Null-Space superior to Phased??

[Nitram Draw]

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

[HreDaak]

quote:

---

the PPB's max range of six. And to get from Energy Streaming Weapons 11 to 12 with high research 720,000 points!!! Going all the way costs 3.25 million points.

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

---

Hummh.. do you mean it costs 3.25 million with High technology costs option on?
In my experience its only 1677500 with normal tech settings. With high settings this is
50k+5k+(2*1622500)=3300000.

Here are tech level cost multipliers for medium tech costs:

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

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

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

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

[Zanthis]

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

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

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

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

---

That way lies 'inflation' of weapon and armor and shield values. You increase one and then discover that it unbalances the game somehow, so you increase the other. Remember to consider reducing armor or shield power sometimes or you'll end up with all direct-fire weapons doing 10,000 points of damage and a range of 20.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Daynarr:

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

---

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

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

[Daynarr]

quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

[Jubala]

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