| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 10:24 pm: Edit |
For average damage, I add up all the values in the column and divide by 6.
Ph-5 at range 9-15.
The column is 4-3-2-2-1-0.
Add them up, it's 12. 12/6 = 2.
By shifting 1 left and 1 up, the possible damage is 5-5-5-4-3-2. Total of 24, the average is 4.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 08:53 am: Edit |
From the D7Z to the C7 ( almost entirely Ph-1s ) could be several decades but by the same token a lot has been learn by all races about the need to get upgrades out the fleet as quickly as possible ( it's funny that war does that ) when the upgrade is needed.
If you don't need the upgrade then you don't upgrade and save your money; if you a have reason to upgrade then you want the upgrade yesterday and •••• the expense.
Will any race unlearn what they have learned?
If not then the production bottlenecks will be less "conjesting".
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 10:18 am: Edit |
Jeff,
Thanks for the information. An automatic column shift makes the average damge a bit high. You have suggestions on how to modify mode 3?
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 07:10 pm: Edit |
Joe,
I think the ph-5 is powerful enough as is.
It doesn't need an overload, especially at long range.
Two modes (offensive for one shot and defensive with two aegis shots) is sufficient.
--------------------------------
MJC,
Production bottlenecks, restricted technology, expensive to build, unlearning lessons, etc.
Frankly, I don't care what the explanation is.
It's not the strengths of the ships that make SFB fun, it's their weaknesses.
A ship that doesn't have any padding because it has all ph-1s (Y130 Fed CA), well that's interesting.
Lousy turn mode and no rear weapons: that's fun and challenging.
A ship with the worst weapons in the game outside of range 3, but the best weapons at range 0-1? A new challenge.
A whole module of ships where every single one had a sweet spot at range 5? No thanks. (That's the old overloaded phasers from X1)
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 07:45 pm: Edit |
The Ph-5 was developed specifically to avoid the overload. Overloaded phaser lead to one result in general play: close and hose.
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 08:05 pm: Edit |
Jeff,
Thanks. Back to the drawing book. This is actually my one year anniversary with SFB and this board.
Alternate proposal. At the energy allocation phase the player choices either 1 point firing mode or 1.5 point firing mode. The 1 point is as a PH-1 or 2xPH-3; the 1.5 points is as a PH-5 or 2xPH-6. (Is the PH-6 similar to the PH-2?)
For simplicity the XCA has 8 P5 mouts 6x in the saucer and 2x rear hull. Adjust the overall power for the XCA design that the 4 points of power difference btween 8xPH-1s and 8xPH-5s has to come from something else, kind of like the CA.
The point of this proposal is to have both the 1 point and 1.5 option for the XCA main phaser. The other point is then the damage curves for the PH-1 and PH-5 can weighted differently so the PH-5 has a better mid-range average damge without the problems of overloads or a bigger close range average damage.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 08:29 pm: Edit |
Joseph: The thing is that the Phasers capacitor pretty much reders that moot. Most people wanted a down fire mode to a Ph-1 for the Ph-5. This is one reason I wanted the Ph-5 to cost 1.5.
However, I personally never wanted to see the Ph-5 be capable of firing as a Ph-3. It's too many options to track.
The loading option I hope to see is:
| Energy | Type | Notes |
| 1.5 | Ph-5 | one shot |
| 1 | Ph-1 | one shot |
| .75 | Ph-6 | one shot at any |
| 1.5 | Ph-6 | two shots at aegis targets |
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 09:55 pm: Edit |
Loren,
Your chart, while different than my rough proposal accomplishes the same thing in a simpler fashion, one phaser with multiple modes. It appears the PH-1 and PH-5 are roughly similar.
(The following is an idea I have been trying to express but am having difficulty wording it)
What I haven't seen (not that it isn't in the topic some where is) is a PH-5 that has a greater mid-range damge, 6 to 15 hexes, with a similar or maybe same close range damage compared to a PH-1. Think of a constant radius curve compared to a garden hose stream curve, it doesn,t have a constant radius. I am suggesting a different paradigm for the PH-5 (maybe). The consideration is the PH-5 fits in the transition zone between photon overloads and proximities. Don't know if this is a viable idea or how to build a phaser chart to accomplish this. I appologize if this something that has been discussed and rejected.
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 10:38 pm: Edit |
Joe,
If you can post a damage chart, maybe I'd have a better idea of what you're proposing.
Here's the chart I used when I proposed my ships, I believe it's still the consensus, but someone correct me if I'm wrong:
| ph-5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 9-15 | 16-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 |
| 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ph-1 | |||||||||||
| 1 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Avg (ph-5) | 8.33 | 7.5 | 6.5 | 5.67 | 5 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 2 | 1.16 | .67 | .33 |
| Avg (ph-1) | 6.5 | 5.33 | 4.83 | 4.33 | 3.87 | 3.5 | 2.16 | 1 | .5 | .33 | .17 |
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 11:33 pm: Edit |
Jeff,
I don't know how to post a table yet. have to fiddle around and learn how.
5 range; 765542
6-8 range: 655320
9-15 range;532200
Average damage is the same, hit probability is less but the damage from rolling 1-3 is greater than before.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:08 am: Edit |
I had proposed long ago that the XPh-1 was in fact the early result of the Ph-5 project. That is, some time prior to Y180 the Advanced Phaser Project was started and using new technology gain during that project the XPh-1 was implemented because the project was not completed. Similar projects yeilded similar results the octant over. Which is why everyone gets Xph-1's and Ph-5's (they all begin with the same technology, it isn't surprising they all are capable of improving it in the same ways).
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 08:18 am: Edit |
Man, out for a day and look what happens.
About cost of firing the P5. We've been round and round about this, but for those who are comparitively new, let me sum up my own position (which I think has gained a few converts).
1: The original P5 cost of 1.5 each was not just a function of the weapon being better...it was also a way to temper what, at the time, was looking like a massive amount of excess power for X2 ships. Making the weapons cost more would prevent them from having too much excess energy for other stuff. Since my own approach to X2 ships has been less power than X1, this isn't necessary. 1 point works just fine.
2: 1 point for a P5 and a half point for a P6 makes for nice, easy book keeping. Keeping track of quarter points is a pain in the ass.
3: The P1, according to the rules and history, is physically the same as a P2...it's just got a better targeting system. Now, they both cost 1 point to fire, and look at the difference! It's huge, even adding 50% to the overall range of the thing. The change from P1 to P5 isn't so drastic. A 1 point P5 is nice, yes, but doesn't do so much more that it should require a 50% increase in power. It is more efficient, yes, but that's okay...more efficient without being fantastically better is a good approach to X2, IMHO.
4: P5's, at least early on, will be mounted in relatively low numbers. The XCA, for example, cannot generate the phaser damage at close range that a CX can. Making the phaser cost more ends up giving the ship a pretty sorry feeling phaser suite. You pay more, do less. No fun for supposedly advanced ships. I do have a provision to fast repair a P5 as a P1 for a lesser damage control cost, but since the cost is still the same it still works out well.
5: If there are to be mixed phaser ships (P1's and P5's), having one cost 1 point and another cost 1.5 points is just a pain to keep up with when it comes to your capacitors. It's one thing to deal with half costs, such as a P1/P3 ship...but a ship that has to keep up with 1.5, 1, .75, and .5 costs? Ugh. Too complicated. The reason for using P1's shouldn't be that they cost less to shoot, but that they provide racial flavor and allow a ship to mount more of them. A Klingon XCA (of whatever designation) can have four P5's in the boom and 6 P1's on the aft hull, for a total of 10 phaser "spaces". The Fed XCA uses all P5's and a couple of P6's...and only has seven spaces, total. Different flavor, different abilities, just like the old CA and D7.
Anyway, that's my take on it. After doing testing and playing, I think it works fine. The main emphasis should be on heavy weapons, not phasers. Phaser should be kept nice and simple.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:08 pm: Edit |
When P5's were 1.5, X2 ships had 48 warp.
since were dialed back to X1 standards (or lower), it is in my opinion no longer and issue. 1 point is just fine.
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 06:49 pm: Edit |
I kind of started all of this. Mike in your play testing did you keep track of what you actually rolled. While there is equal probability for a 1 to 6 to be rolled the actual distribution of die results in an engagement may not show that, the sample size (number of times you roll 1 die may be to small). Average damage doesn't reflect the luck of the roll or probability of a hit.
My questions and suggestions are not about whether the energy cost is 1 or 1.5. The implied question I tried to answer and so I will ask; what is the PH-5 supposed to do that the PH-1 can't?
I hope this makes sense.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 07:12 pm: Edit |
The Ph-5 was supposed to be a more predictable weapon with a somewhat longer reach and a more even damage curve. It is a heavier weapon but only about 10% so.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 07:42 pm: Edit |
I disagree with each of Mike's points, but I'm too tired today to explain why.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 04:54 am: Edit |
The 1.5 phaser cost thing is in my opinion a...umm...errr...ummm...a non-issue.
Output is 90% of the equation, get that right and the rest will run nicely.
2Ph-1 shots in the X2Ph-1 cap and 2Ph-5 shots in the Ph-5 cap will run just as nicely as 3Ph-1 shots in the X2Ph-1 cap and 2Ph-5 shots in the Ph-5 cap. Any advantage that one system might have over another will be lost in the murky world of "what does my ship look like after it's taken damage?"!
As to the debate of "we need huge quantities of Phaser cost to deal with the huge quanitites of excess power produced by the engines" argument...well that depands on whether you want to peg X2 craft at X1-GW battle speeds ( about 12 for GWs and 13 for X1s )...but if you're willing to pop up to a speed like 17 you'll find those 4 points of power ( 8Ph-5s by 0.5 points of power ) fit nicely into keeping the battle speed up.
As to what the Ph-5 is supposed to do that the Ph-1s won't, the answer is quite simple, put the effect range of the weapon at R8; where overload occour.
In this way it can fight GW and X1 ships well by not getting to R5 but is still a legitimate target of those ships because they can fire their overloads at R8. If you use your X2 level of power ( which may or may not be all that high ) and you speed up, you should be able to kill targets without taking huge internal damage from enemy effective phaser fire...unfortunately that just won't be true for vessel with only 8Ph-5s fighting 12Ph-1s but wargammer don't like to play realistic games where the enemy has no chance of victory...but if the Ph-5 could be feilded in X1 numnber ( my refit ) then it will have a good ability to "work the numbers" outside of effective phaser-1 range.
By putting the effective range at R8, the X2 vessel must contend with enemy overloads but by being longer than R5 it gives the X2 vessel some chance to put up a fight even though it has fewer weapons.
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 12:43 pm: Edit |
Quote:well that depands on whether you want to peg X2 craft at X1-GW battle speeds ( about 12 for GWs and 13 for X1s )...
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 07:40 am: Edit |
No, I don't beleive that for about the same reason I don't beleive speed 12 is a normal battle speed for a GW ship.
Most people plug at least 16 into speed for obvious reasons, and fill the EAF out after that.
I was just talking about the natural consequences of the 1-1.5 thing, rather than showing my play-style.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 07:44 am: Edit |
Actually you'ld be amazed at how hard it is to move the Fed DDX around even at speed 13 consistantly.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 02:01 pm: Edit |
The Fed DDX has an uncommonly poor power curve for an X-ship.
It's a glorified NCL with a 1/2 move cost.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 09:14 pm: Edit |
Well I'ld call it a Fed X ships with a DD+ heritage.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 07:43 am: Edit |
Joe,
No, we didn't keep track of individual rolls; just the damage done by a given number of phasers at a given range.
As for what the P5 can do that the P1 can't? Well, that depends on your outlook. From ADB's perspective? It's a new weapon with a new product which should (hopefully) increase interest in the module and increase sales. X2 without a nifty new phaser doesn't sound as appealing, IMHO. From a game standpoint, it's simple...it increase damage at mid-range, while not drastically increasing the overall output of the weapon itself. It gives X2 ships a bit more ability to "reach out and touch" without increasing overload range.
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 11:05 am: Edit |
Mike,
A weighted average is a different method to evaluate the damage from the PH-5 compared tp the PH-1.
In this case each damage result from 1-6 is multipled by the probability of that result occuring; 1/6 or .16. So for the PH-5 at range 6-8 compared to the PH-1 the weighted average damage is 3.36 to 1.22 (provided my math is correct) or 3 to 1.
Since statistics and probability is not an expertise of mine I can't tell any of you if either simple average or weighted average is a good method of comparison.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 11:25 am: Edit |
Joe,
sounds about right, and is pretty much what we wanted to do. Figure the difference in number of phasers in, and you get a nice balance. The six P5's get you around 20 points, while 12 P1's get you about 15. That's at mid range; get closer, and the sheer number of P1's, combined with the closer damage curve, and the CX with 12 P1's starts really dishing out the damage.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |