Archive through April 30, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 ph-3 and other small defensive weapons: Archive through April 30, 2003
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Mike has a page listing all the Phasers proposed and their charts. There might be some confusion as to which chart exactly we are talking about.

Hmmm, let's see...

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Well, here's my line of thinking about the P5 being a 1 point weapon. The P2 was the primary heavy ship phaser in the early years. It cost one point to fire, and was eventually improved to the P1. The P1 also cost one point, and was in widespread use until the end of the General War. Now, skip to the P5. It further improves the phaser, but to a lesser degree than the P1 improved the P2. So, to my mind, it oughta still cost one point. We can keep double caps, but just make them two points instead of three. Then the basic phaser paradigm remains; one point for the basic weapon, or half a point for the downfired defensive mode. Using Loren's five point P6 table, that's still a modest improvement over the P3.

Now, all that being said, I'll pretty much go along with the majority on this. Here is the chart of all the phaser proposals I've recieved or seen.

2X Phasers

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 08:46 pm: Edit

The Ph-5 version I keep refering to is the Ph-VB.

The Phaser-6 version I like best is the one by you John T.

But that phaser is not quite powerfull enough to have it cost more that 1/2 point to power. (But I reitterate its the one I like best.)

If the choice is to go with a Ph-6 that takes 3/4 to power then Mike R's version is the choice I would make. Indeed, playtesting may prove that this is better for filling the roll it's supposed to in the X2 era. This version costing 3/4 to power would work OK with the Ph-5 as well, I guess. And since only AEGIS targets can draw the multiple shots it wont require that the Ph-5 be changed in any way.

Hmm, I guess it could go either way as far as the Ph-5 rapid pulse is concerned. However, I don't like, for instance, seeing the Kzinti with four or six Ph-6 having to constantly figure the 3/4 point fractions every turn.

So, I guess its playability that sways me to John T's Ph-6 chart for 1/2 point to arm and the above version I love of the Ph-5.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 08:49 pm: Edit

One thing I can see players demanding is that if you can pulse the Ph-5 twice as Ph-6 for 3/4 + 3/4 = 1.5, then why can I pulse the Ph-5 as two Ph-3 for one point total?

The problem with that, IMO, is that it further complicates the Ph-5. Some will say it only adds to the choice list but I think, game design wise, it complicates it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Loren,

I guess we have to draw a line somewhere. Where I would like to draw it would be "X2 phasers downfire as other X2 phasers." Older phasers only downfire as older phaser types. A P-1 cannot fire as 2xP-6 (even if the energy cost were .5) or even downfire as 1xP6 (if cost were 2/3 or 3/4). It's more natual and easier for a gamer's mind to accept if we group like with like and not let the two meet much. The only potential crossover is firing a P-5 as a P-1 in my mind.

I would want it stated that the P-5 doesn't do P-3's. It does P-6's. Symmetry to P-1's. The only time you can pulse a P-5 as a P-3 is if it's been destroyed and hasty-repaired as a P-1. When it is functionally a P-1 it can pulse as 2x P-3 and it *cannot* do a P-6 pulse at all.

I understood that the people around at the time of the original discussion preferred the more powerful P-6 chart. That's why it's on Mike's and my ships.

If you said the current P-6 chart was too powerful, I'd still be tempted to agree with you.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Question:

Do we want to rewrite the P-6 chart again?

I'd like a chart that's not as powerful as VI-A (on mike's reference) but powerful enough to rate a minor power increase to either 2/3 or 3/4.

Try something like

roll01234-89-1516-20
16654311
26544210
35543100
45443000
54432000
64431000


I gritted my teeth over keeping the "4" at R1 on the roll of "6", but figured that could be important. My normal natural tendecy would be to put a "3" there.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

John T.
Here is your earlier proposal for the Ph-6 as was posted by Mike.

Type-6(A) Phaser (John T. 1)
die roll -0--1--2--3-4-89-1516-20
15544311
25444210
35443100
44433000
54332000
64321000


This is Mikes:

Type-6(B) (Mike R.)
die roll-0--1--2--3-4-89-1516-20
16664311
26664210
36663100
46643000
56432000
64411000


The first should be 1/2 point to arm. The second should be 3/4 to arm.
I'll now post this to compair with the new chart.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 11:52 pm: Edit

At ranges zero and one Mikes is far superior to a Ph-2!

OK, I've done a side by side of the Ph-2, Ph-3, and the various Ph-6s and ya know, I think your new chart is just right. Right between the Ph-2 and Ph-3. I could see it costing 2/3 but that math would be a nightmare to play out. Sure any of use could do it but by turn 6 it just would be fun. 3/4 to arm is easier to deal with being exactly half the Ph-5.

I suppose this might be the way to go but just by a hair, IMO.

Mike R. What do you think?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 11:57 pm: Edit

OK, I'll admit that when I first looked at the new chart I was really sceptical. I thought for sure I would be suggesting changes but after looking real close at all the charts I couldn't see any need. It's right between where it should be. Very superior to the Ph-3 and not quite a Ph-2 (but close at knife fighting range). Two will kill big x-drones.

The original Ph-6 proposal from you was just right for 1/2 point to arm. That phaser has a lot going for it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 12:03 am: Edit

I'd rather have one that works for a 3/4.

I know you don't like fractions side of it, Loren, but anyone who has had to deal with a war cruiser EA should be able to deal with either a 2/3 or 3/4.

Mike, care to give me a chart I can steal? :)

I'll convert all my designs to this new chart. I like it better anyway. I didn't realize it until right now the old P6-A chart was a P-3 x 1.5 with some minor adjustments.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 12:16 am: Edit

Well, it's not just me I'm worried about. At 2/3's it will leave a third in the cap. What do you do with that? Well unless your ship is 1/3 or 2/3 move cost, not much. You have to track it or waste it. At least at 3/4 it clicks with the rest of the uses (half clicks better). I think 3/4 is right for that chart. The Ph-2 uses 1 point and this Ph-6 is in line with -1/4.

We all can deal with fractions but 3/4 is more intuative. (Half is a no brainer, almost no tracking).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 12:52 am: Edit

Quote:

Just saying "no, you only get 2 P-6 shots" invites a deluge of e-mails requesting the third shot and every minute the ADB spends gong through e-mail and reading it only long enough to determine that it's just another request to get "full use" out of a P-5 is a minute future projects are slowed down.


Just say that the Ph-6 is the Ph-3 with the long range targeting computer of the Ph-5 plugged into it. The computer it'self couldn't analyse more than 2 Ph-6 shots in a turn ( although oddly enough it could in do two in the same Aegis fire set ) because the curcitry becomes more resistant when it heats up and it heat up with use and so the second calculation requires a larger amount of energy but a third calculation requires such a massive amount of energyu that the curcuitry melts...by allowing the computer to cool down the next turn the computer will be availible against to be used in the fire.
Unfortunately that reasoning would create an interesting question of it's own.
If taking the computer out of the equation makes the Ph-6 into a Ph-3 then what do we get when we pass 1.5 points of power through a Ph-5 that has the computer taken out of the situation?


Quote:

Let's just say that my X2 proposals will all contain a P-6 that fires for 3/4. I can be talked down to 2/3 but no lower.


0.75 points of power will be nightmare for record keeping, there's a reason why Ph-3s usually come in pairs.


Quote:

P5 at 1.5
Downfire P5 at 1 point as a P1
Downfire P5 as 2xP6 for 1.5.

I would like a hasty repair rule that says you can repair the P5 as a P1, and downfire said P1 as 2xP3's, though. Make sense?


Is that to make room for 3Ph-3 shots also for 1.5 points of power?

We could make a hasty reapir rule to repair a Ph-5 and an X1Ph-1 but I would prefere if it was as an X2Ph-1.


Quote:

Agreed. If you reapir it as a P-1 it fires as a P-1.

We could come up with some technobabble explanation like the P-5 has an integrated turbocharger that makes the difference between a P-1 and a P-5 (and a P-3 a P-6). You can repair it without the turbocharger and you get a P-1.


