Plasma Gun obsolete?

[General Khael]

I"ve never bothered to personally build a ship with these. Would
anyone else agree that they are simply obsolete due to their
pathetically short range, which is by the way the shortest of all
ranges, as well as their high energy draw and mid range charge rate.
In fact in my last few games I don't believe I even bought the tech
for them. I pretty much stop at Mesons or even just disruptors unless
I want the Tachyon's range. I would think I would be more inclined to
actually build them as they are except for a range increase. It seems
the highest priced/highest tech 'best' small weapon in my mind would
need to actually shoot, especially with the new combat rules allowing
for better observations of stand off ranges and shorter combats on
average. In many cases ships may never even come within 200 ly during
combat. It seems unless both ships are point blankers or have strike
through enabled than these weapons will just look pretty and stay nice
and shiny.

[Magik]

These are the only weapons that don't have a chance to deflect off of
the shields of your enemy and have the chance to completely knock down
the shields in 1 hit. They have their place; mainly on ships that are
capable of getting in very close very quickly and arm them
constantly. They are expensive, so most likely a late-game item when
you have so much extra cash and no resource points left that you may
as well put the best on.

Magik

[Amaranthine]

Umm... What?!

What are the odds that a shield gets totally drained? I haven't heard
of that perk before.
Or did I misunderstand?

and have the chance to completely knock down the shields in 1 hit.
Magik

[Magik]

Umm...   What?!
What are the odds that a shield gets totally drained?  I haven't heard
of that perk before.
Or did I misunderstand?

Oops, it's something that I recall reading, but upon looking at the
code, it isn't there. Must have been something else. Plasma Guns are
the only small weapon that doesn't have a 25% chance of missing
entirely. When it does penetrate shields, it will drain super weapon
and large weapon energy from their capacitors. That's it.

Magik

[Amaranthine]

I'd place Plasma Guns in a fairly narrow range of use, mostly on ships
specifically armed to attack Super Weapon wielding ships.

In almost any case the Tachyon would be more likely to be of use.
It's 25% chance of missing is mostly offset by its 20% faster rate of
fire, better accuracy and a bit of a bonus from better avoiding the
PDs that can actually stop small weapons. Combine that with the
nearly 4x range and the Tacyon is clearly superior.

Perhaps give the Plasma Gun some anti-fighter ability? Not actually
being able to shoot them down (that would seriously nerf fighters),
but maybe a Plasma hit could drain the wing's battery(s) by the
fighters' generator stat. Essentially the plasma briefly shorts out 1
fighter's generator. Large wings could mostly ignore it, but small
wings would need to break off the attack earlier to recharge.

[GFM GToeroe]

The sides effect of small weapons are IMHO too weak. We have the situation
that there is a low and high tech anti fighter LW.
Give Laser and PG anti fighter capacities. Raise range of PG to 440 (half
between SC and GP).
Tune the PG in effect and cost into direction of PPC.

Gabor

Post by General Khael
I"ve never bothered to personally build a ship with these. Would
anyone else agree that they are simply obsolete due to their
pathetically short range, which is by the way the shortest of all
ranges, as well as their high energy draw and mid range charge rate.
In fact in my last few games I don't believe I even bought the tech
for them. I pretty much stop at Mesons or even just disruptors unless
I want the Tachyon's range. I would think I would be more inclined to
actually build them as they are except for a range increase. It seems
the highest priced/highest tech 'best' small weapon in my mind would
need to actually shoot, especially with the new combat rules allowing
for better observations of stand off ranges and shorter combats on
average. In many cases ships may never even come within 200 ly during
combat. It seems unless both ships are point blankers or have strike
through enabled than these weapons will just look pretty and stay nice
and shiny.

[Lord Lancelot]

Post by GFM GToeroe
The sides effect of small weapons are IMHO too weak. We have the situation
that there is a low and high tech anti fighter LW.
Give Laser and PG anti fighter capacities. Raise range of PG to 440 (half
between SC and GP).
Tune the PG in effect and cost into direction of PPC.
Gabor

I agree with your proposition change for the PG but not at 440 range
keep the current 200 ranges (why will be explain later), since it a
tech 10 small weapon, it has to be better in some way to the mighty
tech 9 tachyon (when boosted by ET).
By do not give tech 1 small weapon LASER, a anti fighter role, this
would mean 99.99% of all ships would have the possibility to have anti-
fighter for dirt cheap.
it has 50% more range than MML pd (and sand caster), cost nothing,
this is not a good idea. Many ships have many small weapons, the laser
would become the only cost effective way to take out fighter and the
pd would only focus on ships. You might still see some SC to deal with
big wings with small range.

The tech 10 plasma gun, is ok since it take at least 10 turns to get
than cost 165 each, witch is more than a sand caster, WAIT the MML PD
is tech 9 has a range of 230, cost 830$ and only shoot fighter, while
the PG cost only 165$ fire at 440 range and shoot both ships and
fighter, do you see the PG is better in every than MML and cost
nothing, this would retire MML from the game. So yes to PG shoot at
fighter, but at a range of 200 (amost has good has MML for a extreme
low price compared to 830$ for an extra +30 range).

Maybe Steak missile could have a LOW chance to hit fighters, since it
fire very slowly (30) and use ord. The range is incredible 950 and
could hit any fighter, so the hit chance would have to be VERY low,
like 10% maximum flat chance, mean that even with ET, or high attack
bonus like stormer would not go over the flat maximum of 10% hit. When
hit it should kill at least 1 figher 100% of the time regardless of
fighter stats (armor) maybe it could kill an extra 1-2 depending on
fighter exposed system and armor...
The ships Attack bonus could negate the fighter Evasive bonus it it
has some, and help raise the minimum hit chance toward the maximum hit
chance. the minimum hit chance could be 5% and could be raised to 10%
with ship attack bonus, ET attack bonus.

Lord Lancelot

[Phaidros]

Earnestly, Gabor, what's the use of totally rebuilding the combat
system in the hope of eventually reaching a new 'global' equilibrium
instead of trying to keep the old one?

I still haven't got from anybody involved a good answer why the point
defense system as it existed has to be given up and why the same
functions are going to be fulfilled by other weapon systems in the
future.

Perhaps it's a red blinking warning sign that I'm getting old fast but
I'm more and more understanding of the conservatives' ideologist who
preach that change is not good per se. You have to preserve what is
good (or good enough).

Phaidros

[General Khael]

Main point is IMHO Plasma Guns are useless or nearly so. I would
rarely if ever build them. They drain too much power, but that might
actually not matter much because once they charge they may never even
fire. But assuming they do fire a few times they suck up valuable
energy that could be used to supply some good L Weapons. I doubt I
would ever scrimp on Large weapons so I could squeeze in a few more
Plasmas. I don't know if that means they need to be able to shoot
fighters (which my starting Meteor would love mind you) but at their
short range and now shorter combats forget about it as they currently
are. I'd rather buy more ships with cheaper, better weapons instead
of spending big bucks on big generators as well as inferior, yet
higher tech/more expensive weapons.
GK

[Joyride]

At first Phaidros has a point
"I still haven't got from anybody involved a good answer why the point
defense system as it existed has to be given up and why the same
functions are going to be fulfilled by other weapon systems in the
future. "
Let's not mix up the anti-fighter-discussion with this thread.

General Khaels main point is the inferiority due to large energy drain
and low range.

I see the plasma gun as the ultimate weapon on ships with none or
nearly no LW.
But to give these ships a fighting edge its range should be equal to
PPC as the most used
LW. Energy drain can stay the same as there are no LW to compete with.

Joyride

[Amaranthine]

This is true. There are actually several ships with either no or few
or 30kt LWeap mounts.

Bumping its range to 450 would leave 4 other small weapons with
superior range.
Actually just a bump to 350 could greatly increase its usefulness
while still leaving it with the shortest range of small weapons.

