Archive through February 12, 2004
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: The "X" Files: OLD X2 FOLDER: X2 ph-1: Archive through February 12, 2004
By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Quote:

I agree. There is also the problem with making it too powerful. Say we put the Ph-5 damage up so the at 1.5 it equals the efficiency of the Ph-1. That may be too powerful. If the Alpha strike ability is too great it may start to mess with backwards compatability.


This is one reason why I'ld like to see the Ph-1 as the Ph-2 anaologue.

See if get the balance right, a perfect oblique of a Klingon at R8 with her 10 bearing Ph-1s generates 21.66 points of damage an a Fed XCA with her 6 bearing Ph-5s does 21 points of damage, then thats a good thing, it'll mean backwards compatability particularly with respect to X1.


Like wise I like my Ph-5 targeting computer idea because it won't make the 12Ph-5 full refitted cruisers any more dangeroud at R0-8 which means the backward compatability problems is only restricted to what the Ph-5 can do normally...in those numnbers...in the case of the fully refitted Fed XCA that'ld be 31.5 but at proably 410 BPV the ability to crack the sheilds of an enemy GW cruiser just on phasers at R8 isn't all that great of a problem...from a taskgroup point of view.
At what ranges does a B11 do 30+ points of damage just on Phasers?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 11:43 pm: Edit

Quote:

D'oh! ••••. I fixed it. Looks a bit better, but the discrepency between the short range disadvantage and long range advantage still bug me


Well that's what I like about it...in a purely Flavoursom way.

Races that stick to many Ph-1s get to drill the opposition from about R4 (R5 if they can really capitaly ( breaking even in R6-8 ) on the forrest of Ph-1 ( such as getting a PERFECT Oblique with aKlingon ) assuming they're breave enough to go there and don't have their socks blown off on the way in...which with the defensiveness we've set up in X2 is unlikely.
On the other hand with the high battle speed of X2 it becomes harder to actually get to R4.

And I think that sets up a natural tactical game that players will enjoy trying to compete with.


If the wind blows the same way at the same speed for the entire duration of a rugby match, is the wind making the game unfair?
Yes...if one team has a game built around long kicks forward and the other has a game built around running with the ball.

If we set up this perversion between the form of each table then we create racial flavour.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Here's a possible new Phaser V, one that I can live with paying 1.5 for. It has a very marginal increase in efficiency over the P1...34, as opposed to 32.14. It averages one or less damage points more per range category, and at longer ranges is the same as the current PV.

Phaser V+
Die Roll0123456-89-1516-2526-5051-75
11010987654321
2109887653211
399876543110
498776542100
598765431000
687654420000


Note: I don't necessarily want this, but it's an example of what I'd personally be willing to pay the extra energy to get. I like the current PV just dandy, if we can keep the energy cost at one. At one point, it's much more like the jump from P2 to P1, which was the big revolutionary change that took place in phaser tech after the early years. The whole "revolutionary" approach to X2 is something I've been striving for, as opposed to evolutionary. I've seen the difference bewteen the P1 and P2 charted out...it's shocking, when viewed that way. The P5 we've been using, at one point of power, doesn't match that change. But, it's better, and more reflective (I think) of what 2X should look like. This is all personal opinion, of course, and meant in the spirit of working out the best 2X we can.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Quote:

if we can keep the energy cost at one


If we MOVE the energy cost to 1!


I'ld say the shift of Y to MY is the biggest jump that shas of will ever happen in the SFB game and shouldn't be looked at from the point of veiw of making the same step again.
What X2 should be is a jump about equal to that of X1 over the GW.
Big step, radically different stuff but nothing so mind blowingly powerful like overloaded heavies are to standards.
Things like the 24 point Photon are at the edge of most peoples willingness as it is...II've said a number of times that six 23 point photons will bring back to MY levels of BITE for the XCA and that's just beyond what anyone is will to accept.
One reason is that a few powerful weapons ( MY hulls ) can't mizia as well as a lot of powerful weapons so six 24 point photons will be out of the question because they are just too good as striping GW ships of Weapons ( A Drone and a Disruptor and 2 point something phasers extracted out of Photon by itslef landing on an unshielded hull!?! )...one of the things about the MY ships is that the Alphas weren't all that important because the DAC went a long way down before new weapon strikes.
With more weapons that are more powerful the mizia concept beconmes easier to acheive.

All in all only a handful of minor improvement will couple togethwer to create X2 ships that a radically different to, and far better than their X1 predecessors.


Consider the +2 UIM and +2 Defracs. It doesn't seem like a radical change, but you up the Through put of the UIM Disruptor from a bearly breaking even 1.2 to a highly effecient 1.5 and that's very power, at what range do you get that kind of efficency from a Heavy weapon.
Photons will give you 1.33 at R4 but not until R2 do you beat it with 1.66.
Disruptors give you 1.33 @ R 3-4 and 1.66 at R2.
Quite simply the +2 UIM gives you levels of throughput that are only see at point blank ranges ( and an effect that is only seen at point blank ranges, autohitting ) and that that totally changes the dynamic of the game...dancing becomes a heck of lot easyier to do.
Minor change but radically different play and a much higher BPV to go with the easier nature of flying generating effective damage whilst being fairly well protected from enemy fire ( on account of the fact that it's usually fairly hard to hit ships at R8).

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Loren, could you repost your phaser-5 table here?

Yours seems to be the consensus, but the files have been lost. The X2 files on Mike Reper's page seem to have been deleted, and I don't know if my ships have the right tables.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 12:10 am: Edit

The Ph-5 hasn't change in a long time...it's the Ph-6 table that has been messed around with a lot.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 07:56 am: Edit

Jeff,

I took the files down for the time being because os space, and the fact that most of that stuff had been up there for ages with very little discussion about any of it. I can send you the various tables and such for the phasers, if you like. Maybe a thread with no comments, just posted tables and stuff would be usefull as a place of reference.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 11:23 am: Edit

Jeff, sory I missed your request. If Mike hasn't e-mailed them to you I can. E-mail me if you like.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 07:55 pm: Edit

Thanks for the email Mike.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 02:27 am: Edit

I think that at some point during the X1 period ( say year 200 ) that the Ph-5 should be deployed by some races as an experimental weapon, replacing heavy weapons on the designs of the testbed vessel similar to the D7Z.

It should be really restricted with say, a standard X1 2 point capasitor and the ability to repid pulse simply as 2Ph-6 shots rather than 2Ph-6 shots or 3Ph-3 shots.

I also think the Kzinti should at this time experiment with a ship which uses Disruptor Cannon...With an overload function but no fastload function and no Defrac or UIM.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 10:26 pm: Edit

I suppose we could go for Module X2P.

But with X1, X1R (early andys), XP (late andys), X2 (trade wars), X2R (varients), X2+ (xorks), do we really need another one?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 11:58 pm: Edit

X2P, what??? X1 with Ph-5s?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 03:35 am: Edit

Quote:

do we really need another one?


How many races really need it.
The Roms get one SSD, the Feds get one SSD, maybe the Lyrans get one SSD ( but they don't have too ), and at the end of the Andro war the other races agree to the treaty partly on condition that Ph-5 Phaser technologies be given to them...which also help in them agreeing to the treaty because they understood what they were signing better with reguards to the phaser limits on their ships.


Quote:

what??? X1 with Ph-5s?


Yes, that's what I'm saying, from very late in the X1 period, say Y200.

That's what X2 was about...the treaty limited the numbers and types of phasers, but there was nothing in the treaty limiting the size of the caps or the ability of the weapons rapid pulse or the modulised easy to repair nature of the weapons and so that produced the real advances of the whole treaty era...firepower wasn't increased but functionality was.
The ASIF didn't make for high tonnage vessels but it made for vessel that could take a hit like a high tonnage vessel.
The S-Bridge didn't make every X2 ship into "the eye gouger" of the enemy DNs, but it made the X2 ships hell on space monsters.
Disruptor Caps and intergrated UIM/Defrac didn't make the disuptors deadlier...they made them more dependable...honest.
Sure 24 point Photons were more powwerful individually but since the Feds accepted a limit of the number of the things they could install, it wasn't the end of the universe.
4 point batteries don't let you maul enemy ship...they just let you tow damaged friendly ships at higher speed or longer ranges for longer dutations...honest.

So too the Ph-5 should be a highly experimental late X1 weapons that only gained ( although going from Ph-5s replacing heavies to 8 Ph-5s on a cruiser is an increase but it's not as great as having 12Ph-5 on a cruiser ) in flexibility in the Treaty Period and not in firepower.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Probably limited replacement would be in order.

No more than replacing 3-6 P-1s with 2-4 P-5's

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 07:32 pm: Edit

I just don't see the need for a module of X2 testbed ships. Maybe in 5-10 years if X2 sales catch on.

First I'd rather see the X2 ships be published.

There's an old proverb: "Don't let the Best become the enemy of the Good." Meaning don't wreck it if it's only 95% of what you want.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 09:13 pm: Edit

Quote:

Probably limited replacement would be in order.

No more than replacing 3-6 P-1s with 2-4 P-5's


I'ld rather see it replace Heavies as the Experimental version version.


Quote:

I just don't see the need for a module of X2 testbed ships. Maybe in 5-10 years if X2 sales catch on.

First I'd rather see the X2 ships be published.

There's an old proverb: "Don't let the Best become the enemy of the Good." Meaning don't wreck it if it's only 95% of what you want.


There are two unanswered questions.
1) Will X1R come out before X2?
2) Is X2 95% about Ph-5s?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Question 1: As no new X module is yet even tentitively heading towards the schedule I'm sure SVC doesn't even know the answer to when either will come out.

Question 2: Boy, the Ph-5 is a good design but no, I don't think so. X2 is about the whole ship design and it historical context. Some people think the design should be what it is despite the environment. I think the environment dictates the design. I think X2 is 90% about the environment of the era.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 12:32 am: Edit

Testbed ships would be a Captain's Log thing, not a <odule X2 thing.

MJC,

If the P-5 is to replace the P-1 as a ship's main phaser, the testbed should test that replacement.

My thought is the heavy weapons would stay.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 06:49 am: Edit

L.K.:

Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe there was some looking into in the late X1 period the idea of this phasers as heavy weapons and the system designed was what came to be known as the Ph-5.

It might even be worse than the Ph-5 currently is.
It might have had a CDR cost of 8 and no down firing ( only 2Ph-6 shot rapid pulse which cost the high price of 0.75 rather than the 0.5 of the X2 version ) and have a two point Cap.


J.T.:
Testbeds could be a CL thing or they could be stuck in a modulem, if there are a few pages short...I mean how many new rules are going to be stuck into X1R ( beyond letting the GX rack chuck out type VI & IX drones like it was an E-rack )?...We might as well cover the Ph-5 and DC there.

I think like the D7Z they would replace heavies.
I'm not entirely convinced ( see my responce to LK ) that the first thought of the inventers was to have it as a replacement to the main phaser suite...the Ph-5 is practically immune to EW if you're compairing it to the Photon.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 09:59 am: Edit

Actually a Federation DZX would be a seriously cool X1 ship. That is a Fed DDX with the Photons replaced with Ph-5s.

It'ld cost 6 points of power to fire the four Ph-5s ( which could come from their own or the Ph-1 caps ) which is a heck of a lot less than the 16, 16 or 24 points that Fastloaded Standards, 16 point alternating overloads and 12 point fastloads would use up.

At R8 four Ph-5s will inflict ( with a zero shift ) 14 points of damage and at R5 they will inflict 20 points of damage.

At R8 and R5, four fastloaded 12 pointers will inflict ( with a zero shift ) 24 points of damage whilst four fastloaded standards and alternating 16 pointers will inflict 16 points of damage.

So the ship isn't inflicting huge ammounts of damage but it is running around with a very high battle speed, so much so that it could probably replace the AWRs with four Labs and still be the fastest X1 ship about.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Since there are a lot of new faces here, let's get another debate out of the way.

About a year ago, we were pushing around an upgraded phaser to give X2 cruisers. Mike Raper's first proposal with cutting the P-4 damage table in half.

That proved to be too usefully long ranged, so I hit on cutting the *megaphaser* table in half. That's been the generally-accepted heavy phaser table. We dubbed it the "P-5"

We also created a P-3 replacement called the "P-6". There's less agreement on the damage table but most of us agree on a table that's like a compromise between a P-3 and a P-2, with a more P-3-like damage dropoff.

There is also a P-7 (replacement P-G) and a P-8 (replacement P-4) but those aren't well defined.

The core phaser debate is "how much energy should a P-5 cost?" The two choices for the P-5 are 1.5 points of power or 1 point of power like the P-1.

Mike Raper has set out the basic case for the 1-point P-5: It continues the evolution of the ehavy phaser from P-2 to P-1 to P-5. A heavy phaser always costs a point, it's just the fire control rig on the phaser.

The counterpoint to that is "when do we use a completely new phaser?" Well, it's the P-5 or not. I am not comfortable with continually escalating the damage efficiency of phasers. I think the extra damage and range should cost extra energy.

It also goes a ways toward forcing X2 to make hard power choices. X1 was so power-rich that there weren't too many hard decisions. By making the new stuff cost more, the dynamic of SFB is restored.

Then comes the even thorier questions of what a P-6 should cost. With a 1-pt P-5 we're all agreed on 1/2.

With a 1.5-cost P-5, some cling to 1/2, some want 3/4, some split the difference at 2/3.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 08:21 pm: Edit

There is also my not so accepted idea of having the Ph-5 cost 1.5 (with 3 points in caps), down load as Ph-1 for 1 point, or as two Ph-6 for .75 points each. AND that the stand alone Phaser-6 (it's own box) fires more efficiently using 1/2 point of energy.

The general arguement against it was that it is too confusing to have the downloaded Ph-6 and the stand alone Ph-6 have different arming costs.

I agree it would increse a new players learning curve but veteran players should be smart enough to deal with it.

The reason to have the difference come down to a reason to mount a Ph-6 instead of staying with all Ph-5's.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 08:52 pm: Edit

There was that. I forgot that part (mercifully). Once you throw the P6 into the mix the debate gets pretty complicated.

I won't go past mentioning MJC and his desire to see the 1.5 cost P-5 fire as 3x P-3 in rapid-pulse mode. The proposal is so excessive on its face that nobody but MJC likes it.

I don't think any consensus has ever emerged on phasers. We all simply ran out of arguments, agreed to disagree, and wnet our own way. We've had the debate twice. At least.

I figure with all the newbies, it'll come to a head sooner or later and we may as well get it going.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:08 pm: Edit

I think we all agreed on the Ph-5 table its self.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Ph-5 table ok, 1pt ok
Ph-6 table ok (Ph-2 w/ Ph-3 drop-off), 1/2pt ok

It maintains the flavor of the game's main phasers with just a little more oomph.

I recommend Ph-5 can fire as 2xPh-2 or 4xPh-3 for 2pts. Also Ph-6 can fire as 1xPh-2 or 2xPh-3 for 1pt. This would cause problems with a bunch of phaser tables on the SSD, but maybe we can skimp there.

I also agree with the 3x(cost) capacitors.

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