I think people are begining to miss some important points.

Lets used the Fed X1 DD Phaser Suite as our base line Phaser Suite ( Because I mentioned it earlier ).
Now if we are talking about an X2 race that used X2Ph-1 as their weapon for the early X2 period, specifically the Hydrans or the Klingons ) then we have the following.
An XDD whose phaser array is the phaser arry of the DDX (3LS Ph-1s, 3RS Ph-1s and 3FH Ph-1s) BUT Whose BPV is that of a CX
Consequently she has the GW ships fighting her throwing an CX x K ( K being a multiplier and a fraction ) worth of drones but only DDX x K worth of drone defense.
So we need to give the XDD a CX x K drone defense, which means effectively upping the power of the weapons suite to deal with incomming GW drones.
Since the CX can obliquely fire 9Ph1s as 18Ph-3 shots and the DDX can only fire 6Ph-1s in an oblique we need to be able to rapid pulse those X2Ph-1 three times to get 18Ph-3 shots.

The only other way is to find a non phaser based drone defence, such as having a forrest of tractors or a T-bomb chucker that don't have the drawbacks of transporters ( that in sheild dropping and no 8 impulse delay ).


Quote:

Well, to be honest, I never saw the need to make the P5 a 1.5 power weapon, anyway. I sort of envisioned it being an improvement over the P1. This "improvement" is what gave the better damage...not increased power. That to me is the simplest answer; a 1 point P5, and half point P6. Just my opinion.


I like the 1.5 power, it put the throughput of the weapon at a different level.
If you have 1 power to opperrate the Ph-5 then 3Ph-1s Vs 2Ph-5s doesn't come out nearly as close because the Ph-5 user has an extra point of power to padd out the damage.
3Ph-1s is already at a disadvantage as soon as you chuck in an ECM drone, but Asteroids, Dustcloud and Nebulae will all make the X2Ph-1 races ( they Klingons and Hydrans ) as be at a very marked disadvantage.


Quote:

Again, I'm just giving support to why I see things the way I do. And am not saying it has to be my way. I suppose I've become a little attached to the "Ph-5/Ph-1/2xPh-6/1.5+1.5 cap" design. I really love it and it was developed on this board. It is not my invention, it's ours and the one I love the most.


Why do you say 1.5+1.5 cap...I just say three point...I think it'll be good to have a 2 point X1 Cap and a static 3 point X2 cap so that then the Disruptor users who use the disruptor cap can have a cap refit from four points ( two 2 pointers ) to six points ( two 3 pointers ).


Quote:

Perhaps I read the convo differently. For me a max-6 P-6 was simply too close to a P-2 when the subjet was a P-3 replacement. I never liked the pange-15 P-2 proposal for the P-6. You will remember that my own P-6 proposal was even more conservative than the one we went with. I don't doubt that the consensus on the P-6 was .5 power. It probably was. But I think that's a big, big mistake for all the reasons I have stated.

The last reason on my list I'll add is that a .5 arming P-6 violates a main theme of our version of P-3, "More effect for more power cost." The P-6 becomes the second-most effecient phaser right behind the P-6 and ahead of the P-3, which is counter to that general theme.


Yuh, huh.

Maybe it's good to have a counter to the central theme of the module.
Who carries Ph-6s alone.
The Lyrans.
The Tholians ( If there is to be an X2 Tholian )
The one real user of the Ph-6...the Kzinti.

If basically one race gets a counter move to the theme of the module then that's fantastic...we get racial flavour.
And it's good, because the Kzinti DC will have a lot of heavy power use ( requiring two turn arming for full effect ) and thus the enemy freeing of the Ph-6 ( for it's damage ) helps offset that.


Quote:

It further improves the phaser, but to a lesser degree than the P1 improved the P2


Okay...now you've got my attention.
Looks like it's time for a table.
WeaponR0R1R2R3R4R5R6-89-15R15-25R26-50
Phaser 25.54.163.833.51.161.161.160.660.330.16
Phaser 16.55.334.834.333.833.52.1610.50.33
Percentage increase18282623328300855050100
Phaser 16.55.334.834.333.833.52.1610.50.33
Phaser 58.337.56.55.3354.53.521.160.66
Percentage Increase28403423302862100133100

Ignoring the note-able exception of R4-5 and the sight agavate in increase in the R6-9 bracket, the Ph-5 has more than it's far share of damage generation, so a simple next step in computer control is less likely and an actual new weapon with a new amount of power being passed through it is more likely.

I'ld say the Ph-5 uses both a new computerised targeting system coupled with more power to attack targets at longer ranges and a higher energy consumption to inflict damages at shorter ranges but that's just me.


Quote:

One thing I can see players demanding is that if you can pulse the Ph-5 twice as Ph-6 for 3/4 + 3/4 = 1.5, then why can I pulse the Ph-5 as two Ph-3 for one point total?

The problem with that, IMO, is that it further complicates the Ph-5. Some will say it only adds to the choice list but I think, game design wise, it complicates it.


That's called down firing and the player should already be able to do that.
A Fed CA can down fire her Ph-1s as Ph-2s bit the chart isn't needed on the SSD because it not an critical capasity indeed it doesn't take you anywhere...all down firing high energy Ph6s as Ph-3 does is save power (0.25 points ot be exact per shot) so no one needs the chart and can look it up.
You know I don't see what the hassel is over Which charts should or shouldn't be on the SSD. We have EAFs for the Hydrans in that C module ( or was in an R modules ? ) to cover Hydrans loaning ECM to their fighters, why not put a photocopable page in the R section of module X2 to provide the full set of Phaser tables.


Quote:

I guess we have to draw a line somewhere. Where I would like to draw it would be "X2 phasers downfire as other X2 phasers." Older phasers only downfire as older phaser types. A P-1 cannot fire as 2xP-6 (even if the energy cost were .5) or even downfire as 1xP6 (if cost were 2/3 or 3/4). It's more natual and easier for a gamer's mind to accept if we group like with like and not let the two meet much. The only potential crossover is firing a P-5 as a P-1 in my mind.


Let's not cut off our own feet here.
We are forgetting that the ships are going up in BPV which put the number of GW drones they'll be facing up.
Is there another way to deal with drones?
If not and there will be few then we need to take our ability to deal with drones up at the sanme rate as our BPV or otherwise the biggest bang for your power weapon will be striking the shiedls and whilst Caps-to-SSReo might be able to defend you from the damages of DF weapons drones will both overload the capasity and be ready then next turn.

We need to find the system that defends the ship to the right value not making seeking attacks too weak nor too strong and then worry about whther or not the gameers mind can handle unlike with like.
Sheeesh!


Quote:

I gritted my teeth over keeping the "4" at R1 on the roll of "6", but figured that could be important. My normal natural tendecy would be to put a "3" there.


I on the other hand love the three in the R2 roll of 6.

But isn't that the point.
We can't say what the defensive phaser needs to be until after the drones are developed.

If for example the drones never get faster than the Type VII and VIII and merely get tougher or more damaging or have a greater array of modules to choose from, then we need not get anything better than a Ph-3 because it's got quaility results at R1.
If we get speed 40 drones ( or heaven forbid speed 64 boosted drones ) then we'll need the ability to prove a quality defense at R2 and thus need either a Ph-2 rapid pulsed mode or a Ph-6 table will a very substantive damage from a Roll of 6 on a range of 2.


Point Defense phasers will have to wait until drones and to some extent plasma; are settled.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 01:20 am: Edit

We have two good Ph-6 versions to keep in mind. Playtesting will tell the tale of which or neither.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Exactly.

But we can ballpark it. And we should.

Taking the edge off the P-6 seems a good thing. I like the new version. A bit more texture to it.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 03:29 pm: Edit

I'm going to adopt the new one for my integrated proposal but I'll keep the old one on the drive for now. :)

I'll work up some charts in a while, of this and the new disr.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:02 am: Edit

Here is the chart comparing the P6 of Johns, at both .5 and .75 power, and the standard P3.

Defensive Phaser Comparison Chart

Here's the data:
Phaser VI at .5
01234-89-1516-20
Avg. Dam4.53.833.332.8310.330.16
Energy0.50.50.50.50.50.50.5
Efficiency9.007.666.665.662.000.660.32

Phaser VI at .75
01234-89-1516-20
Avg. Dam4.53.833.332.8310.330.16
Energy0.750.750.750.750.750.750.75
Efficiency6.005.114.443.771.330.440.21

Phaser III at .5
01234-89-1516-20
Avg. Dam3.833.66320.330.160
Energy0.50.50.50.50.50.50.5
Efficiency7.667.326.004.000.660.320.00


As I mentioned in the P1 thread, the P6 John has developed is, IMHO, nearly perfect if it uses a .5 power cost. At .75, it's grossly inefficient, even compared to the P3. I think that keeping this phaser is a good start, provided we keep that cost the same. The performance it has as compared to the P3 shows a very consistant improvement, but nothing drastic. I'd like to try to mirror that with a P5.

Note that, as with the P3, the P6 has a very noticeable drop in performance past range 3. Should we keep this, given the likeliehood of increased speed for seeking weapons? Or, should it be extended to range 4?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Mike,

Phasers are the single most damage-efficient DF weapons in the game. (Seeking weapons are a different ballgame so let's not compare them)

They don't need an upgrade in efficiency, IMHO.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 04:51 pm: Edit

I agree, they are. But, why make the P5 less efficeint than the P1? Equal, yes...worse, no. I can live with a power cost of 1.5, if we give it a bit better damage. Frankly, if given the choice between less and more expensive P5's on a ship, or more and cheaper P1's, I'd take the P1's.

Recall that we talked about using less of them on the first run of 2X ships, because they were better. Thus, a 2X Fed CA would have six to eight of them. At a power cost of 1.5, it isn't worth it. I can get the same punch with more and cheaper P1's, and get several benefits, including more mizia potential, more durability by being able to take more hits, and more chances to hit, too. Now, a more powerful P5 might persuade me. But as it is, if the current P5 costs 1.5 to fire, gimme the P1, especially if the only reason to make it cost 1.5 is to suck up "excess" X2 power. If we have ot invent ways to use excess power, we need to rethink some things.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 06:11 pm: Edit

You have a point.

I wanted to try to argue it (and I still like the P-5 as a 1.5) and before I do, I have to acknowledge that your comments would be echoed by a lot of players if this ever sees print.

X1 ships are hulls pushed to their limits.

The X2 Class of 205 aren't supposed to be. That means less phasers, etc.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 06:33 pm: Edit

I know...it's tough to figure out, isn't it? I'm sure we can figure out the right balance, it'll just take more thought than we originally figured.

The tables I use to do the charts are set to auto-calculate...that is, as you fill in the data, it will update the averages, and update the graph. If anyone wants a copy to play with, feel free to ask. I sent one to Loren, and he's working on a possible new PV, as well. I'm happy to work with everyone to get the best balanced proposal we can get.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:42 pm: Edit

Quote:

I agree, they are. But, why make the P5 less efficeint than the P1? Equal, yes...worse, no. I can live with a power cost of 1.5, if we give it a bit better damage. Frankly, if given the choice between less and more expensive P5's on a ship, or more and cheaper P1's, I'd take the P1's.


Here's my take....in pros and cons.

Phaser 1Ph-5 1.5Ph-1
Same damage at primary battle range Neutral Neutral
Miiza effect taking Con Pro
Mizia effect making Con Pro
Capsitor Size (for Caps-to-SSReo) Con Pro
Capsitor efficency (For how many attack runs before refilling) Con Pro
Resistance to EW Pro Con
Long Range Dueling Pro Con
Short range Knief fighting Con Pro
Drone Defense (as is not as should be) Con Pro
Plasma Defense Neutral Neutral
Throughput long range Pro Con
Throughput short range Con Pro


Now to me it seems like having the fewer Ph-5 with a refit to as many Ph-5s as there were Ph-1s going up against that forrest of Ph-1s trhat latter gets refitted to Ph-5s makes for a good game situation.
Early in X2 you have racial Flavour and balance and late in X2 you just have balance.
Each arrangement has it's own Pros and Cons and the players should have some choice in which kind of arrangement they like by picking a ship of a race they like.
Disruptors and Ph-5s will pick Lyrans.
Disruptors and Ph-1s will pick Klogons...etc.
Setting up pros and cons within the Phaser array is a good starting point for generating racial flavour.


Quote:

Recall that we talked about using less of them on the first run of 2X ships, because they were better. Thus, a 2X Fed CA would have six to eight of them. At a power cost of 1.5, it isn't worth it. I can get the same punch with more and cheaper P1's, and get several benefits, including more mizia potential, more durability by being able to take more hits, and more chances to hit, too. Now, a more powerful P5 might persuade me. But as it is, if the current P5 costs 1.5 to fire, gimme the P1, especially if the only reason to make it cost 1.5 is to suck up "excess" X2 power. If we have ot invent ways to use excess power, we need to rethink some things.


This is not exactly the case.
Your Ph-1 suite might seem like the same damage for less power because the throughput is dropped on the Ph-5 but throughput is an advantage clue to design of the weapon, not to their battle functionality.

If Klingon X2 cruiser has 12Ph-1s ( Basically the DX but with a fourth boom phaser ) and performs a perfect oblique and the Fed XCA has 8Ph-1s and fires back with her 6 bearing Ph-5s.
The Klingon will inflict 21.66 points of phaser and the Fed will inflict 21 points of Phaser damage.
This does not mean that the Fed paid more power for this damage, on the contry.
The Fed paid 9 points of power for those 6Ph-5 shots and the Klingon paid a full 10 points of energy for those 10Ph-1 shots.

Now whilst the Klingon capasitor is longer, the Caps have to be refilled eventually ( particularly in battles at WS-0 and WS-I ) and so the Klingon isn't going around paying less for his damage, he's actually paying more...and entire point more.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 08:30 am: Edit

That's all nice, but it doesn't address the point. If given the choice between 12 phaser 1's and 8 phaser 5's, I'd take the 12 phaser 1's. I get more padding, more mizia opportunities, and a perfectly acceptable damage curve. There is simply no compelling reason for me to use the current phaser 5 at it's power cost of 1.5.

I'd use it if we have a cost of 1, and I do like the table. But 1.5 is just too much for what you get. That's my only problem with it.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Mike,

The problem is the P-5 is too good to cost just 1 and n cost figure between 1 and 1.5 works easily (1.33?)

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Sadly, that is the problem. My only concern is that it isn't good enough to cost 1.5 to fire, and I really don't like doing it if it's just a means to burn up excess energy.

However, we can table this for now, and get on with getting a complete design out that we all agree with. Maybe we can revist the energy cost then, if it doesn't look right or proves too expensive, based on other 2X systems we've yet to define.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 02:40 pm: Edit

I've been busy with other things for a little while but I don't see what the problem is. I have been assuming that a P5 can be downfired as a P1, no? This would cost 1 power. If you want more power efficiency at close range fire it as a P1. If you are willing to pay more for slightly more damage or longer range then fire it as a P5.

"But, why make the P5 less efficeint than the P1? Equal, yes...worse, no. I can live with a power cost of 1.5, if we give it a bit better damage"

"I have to acknowledge that your comments would be echoed by a lot of players if this ever sees print."

It is not unlike a Fusion Beam that gains a 50% increase in damage for a 100% increase in power. This is already supported in the phaser world because close range P3 have a better power to damage ratio than the P1. Also check out the now defunct (XE2.42) "All X-phasers may be overloaded. The energy cost is doubled, and the damage caused by each phaser is increased by 50%." The reason this rule was deleted was because it did too much damage. To prevent reinventing a logical but known bad idea we instead extended the range.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation