| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 06:46 pm: Edit |
IP Photons
This is the first draft of a possible proposal to fix the photon. While many may argue that the photon doesn't need fixing, there are just as many who argue that it does. In a short poll taken among players on the ADB BBS, and among players I know in person, 100% of those asked said that if they could improve the photon in any way, it would be to make it more accurate. All were satisfied with damage, arming time, arming cost, repair time, and firing options. Only accuracy is an area of any real concern, so this rule attempts to alleviate this problem in a fair, balanced fashion that will improve the photon to a more accurate direct fire weapon, but not make it so much more so that it overpowers the other existing weapons in the game.
Background:
In Y180, the Federation military command and Bu Ord began to become increasingly concerned with the improvements made by the other major races in their direct fire heavy weapons. The Klingons, with both DERFACS and UIM, had in the Disruptor a weapon capable of firing twice as quickly as the photon, and much more accurately. Worse yet, in Y166 they had offered this technology to their allies the Lyrans, putting more pressure on both of the Federation's "western" allies, the Hydrans and the Kzinti. The Romulans had the flexible and multi-faceted plasma torpedo, which could be fired in enveloping, defensive "shotgun", or standard modes...and rumor had it that they were developing a much faster version of the plasma torpedo called the plasma sabot. The Federation clearly needed to find a way to improve the photon, their primary heavy weapon, in an attempt to maintain parity with the other major races. This improvement came in the form of the Improved Photon refit, or IP Photon.
Arming:
No change to (E4.21) or (E4.22)
Firing:
The major change in the IP photon comes mainly in its standard firing mode. In this mode, accuracy at ranges 3-8 is increased, and the photon is able to fire at range 0-1. In proximity mode, the photon's accuracy at longer ranges is increased slightly, but it looses accuracy at closer ranges. There is no effect on the firing accuracy for an overloaded photon.
| IP PHOTON TORPEDO REFIT TABLE | ||||||
| RANGE | 0-1 | 2 | 3-4 | 5-8 | 9-12 | 13-30 |
| HIT, STANDARD | 1-4 | 1-5 | 1-5 | 1-4 | 1-2 | 1 |
| HIT, PROXIMITY | NA | NA | 1 | 1-2 | 1-3 | 1-4 |
| HIT, OVERLOAD | 1-6 | 1-5 | 1-4 | 1-3 | NA | NA |
| DAMAGE, STANDARD | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| DAMAGE, PROXIMITY | - | - | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| DAMAGE, OVERLOAD | VARIES | VARIES | VARIES | VARIES | - | - |
| By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 07:21 pm: Edit |
Somewhat of a skewed survey, don't you think? Kinda like asking "Which do you like more, F-16's or Stealth Bombers?"
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 07:23 pm: Edit |
Robert,
Not really. I asked what they'd like to fix, because I've seen so many different proposals. If all of them say one thing, I think that's a pretty strong indicator. Ask anyone what kind of fix they'd like for disruptors, and you'll likely get a variety...I've seen rate of fire, damage (most common) and energy cost. This is just a rule I've played with before that seemed fair enough to play.
| By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 07:36 pm: Edit |
That's just it, you implied that they'd want something to be fixed.
| By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 07:49 pm: Edit |
I can tell you one thing for sure, proxy photon is broken at 1-4 to hit from range 13-30. There is a relatively narrow threshold in base battles between accuracy, damage and durability. The proxy change would make it too effective, allowing a photon based fleet to consistantly overwhelm the defenses of a base while outside the base's effective range. In other words, it would break most if not all base battles.
Adding proxy range bands from r4-r8 don't really add very much.
I think the issue of feedback should be addressed for standard torpedoes at range 0-1.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 07:57 pm: Edit |
Robert, not to sound abusive, but if you have a specific complaint, what is it? You will note there is no change in overloads, the photons greatest strength area. There is no damage increase, rate of fire increase, or any other cool increases of any kind. Just a +1 increase for a narrow range band of five hexes for standards, the area the photon is weakest in. For a BPV cost of 5 points per tube, I don't think it's unreasonable. If you don't agree, take a vanilla Fed DN, use this rule, and then take any other 200 point ship you like and play a duel. I think you'll find it a fair cost.
Jonathan,
You may have something there. We rarely played base assaults, so this wasn't much of an issue. I may just ditch the proximity changes all together.
| By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 08:13 pm: Edit |
I just don't think the Photon needs to be changed, that's all.
Well, that and the proliferation of different ways to simply improve the accuracy of the thing. I think that nearly every possible technobabble way to improve the accuracy "this much" or "that much" has been mentioned on 7 different topics. How many friggin topics do you need to have to say "We want to increase the accuracy of this stupid weapon!"?
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 08:20 pm: Edit |
Robert,
That's fair enough. Please note (anybody reading this, not just Robert) that I take extreme care in my posts to be as objective, fair and polite as possible. I do not seek to embarass, ridicule or otherwise mock anyones proposed rules, ships or ideas...even when I don't agree with them, or even think (privately) that they are stupid.
I propose ideas and look for intelligent, honest feedback I can use. If you disagree with me, that's fine...say so, and be done with it. If you think it's a pointless, foolish or stupid idea, that's your right. But tell me WHY...simply saying "that idea sucks" doesn't get it done. I endeavor not to do that myself. Find any post anywhere I've written, and you'll find that even if I disagree, I always explain why and politely offer alternatives. If the conversation continues, I generally just leave it alone.
| By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 10:05 pm: Edit |
The lack of accuracy of the photon is balanced vs the disruptor by its flexibility (arming, holding, etc.). Adding only a BPV cost for increased accuracy I just don't see as balanced. Perhaps a 25-50% increase in power for a +1 to hit, with the removal of the ability to hold might be an idea that would work (all extra power required on turn of firing - to further limit flexibility).
| By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 10:33 pm: Edit |
Mike did you see the A.P.A.A.C. line for another accuracy based photon improvement.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 10:34 pm: Edit |
Yes, I did. Neat idea! I just like simplicity, that's all.
| By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 10:42 pm: Edit |
Robert, you may think that photons need nothing but a lot of us believe different. What race do you play? Do you think that race has any weakness's or failings you would like to see fixed? I'm sure you do.
| By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 11:00 pm: Edit |
I'm a Hydran, and I would love to see the Fusion Beams range increased, the Hellbores charging cost decreased, and/or the Stinger-IIs BPV decreased. I think it would be really neat if any of those happened.
I think any race would love to have their weapons become more effective, to have the down-sides removed with no corresponding reduction in the up-side.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 11:24 pm: Edit |
I like the Light Photon idea. But accuracy is a pain with photons. Their really a short range weapon. Proxs work good. If you miss at least your not about to get blasted too hard. The mid-band ranges put you at real risk. And other races are not taking that same risk. Get real close and that risk goes away. However, just put a Led. Wep Officer on any Photon Fed. and bamm, that ship just got a lot more powerfull. Of course, you pay a lot for that, but its good reserch.
So the question of accuracy is a difficult one because the minimum you can improve the photon is by one and thats a lot. I guess thats why I like the Light photon idea. Smaller warhead with less power cost, allowing more tactical options. Particularly towards the end of a battle. I have suggested before arming with a 1+1 for 4 points, limited range of 12, or 2+1 for 4 points and full range(not a prox because no accuracy bonus). Also, they could fire at R1 with no feed back.
I should point out that Lights were not my idea. This is just how I thought they could be played.
| By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 06:56 am: Edit |
Sigh....
I'm sure accurate photons would be very popular. It would remove the need for skill in Federation ships.
I keep saying this, but no one seems to want to hear it. THE PHOTON TORPEDO DOES NOT NEED FIXING. I'd argue further, but I'm losing the will. I keep saying the same thing over and over every time this proposal comes up (and it ALWAYS keeps coming up).
I regularly fly and win with photon armed ships, though not always. Both with and without EW. In all time periods, against numerous races, under varied conditions. No, it's not a gimme. You have to WORK for your victories. If anyone was even mildly interested, I'd explain the basics. But the wild majority of people I hear on this board aren't interested. They'd much rather "fix" the photon and not have to bother to learn.
| By Kevin M. McCollum (Sfbl5r) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 10:45 am: Edit |
Jeff,
I am with you on the FACT that the photon torpedo does not need any improvements. Telling someone who is fixated on the idea that it is not a good weapon won't change their mind.
I'm not too worried though, I KNOW the Steve's know there is no problem with the weapon, just the tactics and perceptions of the players who are using the photon torpedo.
| By Randall Black (Randy) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 10:48 am: Edit |
I think the photon needs a slight upgrade but I would not recommend anyone giving photons a 1-4 to hit at range 30 with prox photons in a Fleet battles and retrograding you will almost guarantee a victory.
I am a very hardcore Fed player and I believe the photon is losing ground in the heavy weapons department but if you change the accuracy without changing the damage you will effect game balance.
| By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 11:26 am: Edit |
I guess I'm in the camp that thinks the photon could use a 'side'-grade. That is, that the photon would be more tactically interesting if it had an additional firing option or two, but that any such addition should be inherently self-limiting, so that the tradeoffs made to use a firing mode option are severe enough that whatever is done to the photon, it never is so beneficial that it becomes the default mode of use. BPV should never be the main tradeoff, since it is an overly blunt balancing mechanism.
I personally think that many weapons (not just photons) could use some sort of 'side'-grade, simply to shake up standard tactics a bit. The difficulty of course is achieving the zero-sum change, where the new option is 'different' as opposed to 'better' or 'worse'. Some random thoughts:
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 11:39 am: Edit |
Stephen,
I agree in some ways...this option is just one I've used in the past, is by no means ground in stone. I've actually played with quite a number of variations to the rules. For those that think I'm a photon maniac, I can tell you that we also used alternate improvements for other weapons, including some similar to what Stephen just mentioned. Specifically, we used:
Selected targeting for the Hellbore: Does most damge to the shield you choose; arming cost is one more, accuracy drops by one.
Half ESG: ESG Field cut in half, covering either FH, RH, LS or RS side of ship. Damage it takes and does is doubled.
Heavy Disruptors: Disruptors mounted on size class 2 or larger units. Arming cost and damage are doubled.
These were fun rules, and our group enjoyed them. If you find them offensive, don't play them! But if you want to criticize, do it in reasonable, quantitative fashion; don't waste band witdh with pointless ranting.
| By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 12:23 pm: Edit |
The photon works just spiffy as-is, and the entire game is balanced around it. And it isn't as if there aren't options with the thing. Don't like the long-range hit probabilities? Use the prox torp. Don't like the close-in myopic zone? Dial up a 9-point overload with a half-point of reserve warp. Don't like the hit probabilities due to a nasty EW environment? Bring along any of the Federation's various and excellent scouts (both to provide ECCM and to take out those pesky ECM drones). Still don't like the photon? Fly a nearly-photonless carrier group...or better yet, fly something other than Fed.
Heck, I don't like the ship-mounted fusion beam. In fact, I absolutely loathe the ship-mounted fusion beam. But I've found a simple solution to this problem: I simply play any of the 1500-or-so published ships that don't have ship-mounted fusion beams. I do not complain about it to all and sundry and post Ship-Mounted Fusion Beam Improvement Plan #XX on a monthly basis. I recognize that, while I positively hate the way that ship-mounted fusion beams work tactically, they are balanced within the game structure, and that the only thing that would happen by introducing an upgrade would be to start a general cry for upgrades to ESGs and Disruptors...and Photons in response to that...and Plasma in response to that...etc., etc.
As for "wasting bandwidth," I'd say that introducing the Photon Improvement Scheme Of The Week wastes a heck of a lot more bandwidth than does stating the simple fact that the photon is fine as it currently stands.
| By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 01:03 pm: Edit |
Jessica,
Stating your opinion and using some data to back it up is just fine. That I can live with, and I'm sure most everyone else can as well...that isn't "pointless ranting." Inferring stupidity, ignorance or a lack of talent is, however.
| By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 01:20 pm: Edit |
Sound suggestions all, Jessica, but for us folks that like to fly Feds (because they're the Feds, not because of some combination of abilities), but dislike drones (a minority I suppose, but still), and therefore fly mostly pre-war unrefitted Photon and Phaser ships, photon tweaking is a means towards the end of making those somewhat 2-dimensional ships more of a tactical puzzle, without (hopefully) changing the game balance in any major way. As for bringing along a scout, that works for fleet engagements, but generally speaking, your opponent is going to have his (or her) scout as well, so it's a wash.
| By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 01:22 pm: Edit |
Jessica, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I know the fusion has a large limitation and so I try to play around that, either by flying hellbore heavy fleets, flying carrier fleets (which have lots of fusions which make up for the lack of range), or fly another race (usually the Kzinti). I wouldn't mind the fusion being changed, but it was built to be balanced, and being one fo the few weapons that has the ability to dish out more damage to one shield than the photon, it pays for it by having a sucky range and requiring a cool-down period. As for the hellbore, I like it the way it works, despite the two turn arming and no holding stipulation. Those are things that I plan my game around.
| By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 01:39 pm: Edit |
To be honest, if you are looking to try to balance drone-less Federation ships, then I think you should try and look at it from a whole package, rather than look at one aspect of it at a time. Improving photons in a situation where the Federation will have nothing else is one thing, improving photons when the Federation can launch gobs of drones is something else.
Since a true drone-less Federation fleet will not exist within a historical context during the General War, it is at best confusing to be introducing what appears to be an attempt to make a historical refit. If it is really intended to be a historical refit, then it will have to be balanced when used by drone-less Feds as well as drone-heavy Feds, and an improved photon can easily unbalance a drone-heavy Federation fleet. If it is intended to be a piece of making a conjectural droneless Federation fleet, then it should be listed as such to limit confusion.
| By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 01:48 pm: Edit |
Jessica, then Plasma Sabots and ECM plasma should not be considered either as plasma works just fine without those improvements. Also there should be no more drone improvements, we've got umpteen zillion of them. However if your going to start letting these in then you have to consider an upgrade to the photon and other systems as well. Besides I thought that the proposals board was supposed to be where one could debate new toys.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |