| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 10:13 am: Edit |
Well, that's the rub. As Brodie mentioned, keeping it from being a phaser in name only is tough. That's why the phaser is such a great weapon; it's cheap to fire, has capacitors, it's accurate as hell, and very multi-purposed. Creating a heavy weapon with the same attributes runs the risk of it being simply a phaser in disguise. We'll just have to see what Roger comes up with. IMHO, though, going the all disruptor route is going to be extremely hard to balance.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 01:16 pm: Edit |
It also has the potential to be one-dimensional to play.
Existing Klingons use paint from three different pallets: Disruptors, phasers and drones. Most races use three systems. It allows everybody a measure of uniqueness. The Kzinti use the same three pallets and are still distinct from Klingons.
Those that don't have three (think: Gorns or Pre-G-rack Feds) tend to feel like there's something missing.
I would seriously question an all-disruptor Klink on a number of levels. SFB has an existing problem with fleets declining to close much below range-30. If an all-Disr boat had a long-range advantage, they'll use distance as their plasma defense because there will never be a motivation to close.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 05:05 pm: Edit |
I like to keep things mixed up a bit.
Tholian: UIM-DERFACS targeted Particle Cannon or double shot Disruptor hooked to a PC-like capacitor. Possibly allow them to fire through webs for half strength. Also has the X1 Photon available for crunch.
Klingon: Lots of wide arc disruptors perfect for saber dancing.
Kzinti: Like the X1 Tholians they split their weapons between X1 Disruptors and X1 Photons, courtesy of their Federation protectorate.
Lyran: Superior capacitor based system using technology based on their ESG capacitor. Allow the ESG Cap to be used to power either ESGs or Disruptors.
Federation: Some minor improvements to the photon that keep them a step ahead of the Kzinti and Tholians. Options include: an increase from base 4 to base 5. Allowing at time of fire proximity decision. Proximity firing option for range 2-40 including overloads.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 05:44 pm: Edit |
Tos;
I still am not fond of the Tholians (after EY period is over) getting particle cannon or "particle cannon like" capabilities. Part of this is because I would still like to see X-Seltorians at some point. And I don't much like allowing the disruptor to fire through the web, though I can't explain why beyond saying it "feels" wrong somehow. My preferred solution (Mike Raper has also expressed some support for this position, I believe) is to give the Tholians no improvements in their disruptors or photons beyond X1, but to give them superior phaser capability, since the latter fits in well with webs. The superior phasers might be a Tholian-only phaser like Mike's phaser-X, or maybe just larger numbers of phaser-5s, on a per class basis. Tholian ships would generally have less heavy weapon firepower but more phaser firepower than their counterparts. Their might also be some improvements to web casters and snares. Snares aren't problematical in this respect but improving web casters has to be approached very cautiously since they are, in many circumstances, uncomfortably close to a trump card anyway.
For Kzinti, how about this as an alternative? Kzinti X2 ships carry a mix of X1 disruptors and disruptor cannon, suitably upgraded from the EY weapon. This is similar to your suggestion of X1 disruptors and photons, giving the Kzinti both a rapid fire weapon and a high crunchpower weapon, but feels a bit less like tech sloshing to me.
I really like your idea of the Lyrans developing highly advanced capacitors that can power both ESGs and disruptors. That's pretty cool.
Just my .02 quatloos worth.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 07:16 pm: Edit |
Alan,
Yes, I agree. I'd like to see the Tholians ditch heavy weapons improvements, period, and focus on web and phaser improvements. Those two systems together are perfect for them; improving them both seems the logical way to go.
I've already posted my version of Klingon disruptors. For the other races, I'm not sure. But what I had considered was:
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 09:52 pm: Edit |
Improving the web and phasers is likely to produce a Tholian that is too powerful.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 10:54 pm: Edit |
Tos;
I agree that's a legitimate concern. But the Tholians have another problem (that they may finally have solved by X2, but maybe not), the inability to build full size SC3 hulls. They can, of course, build an MC1 ship, but it is SC2 and I'm assuming the prohibition against SC2 X-ships will still be operative in the X2 era.
If the Tholians can not build actual hulls (eligible for full X-tech) bigger than the CCX but the other powers are building X2 ships that are BCH sized, it becomes progressively harder for the Tholians to be competitive.
