Roger,

Almost without exception, everything you've mentioned has been addressed at some point or other. We've got proposals to bring back EY tech in a new form for 2X, new, smaller ships that fill the roles of the traditional larger ones, all sorts of proposed "wow" systems to make 2X different...you name it, we've discussed it. What exactly are you looking for?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:14 am: Edit

I considered what Roger's cutting to.

The problem is GW tech and SVC's desire that equal-BPV of GW and X2 engage at an equal chance at victory.

Opening up the possibilities has two drawbacks.

1) Is is still SFB or another game using the SFB engine? Call me a traditionalist, but my vote is for something recognizably SFB, which implies the phaser+heavy weapon paradigm.

1a) Corralary to 1): Let's say we rebuild the X2 Fed so it uses heavy salad shooters, ultra-zappers and maybe a couple of ginsu-launchers for flavor. All new tech.

Is it still a Fed or a different ship with "Fed" name plastered on it?

2) Game balance. As capabilities go in new and different directions, play balance gets harder and more easily thrown out of balance. All you have to do is look at the saga of the Andro in SFB to see that. We go gonzo with compeltely new stuff, we have just made a massive amount of extra work for ourselves. Work that will probably not bear sufficient fruit (in the form of profit to the ADB) to be worth it.

Our ideas may not take the breath away but if they're fun to fight against with GW-tech, I'll be happy.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:59 pm: Edit

I was in the shower yesterday morning and I finally decided to let the idea of 60-point of warp for X2 go. It's just too much.

I found I had been trying to shoehorn it into my idea of X2 tech and I realize that if I had to resort to shoehorning, it wasn't a good idea.

Of Ken's choices, 52 is now it. Somewhere between 48 and 52 makes sense. I kinda like 25-box engines (plus 2 emergency) for those with 2 engines and 17-pointers for those with three. yes, I know 17*3 = 51. It's time the 2-engine guys got the 1-point advantage.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Jeff, I have ideas...in time...I'll get them out.

Mike, yes I have spent many days reading, downloading, this explosion of new discussion and what I posted is partly a summary.

John, yes. I am cutting. Or you could say I'm "anti-cookie cuttering".

The challenge is then is to learn from the Andro experience.

The "Phaser+Heavy Weapons" paradigm doesn't have to be a part of each race.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Roger,

I think it does.

Otherwise you're making a new race with an old name.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Jeff, maybe it would be too much for the Feds to lose the Phaser+Heavy Weapons characteristic-it's too much "Trek". But what about other races developing something that fit's with their 'doctrine-personality,etc.?

Example: the Klingons were never good with phasers, let's say they developed an x-antidrone system. Something that not only deals with drone defense but has an offensive component too? (I haven't read the 2x anti-drone threads-if there is one) but imagine a Klingon ship with no phasers but this 2x Flak Gun antidrone that defends a little like phasers and a little not like phasers and maybe two or three different types of disruptors? (Original recipie, spicy and extra crispy). Sorry, I'm hungry right now.

Let's not have our beloved races not be tied with the same ol same ol. Let's develop them, make them more distinct. Make Klingons fight more like Klingons.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 09:25 pm: Edit

Yeah, but all Disr boats, or all drones boats or all ESGs etc are not fun, and will be at a serious disadvantage to those races with phasers.

Same would be true in the reverse.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 09:31 pm: Edit

I'd love to go up against that Klingon like that with a Gorn or Rom. No phasers...mmmmmm

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 09:35 pm: Edit

Well, this whole discussion presupposes that disruptors would have some phaser like abilities, just like they do in the TNG-era shows where they seem to be used in a phaser-like capacity on Klingon ships. But, IMHO, then all you have is a phaser that's called a disruptor. I like the combination of phasers and heavy weapons. Maybe some really cool new race with totally new weapons can get by with it, but I don't personally like the idea of the existing alpha races not using phasers.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 09:44 pm: Edit

indeed. THey have used em for 150 years, no real reason to stop now.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Has Everyone had their say in the Poll? If so I'' tabulate the final results and Post them Wed night. Probably around 1AM thursday morning CST.

If you haven't Voted do so now.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 08:49 pm: Edit

I'm skimmed (read) all the posts and I'm agreeing that the use of phasers and heavies should be maintained into the X2 era.
I'm kinda thinking about our own tech developement and how our concept of a weapon has been developed during the generations.
Some of my analogies may not work but bear with me. Attack my ideas, not my analogies please.
I view the standard bullet (from a gun) in relation to a phaser. Except for the shape and some other minor additions (I'm no expert), a bullet back in the 18th century is not much different than a bullet today. What makes our modern bullet better is the accuracy for which the bullet has been delivered, and of course, the quicker "reload" capabilities the gun has to fire another accurate bullet. Now the hollow point bullet will naturally inflict more damage than a standard bullet (much like a ph-1 would inflict more damage than a ph-2), and of course there are armor piercing bullets that do well against armored targets. But today's bullet "probably" cannot be developed much better than they curretnly are.
So, if I were to have a say in the developement of the phaser (bullet), I would propose the following:
The phaser-1 chart does not change from what it is now.
Ph-1's should hit more accurately (an eccm effect that actually creates a negative value to add to your die roll). (Better targeting)
phaser 1's should be able to pierce (leak) shields that are not "thick" enough to prevent the leak (armor piercing)
Phasers should be able to be recharged and fired at some time during the same turn it has fired. (quicker reload)
Whether this concept would work in the game or not I don't know. But this development (which I'm certain is not a new idea) would seem the logical direction to go.
But heck, its just me. What do I know?

:-)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Glenn,

What we preferred was to increase the caliber bullet we're firing (P-1 -> P-5)

By Aaron Gimblet (Marcus) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Were following the development of naval warfare, minus the rise in dominance of carriers and missiles. Guns get bigger.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Go Glenn, go!

Nice ideas. I like the 'thick shield' idea. Maybe if the shield is reduced to say...10 points then the "phaser-spear" or whatever it should be called leaks a percentage of internals. Klingons or whatever race develop it and call-it-whatever-the-hell-they-want. THis breaks up the paradigm a little.

Christopher, I am not proposing all Disr boats. What I would like to see is a Klingon-like development that augments their fighting style.

Mike, not Disruptors that have phaserlike abilities, but an addtional weapon that performs the function of what phasers used to do, plus a new twist. I came up with a 'flak gun' idea. To make the Klingon weapons development go in a different and better direction (offensive against ships and defensive against drones, fighters, plasma et al.)

And 150 years of use (except for deodorant maybe?) does not mean that it needs to continue if we have the courage to try some new ideas on existing races.

By Roger Dupuy (Rogerdupuy) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Regarding Naval warfare, even bigger guns get replaced by smarter 'guns'.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 07:15 pm: Edit

I have no objection to smarter guns, but only in regards to heavy weapons. Phasers, IMHO, should be kept nice and simple. Making AP phasers and dealing with that sort of thing is going to slow the game down even more than it is. Keep 'em simple, keep 'em balanced, and leave it at that. Smarter heavy weapons like rapid-fire disruptors, tunable Hellbores, or variable-ranged ESG's are fine by me.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 06:48 am: Edit

POLL CLOSES TONIGHT!

I will add up all the votes up to 12AM (CST) tonight.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 09:47 am: Edit

Thanks to:
Ed Cruchfield
John Trauger
MJC
Loren
Jeff Tonglet
Jeremy Gray
Mike Raper
Aaron Gimblet
Carl Magnus Carlson
Geoff Conn
Tony Branes
Jim Davies
Jeff Wile
Tos Crawford
Andrew Harding
Roger Dupuy

Your Vote will help shape the start of 2X. So it is appreciated. (if only to help with a starting place.)

If you voted twice in a particular Question I took your first response. Except for updated answers.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 01:31 pm: Edit

If there is another poll can we first be polled to determine the correct questions?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 02:00 pm: Edit

We can have a poll to determine the poll!

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Tos,

I tried to build questions around the current debates. But if you have any suggestions for some. GA and post them with something like this:

Possible Poll Question:
Does XYZ Interact with ABC?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Undecided

Put it in Red or some other Color to make it stand out when I sift through stuff for more questions.

Just make sure to phrase it neutrally and limit yourself to only 1 (Or at most 2) questions. If there are overlapping Questions then I will sift through them until I can get them balanced out.

<EDIT>

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 04:13 pm: Edit

When the time is right.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Comment on the drone poll

No single set of answers best describes my point of view because I would like to see each drone using race answer those questions individually.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 05:08 pm: Edit

John is explaining why I feel it is important to discuss the questions prior to placing the poll.