. Phased Poloron beams had a counter in addition to Phased Shields.

Emissive Armor.
You pretty much slapped on at least one component of EA to counter Poloron Beams and reduce the effectiveness of several other weapons.
To get around EA you needed Heavier Weapons to rip through it. I rather enjoyed the dynamic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

However with weapon mounts in SE IV pretty much negate the effectiveness of EA with just about every weapon.

Just my thoughts.

[Taera]

Yes. Weapon mounts are fun but they take a big chunk out of balance and dynamic. OT.

[capnq]

This is looking more and more hopeless. Each faction looks at the same raw data, then interprets it as supporting their own position.

I'm beginning to think that whether PPBs are balanced mainly depends upon who's using them.

[Taera]

CapnQ: Why, the Emmisive Armor in SEIII was giving complete protection from PPB at a long distance (reduced damage then) and was absorbing the whole damage & destroying in point blank (full damage was the same as EA defense).

I might agree with the second statement, but not the "balancing" but how the players do view the "balance". I personaly tend to play the "hard" way and not use any the-best solutions in most games, first of all strategic/tactic which SEIV is so i tend to not use PPB at all in my games and then i can see their strength when attacked by three AIs all with PPB V when all i have is DUC5 and low armor. Same with ID - i was using it for a while, then indentified it as one of the most powerful weapons in the game, and ENgine Overloading Weapons are no longer on my research list.
Same with Null Space.
When you dont use it you can see how much powerful is it from a "side view".

[geoschmo]

Taera, I have faced opponents using PPB and lost, and faced opponents using PPB and won. It depended on the skill of the opponent, not his choice of weapons.

And as far as Null Space, not using them isn't exactly handicapping yourself. Their ROF makes them VERY weak compared to the other weapons. They are most definetly a secondary support type weapon. Good in certain circumstances, but not good for general use.

Geoschmo

[Baron Munchausen]

I think the obsession over this fairly trivial issue is a sign that we've become too familiar with the game as a whole. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It's time for MM to add some new options. Either new damage types or weapon abilities or some other new feature that can be used to make the game less predictable and renew interest in the over-all game instead of people nit-picking at damage stats.

[Chardo Mon]

Hear Hear Barron. The style of play is important, as well as diplomacy. If a faction uses ultimate weapons, the rest of the community should side against them.

Please, this is only a thoughtfull, if uninformed, opinion. But what better way to get response?

[tesco samoa]

hey the victor always writes history.

I agree with you baron. I know the game very well.

Scary thing is that I am still learning it.

The 20000 units has really changed the style of game.

The PPB ship is still powerful. But the unit counters them easily

[Baron Munchausen]

So, we should send an email to MM saying we're all tearing our hair out at how boring the game has become and please add something quick? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Mounts restrictable by tech levels would be good.
And/or mounts for shields and armor.

Multiple weapon damage types for a single weapon, too.

Then add new abilities like 'Double damage to Shields' and 'Half damage to shields' so weapons can have both advantages and disavantages.

[Tenryu]

I totally agree with Baron M.
LOL!!!
We want more STUFF!!

[Skulky]

Seriously it isn't that overpowered. All games have something that just does wonders. Can't remember if it was Mech Inf or somethign before that in Civ2 but its just something you have to deal with. And believe me it can be dealt with. As easily as most other new inventions.

[Taera]

Very well, i dont know. After a lot of thinking i agree that major changes to the weapon might hurt the game too much. Still, it is a powerful weapon and is too easy to research early on bringing you great advantage. So i still think it should be changed - either by decreasing damage a little or increasing the research cost.

[PvK]

Personally, I like what I did with PPB in Proportions - I smoothed out the advances in damage, and then made PPB 1-5 into PPB 8-12, and added PPB 1-7 that start out short ranged and weak (except of course they go through shields!) kind of like SE III PPB's. So, the powerful PPB's are still there (though it's really a major research investment to get them in Proportions).

PvK

[Taera]

The idea is good and was mentioned before. still, people say it would cripple the AI

[Taera]

Well no, i know what'll be "their" objection and i'd have to agree with it. With the extra 7 research levels it would be rather useless to research PPB - at the same cost minus 100k of physics lvl2. By the time you reach PPB 8-12 to make it actually useful the enemy will be in advantage in research and probably even will have phased shields to counter your high tech PPB. The deal is that PPB is NOT late game weapon.

I think i see the solution:
Increase the levels to 7-8 and increase the starting research cost to 10k (same as MB). that'll even the things without crippling the weapon.
Still the AI will be in advantage, but hey its AI

[PvK]

Yes an increase to 7-8 levels might be more balanced for the standard set.

In Proportions people are stuck with unphased shields for longer, and there are higher levels of unphased shields, and fighters remain viable weapons but lack phased shields, and cost tradeoffs are more important, so PPB remains valuable even when weakened in Proportions.

This sort of change is only a disadvantage to AI's designed to take advantage of the original PPB. Others won't use PPB's anyway, so they'll be better off.

PvK

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by Taera:
The idea is good and was mentioned before. still, people say it would cripple the AI<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">hehehehe, and, what about the Ionic Disperser fix?
Still I'm working with my races to adapt them...

[PvK]

The next patch will probably address this. The current beta has no more shield-skipping effect for engine-damaging weapons.

PvK

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by PvK:
The next patch will probably address this. The current beta has no more shield-skipping effect for engine-damaging weapons.

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif My previous post was related with this "fix"...
Now I'm removing the ID for most of the Aquilaeian ships... trying to keep them still competitive after the new patch.

[Taera]

Why the ID still could be useful.
Add it as secondary weapon to a small size warship, say cruiser or so. this way it'll always have only 1 of the type. If the shields of the targets are down, it'll be nice. if they're not, the ID would help to get the job done.
From now on the weapon can be considered an improvement over DUC.

[Taera]

So.... do we have a decision relating to the PPB?

[geoschmo]

I think we decided we can't agree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Rollo]

LOL, great Avatar!
Big Geo is watching you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

[Taera]

well right. so nothing is going to change?
is it possible for the beta testers here to at least suggest this as a possible change to the game?
Say the most popular Versions - decreasing the damage and enchancing the research way.

Rollo: lol right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I think we decided we can't agree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In some way, I agree with you Geo!

But in the other hand, if you check the poll result, you will see that 71% of the people believe that the PPB should be changed in some way, and 29% believe that's ok like now.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
[QUOTE]In some way, I agree with you Geo!

But in the other hand, if you check the poll result, you will see that 71% of the people believe that the PPB should be changed in some way, and 29% believe that's ok like now.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">True MB, but there is an old political addage that goes something like, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

My point being that the poll results could also be viewed to support no change as that is the single largest vote getter of the choices given with 29%. You are assuming that everybody that voted for a particular change would support ANY change, and you cannot say that for sure.

Geoschmo

[Suicide Junkie]

You are assuming that everybody that voted for a particular change would support ANY change, and you cannot say that for sure.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sounds like time for another poll http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[tesco samoa]

good. Point. Geo.

I say leave it for the modders. It can be fixed that way.

Also nice eyeball where did you get that ??

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie.:
Sounds like time for another poll http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There's something we can agree on! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I have done just that...
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=005803

Please vote.

Geoschmo

[ June 04, 2002, 00:18: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
True MB, but there is an old political addage that goes something like, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

My point being that the poll results could also be viewed to support no change as that is the single largest vote getter of the choices given with 29%. You are assuming that everybody that voted for a particular change would support ANY change, and you cannot say that for sure.

Geoschmo[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep George, you're right... and I think that although a new poll could be started and still the motion to change the PPB could have most of the votes, you could argue that 48 persons (the votes for the poll that Taera started), can't represent all the SE4G players, and you would be right again... then, I give up.

In my view, the only argument posted here to consider the PPB balanced, was some more cost in mineral/radioactives (and IMHO is a very very very very little drawback considering that you could kill your enemy if he is not using PPB too).

I'll not write all the reasons to consider this weapon unbalanced again... I wrote several good arguments here (IMHO), and don't want to be redundant.
What really make me feel somewhat frustrated, is that looking the numbers and comparing the PPB with others weapons, it's pretty obvious (at least to me) to see that doesn't exist a better weapon than PPB for most games, and in my view, is so easy to research that makes it an unbalanced weapon.
As you said, the PPB is the king during the mid game (maybe the DUC or the Missiles are the king in the early, and the APB or WMG or Acid Globulae or Shield Depleter + Other Weapon, etc are the kings in the late game). But considering that most multiplayers games are decided before reach the late game, then, obviously the PPB is the answer.
Anyway, I'm tired and dislike the endless discussions, then, I don't want to continue.

Tesco Samoa: I expected to see fixed the PPB into the original SE4, because MM have fixed the ID... and because most of the PBW games use the standard SE4

[ June 04, 2002, 00:53: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

[geoschmo]

Well MB, my intention was not to wear you into submission with endless argument, really. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I honestly just don't see this issue in as black and white terms as you do. I have been in as many or more SE4 multiplayer games as you, and while I don't consider myself near the skilled player as you are, perhaps my lack of success in games give me a perspective on the issue the you cannot appreciate.

You always use PBW, and you always win. You have made the conclusion then that using PPB is a recipie for success. I cannot argue that you are sucessful, but I reject the notion that you are succesful because you use PPB, that is all.

I have lost as many or more games that I have won. I have also tried several methods in my games. I have won and lost using PPB, and I have beaten and been beaten by players using PPB. In my opinioin, from my experience I do not see the extreme benefit that you see to using PPB. And I can see effective counters to a player that uses PPB, beacause I have had them used on me when I was using PPB.

So for me the question has been not simply a matter of proving a preconceived notion as it appears to have been for you. When given the statment that PPB are unbalanced, I have attempted to view it dispationetly and objectively as is possible and come up with a way to define whether or not it is in fact unbalenced.

I have attempted to view the argument from both sides, and have in fact changed my mind several times during the course of this thread. So for me at least this discussion has served a very valid purpose.

I am sorry if you have become frustrated by it, but with a problem with as many variables as this it is not always so simple to reach a conclusion. At least not for me.

But even if I disagree with you on this one issue, my respect for you as a strategist and Se4 player has no bounds. You have tought me much in our games (although they have been too infrequent to my liking http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) and even more in our discussions on this forum.

Geoschmo

[Master Belisarius]

Yes George, I know that you are not trying to keep me busy! Also, I know that you're very humble talking about your skills as SE4 player!

I understand your point. A good player without use PPB, can defeat a less trained player that's using PPB.
I know (as Rollo told me in one of their mails), that a game is not only decided by the weapon: good start position, race design, expansion, politics, luck, etc,etc and the more important (as we discussed in other topic!) the
Sensors + ECM + Aggressiveness + Defenssiveness + Stealth Armor + Scattering Armor + Training factors, are decisive in a game too. For example, if you have PPB but can't hit the ships of your enemy, surely you will lose anyway.

But talking about "ideal" conditions, where both players have similar skills, similar luck, similar starting position, etc, if one guy is using the PPB but the other not... who is using the PPB will have the advantage, a big one.

I have no more arguments. Maybe this is the reason because I'm frustrated! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

For example, if you have PPB but can't hit the ships of your enemy, surely you will lose anyway.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I learned that the hard way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[mac5732]

Since there is a large opinion of various opinions,, my opinion only, is, just make it easier to mod, that way, everyone would be able to design it they way they like or dislike,

just some ideas mac