The largest X1 ships the Tholians can build from scratch are the CCX at 220 BPV and the CPX at 225. The larger Fed CX and Klingon DX are 240 and 250 respectively. The Tholians, though weaker, are not hopelssly outclassed. A DX that takes on a CCX still has to be careful. It will only take a minor error, or slightly worse luck, to give the fight to a well handled/lucky CCX. But if the Klingons had a full X conversion of the C7, the chances of the Tholian CCX winning become very slight. It's the latter situation I want to avoid in X2, if possible. If a full BCH-sized Klingon or Fed X2 cruiser comes in at - let's say - 325 BPV and a Tholian CCX-sized X2 cruiser comes in at 300, because of the efficiency of the "web caster + highly advanced phasers" combination, I think that's fine. The Tholian is weaker but still strong enough to make the fight interesting. But at some point the disparity due to hull size could become so great that the Tholian isn't really in the fight at all. And I would prefer not to see that situation.
The above does depend on a couple of assumptions - major races build BCH-sized X2 cruisers but Tholian X2 cruisers are still basic "two Patrol corvettes wielded together" sized ships - that may not happen. And care must be taken not to make the Tholians too powerful. Some of the possible X2 mods I thought of for web casters turned out on analysis/play testing to be grossly powerful and unbalancing. But if the above assumptions on ship sizes do turn out to be the case, and if sufficient care is taken not to let the Tholians become too effective, then maybe the approach that the Tholian ships are better fighters for their size, but are also inherently smaller due to hull limitations, is the way to go.
I won't deny that their are risks with this approach, but the Tholians have always been difficult to balance in any situation where webs play a prominent role.
| By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 06:16 pm: Edit |
John, RBN and others, I will have something out soon-I've been away (which kept me away from the boards).
| By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 06:27 pm: Edit |
No worries, Roger.
| By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 12:41 pm: Edit |
Fillin' in some blanks...
John, regarding integrated proposals: people have critiqued other people's 'neat concepts' because they say they are 'unbalancing'. But where are they coming from? Example, I've had someone say: "12 of those LM Disruptors would be too 'unbalancing'!" I never gave a number, some people have 'filled-in the blanks' it's sometimes a 'knee-jerk' reaction based on how a certain X2 Disruptor is going to be 'unbalancing' because THEIR X2 Fed ships only have 4 what-eh-vah point photons.
John, if you prefer a deductive 'bottom-up' approach to design, there are many merits. The designer is more free to 'break free from convention' . Others really need to determine perameters-usually based on precedent-a case history if you will. An inductive approach if you will. Which one is better? People are wired differently so they often gravitate to one of the approaches to design.
Me? I'm Kinda Both/and.
For the Disruptor, I chose to think more inductively-asking my self: What Would Klingons Do?
The Trade Wars, shattered economies-but higher technologies.
Economies of Scale. A kind of modularism approach (see the GW Romulan 'Hawk' class for precedent).
I thought the Klingon military scientists had some severe limits on what they could improve.
For weapons my, I *arbitrarily* decided that they would improve the disruptor-not their phasers.
<Insert previously posted LM Disruptor proposal and subsequent discussion here>
OR
<Insert previously posted AT Disruptor proposal and subsequent discussion here>
Since this is the disruptor thread I'm reluctant to talk about other things here. But on the Major X2 Changes thread is where a lot of my thinking has been in regards to overall inductive design.
Numbers of disruptors? Depends on type. All-disruptor boats? Maybe, or they can use X1 Phasers as their defensive phaser.
There was noticable concern on trying not to make the X2 'too phaser-like'. I think, ADB *already did* by giving X1 Disruptors Caps.
The LM Disruptor does look like a phaser in that:
It takes 1 point of power
It has a capacitor
It doesn't suffer the small target modifier
It can damage plasma at an albeit worse damage ratio of 3:1 or 4:1.
They are more numerous. A rough 2LM for 1 STD trade.
They get damaged as phasers.
Now many are concerned with the Klingons only have 2 instead of 3 weapon types if we go the route of all-disr boats. Actually, I would like a mixing of disruptor types (AT, LM, Mike's X2 Disr, the X1 disr, etc.)to vary the ships. I might even be convinced to put a few X1 Phasers on them...maybe.
I hope this helps and sparks discussion.
As I said earlier, I have some quite developed ideas that I'll put on the *Major X2 Changes* thread and it is in that thread that really speaks to an overall inductive approach to design.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 04:34 pm: Edit |
Roger,
it's not as helpful as you might wish because you write mostly in generalities.
Modularism:
Everybody would benefit from modularism. Everybody would think of it. So does everybody go modular then?
LM disruptor:
What max range would you give the LM disruptor? Big issue.
If it walks like a phaser, quacks like a phaser, it's a phaser. Why let these disruptors over here bet hit on phaser hits and those over there on torp hits? It blurs what a "disruptor" is. Maybe that's what you want but the image it gives me is a player hunting over his SSD for a phaser-hit disruptor and having to pass by other boxes marked "Disr" because they're torp-hit and arguments about whether a player can take his P-3 disr for a torp hit.
There is some utility in giving each thing its own name.
IMHO, the only reason to make a disr-only boat is if you're going to create a new way of building ships besides the "phaser/heavy weapon/secondary system" formula that has been used in all eras of SFB.
Anything else, my suggestion is to call the phaser-function system a "phaser" and you'll keep your hate-mail lower.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 04:57 pm: Edit |
I'll wait to see more detail, but for now I'm afraid I agree with John (no surprise, he's usually right). A Klingon ship armed with all or even mostly disruptors will be at a truly severe disadvantage at range. If you make the disruptor better able to fight at range, you'll have the longest range heavy weapon in the entire game, and others will want to know why they can't have it. Or what about Orions, who use it AND phasers? They'll dominate from long range. I'm all for different flavor and such, but whatever we come up with must fit within the existing framework of the game, both in terms of balance and racial flavor. If it doesn't, it won't sell...and if it won't sell, it won't get published. X2 is going to be a truly enormous undertaking, probably more difficult than any other single module in the games history. There are more races than ever to consider, more rules interactions to be aware of, and still the challenge of making a different but fun and familiar feeling module remain.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 06:48 pm: Edit |
Actually, I was concerned about an all-disruptor ship having a disroportionate ADVANTAGE at range.
If we give a KLingon 4-torp-hit disruptors and 9 phaser-hit disruptors, and the phaser-hit disruptors have a 30-hex range, this can do a tremendous amount for the Klink's ability to fight at range.
Much would depend on the damage the phaser-hit disruptor would do. 2 points at that range would be anough to tip the scales to "unbalanced".
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 06:50 pm: Edit |
When I say "at range" I mean at range...like 40 or so. Only phasers have that range, and a few other long range X weapons. As I said, if you have disruptors that can compete and your ship has anywhere from 8 to 12 of them, you have a huge advantage...if they can't, you have a huge disadvantage. The mix of phaser and heavy weapon is a core part of the game that isn't going to be easily changed.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 09:23 pm: Edit |
Then we agree, which also happens often.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 10:29 pm: Edit |
Quote:I think, ADB *already did* by giving X1 Disruptors Caps.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 11:06 pm: Edit |
Actually, I don't want to start the whole debate again but the 12 LM Disruptor thing does remind me of something I wanted to say.
Specifically that six disruptors without increased damage does have a more disruptor "feel" to than four Disruptors with somewhat improved damage output dispite the fact that four is a much more managable number from a playability stand point.
Photons should crunch seldom, Disruptors should scratch-often. I think that the way it should always be.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 11:20 pm: Edit |
On an All Disruptor Boat.
I don't see it happening.
A Type XI drone comes zooming in ( 24/8/40 for the sake of arguement ) and the Disruptors are fired.
Even without the Drone penalty of heavy weapons, the Disruptor is looking at a 1 in six chance of killing the drone at R2.
Fire off say four Disruptor shots to garrenttee a kill and you've still got a 1 in 1296 chance of killing the drone. It's even thougher if these miniturised disruptors don't do damage along the lines of a full disruptor.
Assuming you've got an X1Ph-1 suite or some kind of X2 Phaser suite, you can just blow it away with three Ph-1s ( minium 3 damage each for a total of 9 ).
It doesn't matter how many LM Disruptors you fire you can't kill that one drone, you've always got a one in six to the power the number of fired disruptors, chance of missing.
And I don't think the Klingons ( or anyone ) would buy into a giving up phasers which have a garrentteed damage output even with very bad die rolls, just to have wonder weapons that can hurt practically everything if they hit.
Disruptors are hit-miss weapons and phaser are range of effect weapons and it's always good to have a few range of effect weapons for defense against seeking weapons.
| By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 06:56 am: Edit |
Again I think the "boomer" is a good compromise. FWIW, my X2 Klingons would use Ph-1X vice Ph-5.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 10:25 am: Edit |
I like a mix, myself. For my basic X2 Klingon Cruiser, it uses P5's in the boom and P1's everywhere else...just like the old Klingons did.
Quote:Photons should crunch seldom, Disruptors should scratch-often. I think that the way it should always be.
| By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 10:52 am: Edit |
I think the average overload disruptor damage (through the overload range) works out to about 7.5pts per disruptor. So that would be a maximum 45pts per turn for 6 disruptors, 37.5pts for 5, and 15pts for 4 (using the standard table).
Compare that to 12pts per fast-overload photon and you're looking at a maximum 48pts per turn for 4 photons. Of course the photon only hits about 50/50 so it'd probably be more like 24pts per turn. Split the difference it's 36pts. That's assuming 16pt photons with 12pt (X1) fast overloads.
Over 2 turns we're looking at 90pts for 6 disruptors (75pts for 5 & 30pts for 4) compared to 96pts for photons (48pts at 50/50 & 72pts split).
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 11:20 am: Edit |
Right...way too much for a weapon that should "scratch". The six disruptors on the DX were there to help get past the heavier shields of other X ships and to overload Andro PA panels. They are, in effect, a way to give crunch to the DX. There is no reason to repeat that for later.
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 01:31 pm: Edit |
But the disruptor and the photon have always had roughly the same average damage over two turns. At range 8, it's the same average.
While the disruptor won't get two shots at that range, it will have a better average at longer ranges, specifically 13-15.
GW: At range 8, an OL does 6 points and hits on 1-4. Average damage: 4 per turn.
An OL photon at range 8 does 16 points and hits on 1-3 every two turns. Average damage; 8 per shot, or 4 per turn.
That's one reason why the photon and disruptor are considered to be balanced against each other.
-----------------------------------------------
Here's my ideas:
For the Klingons
When the Klingons saw what fast-load photons could accomplish, they realized they needed to increase their firepower. But they were unable to increase the damage caused by an individual disruptor bolt, so they had to invent other ideas.
One idea that showed promise was something they had learned from the Seltorians' particle beam, and for X2 they managed to integrate the particle beam and disruptor together to create something better than either weapon.
The Particle Disruptor can fire two disruptor bolt shots per turn and can hold energy like a particle beam can. The restrictions are that the PD capacitors have the same hold cost as the PC's. Each capacitor can hold 6 points (enough for one std and one OL shot)
The Klingons also managed to improve the UIM so that it no longer suffers from burnout and is not vulnerable to H&R. Derfacs is also included as standard, so that neither system needs to be mentioned in the chart. This results in a very accurate weapon, even if damage is not improved.
The table is as follows:
| Range | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-4 | 5-8 | 9-15 | 16-22 | 23-30 | 31-40 |
| Hit (std) | x | 1-5 | 1-5 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 1-3 | 1-2 |
| Dmg (std) | x | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Hit (OL) | 1-6 | 1-5 | 1-5 | 1-5 | 1-5 | x | x | x | x |
| Dmg (OL) | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 6 | x | x | x | x |
| Range | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-4 | 5-8 | 9-15 | 16-22 | 23-30 | 31-40 |
| Hit (std) | x | 1-5 | 1-5 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 1-2 |
| Dmg (std) | x | 10 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Hit (OL) | 1-6 | 1-5 | 1-5 | 1-4 | 1-4 | ||||
| Dmg (OL) | 20 | 20 | 16 | 16 | 12 | x | x | x | x |
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 03:51 pm: Edit |
Quote:But the disruptor and the photon have always had roughly the same average damage over two turns. At range 8, it's the same average.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 05:57 pm: Edit |
Jeff,
Presumably the Lyran Disruptor is a X1 disruptor with a 0 hold cost. X-ships have a lot of power, so this isn't the advantage it would be on GW-era ships. Can it hold OLs?
I was about to object to the PC-style hold cost on the Klingon disruptor and then thought better of it. While I belive the PC's hold cost is not appropriate to the PC, I think it works fine for the Klingon, wo can afford the extra power and is thus able to pay for the advantage of firing twice.
How long between disruptor shots?
Does this change over a turn break?
Can you overload both shots?
The PC's answers, IIRC, are 12 impulses, no and no.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |