Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:24 pm
Heh, I almost expected everyone to go with beam weaponry. I was sorely temped to drop all my PD, but in the end couldn't really justify it.
What you might find is that as well as an increase in PD prices (say to 3 across the board), people will take note of the reduced level of projectile weaponry and lower their spending on PD anyway. There's no real need to make a huge jump in prices straight away, but there's certainly a case for gradually increasing them until we find the right level.
What we will ideally end up with is an equilibrium situation where a certain ratio of ships use projectiles, and other ships take a certain amount of PD based on the point where the marginal cost of one unit of PD is equal to the marginal benefit. This equilibrium can then be shifted through changes to PD costs - the more expensive, the higher the marginal cost (meaning that the equilibrium point is shifted further back and the effectiveness of projectile ships is increased, making them more prevalent, having further effects on the marginal benefit from PD etc etc).
The analysis combines elements of game theory and equilibrium theory (who knew that doing economics at Uni would actually come in handy?) and is slightly more complex than I have presented it, but I assure you that the principle is sound.
What you might find is that as well as an increase in PD prices (say to 3 across the board), people will take note of the reduced level of projectile weaponry and lower their spending on PD anyway. There's no real need to make a huge jump in prices straight away, but there's certainly a case for gradually increasing them until we find the right level.
What we will ideally end up with is an equilibrium situation where a certain ratio of ships use projectiles, and other ships take a certain amount of PD based on the point where the marginal cost of one unit of PD is equal to the marginal benefit. This equilibrium can then be shifted through changes to PD costs - the more expensive, the higher the marginal cost (meaning that the equilibrium point is shifted further back and the effectiveness of projectile ships is increased, making them more prevalent, having further effects on the marginal benefit from PD etc etc).
The analysis combines elements of game theory and equilibrium theory (who knew that doing economics at Uni would actually come in handy?) and is slightly more complex than I have presented it, but I assure you that the principle is sound.
I'll get to the pms as soon as possible, I'm still gettin things together on my end house wise. Any update on the tourney progress?