OPAL Weapon Balancing

agreed even tho i love the opal broken aside i think overheat is good idea

An accuracy penalty might work well.  :)

Thinkign further about this, I think what I'd like to see is this:

(weapon) : (long / medium / short)

Cannon: none / average / average

Beam: none/ optimal / none

Missile: average / average / none

OPAL: poor / average / poor

I assigned the following values to a weapon's performance at a given range:

• None = 0 (literally, the weapon won't even fire)
• Poor = 1
• Average = 2
• Optimal = 4

Note, these aren't necessarily strictly damage multipliers; accuracy should be part of it.  But a weapon which performs Optimally at X range bracket, should be about four times as good as one which performs Poorly.  Each and every weapon gets four points' worth of performance.  In this setup, Cannons are close-in weapons, Missiles are distance weapons, and Beams are abolute kings at middle-range engagements.  OPAL covers all ranges, but is never the best weapon for that range; the niche of OPAL is "jack of all trades, master of none".

There would thus be arguments in favor of, or opposed to, almost ANY weapon being included in a ship design.

...

An alternate spread assigns 6 points to each weapon:

(weapon) : (long / medium / short)

Cannon: none / average / optimal

Beam: poor/ optimal / poor

Missile: optimal / average / none

OPAL: average / average / average

This still has Cannons as the best short-range choice, Beams as the best mid-range (and able to at least contribute at ALL ranges), missiles for long-range, and OPAL lasers performing "adequately" at all ranges.