Post by Joyride
I see the plasma gun as the ultimate weapon on ships with none or
nearly no LW.
But to give these ships a fighting edge its range should be equal to
PPC as the most used
LW. Energy drain can stay the same as there are no LW to compete with.
Joyride

[Lord Lancelot]

Post by Joyride
I see the plasma gun as the ultimate weapon on ships with none or
nearly no LW.
But to give these ships a fighting edge its range should be equal to
PPC as the most used
LW. Energy drain can stay the same as there are no LW to compete with.
Joyride

It' range can be increased by a lot if no NEW anti-fighter ability for
the small weapon plasma gun, 350, 450 I do not have trouble with those
range.

Lord Lancelot

[Amaranthine]

Post by Lord Lancelot
It' range can be increased by a lot if no NEW anti-fighter ability for
the small weapon plasma gun, 350, 450 I do not have trouble with those
range.
Lord Lancelot

Right. The increase in range should not be implemented if there was
also an anti-fighter ability implemented.

[Joyride]

Post by Amaranthine

Post by Lord Lancelot
It' range can be increased by a lot if no NEW anti-fighter ability for
the small weapon plasma gun, 350, 450 I do not have trouble with those
range.
Lord Lancelot

Right. The increase in range should not be implemented if there was
also an anti-fighter ability implemented.

There seems to be a common basis for an agreement.
I suggest to make the plasma gun the same range as PPC.
Who can implement such a change?

Joyride

[Phaidros]

Post by Joyride
General Khaels main point is the inferiority due to large energy drain
and low range.
I see the plasma gun as the ultimate weapon on ships with none or
nearly no LW.
But to give these ships a fighting edge its range should be equal to
PPC as the most used
LW. Energy drain can stay the same as there are no LW to compete with.
Joyride

I don't believe that this critique of the plasma gun is true, anyway.
If you have the money, buy them and the necessary generators, too and
close in with your enemy. The result will usually be appreciable.

Phaidros

[General Khael]

Post by Phaidros

Post by Joyride
General Khaels main point is the inferiority due to large energy drain
and low range.
I see the plasma gun as the ultimate weapon on ships with none or
nearly no LW.
But to give these ships a fighting edge its range should be equal to
PPC as the most used
LW. Energy drain can stay the same as there are no LW to compete with.
Joyride

I don't believe that this critique of the plasma gun is true, anyway.
If you have the money, buy them and the necessary generators, too and
close in with your enemy. The result will usually be appreciable.
Phaidros

Well if the range was increased I don't think it needs to be
gargantuous. 100 to 150 or so would probably be all that is needed
improve it's applicable use. But I havn't done too many sims, so
perhaps Phaidros is right in that it is fine just how it is. It still
seems that the 'best' small weapon shouldn't have the shortest range.
In a few quick sims with Lokis it seems to trump disruptors and
xenons, but that's about it, all the others tend to beat it due to the
new and improved movement algorithms (much more realistic! I wouldn't
want my ship staying in range of a superior ship just to be fair).
GK

[Phaidros]

Post by General Khael
Well if the range was increased I don't think it needs to be
gargantuous.  100 to 150 or so would probably be all that is needed
improve it's applicable use.  But I havn't done too many sims, so
perhaps Phaidros is right in that it is fine just how it is.  It still
seems that the 'best' small weapon shouldn't have the shortest range.
In a few quick sims with Lokis it seems to trump disruptors and
xenons, but that's about it, all the others tend to beat it due to the
new and improved movement algorithms (much more realistic!  I wouldn't
want my ship staying in range of a superior ship just to be fair).
GK

My impressions gained under the old combat regime were that as soon
ships were mounting plasma guns, vcrs tended to get shorter fast. They
were chewing through shields and armor like a hot knife through
butter. The plasma guns have probably lost in importance now you get
short vcr battles already with much cheaper weapons mounted.

Phaidros