that's because there is NO formula that will allow you to equate rate a rank 1200 with a decks / ssb deck ratio of 1.5x as a MSB along with a rank 50 with a decks / ssb deck ratio of 5x - hence my use of ranges. even then, you will need to test the values using all 3 curves for LSB, MSB, and SSB in sequence to determine where a ship falls (LSB includes all MSB, MSB includes all SSB). another reason i did not bother with the equations is that until there is agreement on the endpoints of the ranges, that is just wasted effort.



the concept of SSB / MSB / LSB has to do with damage cap considerations, which really are only applicable below about rank 1000. you are trying to bring in deck efficiency, which, if you want it to apply from low rank to high rank, needs a different kind of analysis. your SSSB number is already included in my efficiency chart, but it obviously has gone right over your head.

Why dont you guys just categorize ships based on the range of damage they can take instead of amount of decks.

alright. took a look at what I was doing. how about this?

Ratio = deck / ((rank+19)/2)

This would in effect take into account the rank and would give a ratio that we could use to define the different ship builds.

Say a ship build of 3 or less would be SSB. Equal to or greater than three but less than seven would be an MSB. Anything greater than seven would be a LSB.

so a player at rank 1500 with 6000 deck would have a LSB at a ratio of 7.89. Where as the same rank with a build of 2500 decks would be an MSB with 3.29. They would have to get down to about 2250 to be a SSB.

Just an example. maybe it would work?

assuming that decks / ssb decks reflects at 1x reflects 1 unit of damage, 2x roughly doubles the damage (defense neglected). so range of damage is already covered in the analysis. if you are considering fixed values of damage, 1000 damage on a rank 200 is not the same as 1000 damage on a rank 1000.



this ratio is just 2x (decks / SSB decks) ... so take this chart and just double all the numbers on the y.axis.



any straight line across will still run into issues at the higher ranks.

Looks like my post got buried, but this is why you need curves to analyze it, and cant just use that decks/max decks list you gave to classify all ships:



Except a rank 1200 ship with 3500 cap is 7000 decks, or 5.833 deck ratio
A rank 150 with 1250 cap has 2500 decks, which is a 16.67 deck ratio

So back to the rank 150 with 2500 decks, sure thats a good mid game cap for a mid rank player, but the player definitely is not a mid rank. Just looking at the deck ratio heavily implies a LSB for his rank, and suggests aiming for a HSB.
When looking at a ship build, I believe its categorized first by rank before damage cap or decks. This is because you can only be hit by people within your range on your BT.
Thus, we are looking at a low rank ship who just happens to have a midgame damage cap, not a ship with a midgame damage cap that just happens to be low rank.

Thus, this suggests if he had a midgame rank, he would have an end game cap.
But according to your formula, 2500 decks/ 8061 max decks = 0.31 SSSB score. This is barely within the MSB range.

Sure its a midgame cap to you, but the build of the ship is dependent on rank. If we only use your formula (which completely disregards rank), then it heavily implies almost every single sub-rank 100 is a SSSB, and almost all ships in the rank 100-200 range are SSBs. This is why the equation cannot be applied to low ranks.

td;lr: 2500 decks = mid game cap, rank 150 = early game. Your equation suggests barely MSB, but ship is clearly LSB by far and wide.



A rank 150 ship is not mid rank at all. The game has evolved to the point where rank 150 is still pretty near low rank. Extremely early Mid-rank game content would be in reference to command nexus, and hypergrids. These dont even start showing until rank 200+. Rank 150 is still on the first set of elites in the game.

Lets look at a few examples that prove it is only applicable to higher ranks.

rank 50 with 200 decks, your equation suggests SSSB, this is truly a MSB build
rank 150 with 800 decks, your equations still suggest SSSB, but this is easily MSB build
rank 150 with 2500 decks, your equations suggests barely MSB, this is easily LSB build
rank 500 with 2500 decks, your equations suggests barely MSB, this is an actual MSB build
rank 1000 with 3000 decks, your equations suggest a MSB on its way to LSB, this is actually a somewhat smaller build than an average MSB
rank 2000 with 3000 decks, your equations suggest a MSB on its way to LSB, this is what happens if you decide to stop adding decks but use your system. This is a SSB/MSB, not MSB/LSB
rank 3500 with 4000 decks, your equations suggests MSB/LSB, but this is closest to SSB (Although I see how at such a high rank, SSSB/SSB/MSB/LSB/HSB analysis becomes a moot point)

Although some of the above examples are correct when using your equations, they are generally incorrect. Notice how when the lower rank analysis is incorrect, it is significantly more inaccurate than the inaccuracy of analyzing the higher ranks. This proves the equation is not useful for low rank analysis.

i think she has blinders on. both of us have offerred solutions that could be applied to all ranks, but she is still stuck on the concept that a single number can determine SSB / MSB / LSB. i understood right away how your curves could be introduced, but i'm not willing to do the math until the endpoints are deemed reasonable. she also appears to be graphically challenged. continuing to focus on 3x / 6x as if i did not clearly indicate how those would diminish with increasing rank shows that she is not being reasonable, or in other words, trolling.

as far as her contention that an SSB ship build strategy is a loser in the long.term due to the ever.increasing damage cap ... as long as your defense, hull and shield is increased every rank more than the effect of the damage cap, the build style will continue to provide benefits in terms of pvp. i already notice less module shuffling at my rank due to the increase in decks, but i have to consciously try to make the most out of my arti pulls before each rankup. if i do that all the way up to rank 1500 ? maybe i can be the first ship that requires a minimum of 1000 hits to disable

Basically all we need now is equations to match up with the graphs that are drawn, and it will be more accurate. I might find time to work on some graphs myself tomorrow, since its getting pretty late here.

Ah, I guess I misread that part on midrange. Then again, a midrange cap is usually associated with a midranked player. But well, my point is stated and Im happy where my part of the discussion went.

okay that clarifies matters. when you threw in the max decks for all ship mods, i thought you were somehow trying to work in ship mod efficiency so that's why i drafted up the deck efficiency chart (damage cap vs max decks). i can mostly jettison that now, but then your aim is just to ensure that the y-axis decks / ssb decks = 1. SSB / MSB / LSB doesn't even come into the picture.


x-axis = decks / 10k max decks for all ship mods
y-axis = decks / (rank + 19)



the OP was written nearly a year ago and used the information from the shiplog showdown that was available to me. Golgotha was the highest ranked, just past 1200 or so, so the definitions i came up with were intended only as rough guidelines. in the many months since, no one else had come up with anything better. for most folks using this guide, anything past rank 1000 is a *LONG* ways off, so there is no point in updating that info until we come up with an update that works.

i proposed a new outline that Ghznl is willing to generate curves for ... awesome. but i think a rough agreement on the specific endpoints of the ranges would be prudent before he does all that work of tweaking how sharply the curves should drop. that is why i stuck with the straight diagonal lines ... the equations would be much more straightforward. if he comes up with something workable, i would be glad to update the OP.



but in this reckoning, SSB only applies up to about rank 500 or 600. if so, i don't think you will be able to extend the terminology for MSB effectively into higher ranks anyway. so you may be looking for something that won't exist. so a rank 2000 with 1x decks / SSB decks can't reasonably be called a 'small' ship build, but it *IS* optimized for damage cap, which might require a different terminology. but again, there shouldn't be anyone over rank 1000 that needs to use this guide to SSB strategy.

so given this chart:



#1. SSB deck boundary (y) = 3 - 0.0757*SQRT(rank)
- 3x at rank 1, 1x at rank 700

#2. MSB deck boundary (y) = 6 - 0.129*SQRT(rank)
- 6x at rank 1, 1x at rank 1500

#3. LSB deck boundary (y) = 10 - 0.2012*SQRT(rank)
- 10x at rank 1, 1x at rank 2000



so, plug your rank into equation #1. if your value for (decks / (rank + 19)) is less than what you get from equation #1, then congratulation, you are a SSB.

if your value is more, plug your rank into equation #2. if your value is less, you are a MSB.

if your value is more, plug your rank into equation #3. if your value is less, you are a LSB.

if your value is more, you are a HSB.

No matter the outcome of this re: what actually dictates SSB, I have to say keep up the good work Senatorhung

ah, I got caught up with work yesterday, and I got called in for a holiday shift today, so I have not gotten around to making the curves yet. But those are some pretty nice curves and I appreciate the effort.

Only 1 thing to pick at. Isn't Golgotha considered a MSB? At rank 1539 with 2049 decks, the graph places him walking into LSB territory.

Maybe the curves could level out slower. Peticks ship build is still pretty SSB compared to almost all other ships in his rank range (rank 600), but is about to step out of a whats considered SSB on the graph.

I'm not advocating a change must happen, But after looking at the curves (which make it easier to evaluate then lines actually), I imagined end points at 1000 and 2000 for SSB and MSB respectively. A LSB could be somewhere between 2800-3000 decks? A rank 2000 with 2000 decks still seems pretty MSB to me, because a lot of shuffling is still required with just that many decks at a high rank due to module availability

now that i have things in the spreadsheet, i can tweak the endpoints readily enough. i used SQRT as it gives a more gradual curve ... do you have any suggestions for another function that would lengthen the tail without distorting the rest of the curve unduly ?

however, i think this gets back to the confusion about SSB as damage cap versus SSB as requiring major ship mod shuffling. if MSB is about an in.between mode of module shuffling, then a rank 2000 endpoint makes sense for that, but it doesn't for damage cap. the formulation for 3x and 6x in the original post were dealing with damage cap considerations. the new formulation is attempting to cover the ship mod shuffling, so it might make more sense just to use total decks on the y.axis.

the contrast between these 2 is what the 'deck efficiency' chart was attempting to reflect (y-axis for damage cap, x-axis for mod shuffling flexibility). they are both deck oriented, but are 2 distinct concepts.

Alright, so I made my own version of the graphs from what I believe works, your opinion would be appreciated.
The axis labels arent there, since I just used a cheap online graphing site to do this. Its still decks/SSB decks on y-axis and rank on x-axis.

For the general public, instead of plugging your values into the line equations, there is a simpler way to do this. Simply compute Yourdecks/(rank+19). Now find where that is on the y-axis. You should easily be able to find your rank on the x-axis. You should know what to do from here. These should correspond to a point. Use that point to extrapolate which ship build your closest to. These are by no means the strict definitions of each build, rather a wawy to just quickly visually see where you stand for an average build of each type.






Typical SSB
Typical MSB
Typical LSB
HSB curve limit

Edit: The link doesnt work properly when posted as a whole, for some reason, the link breaks where )) brackets are present

The bottom red line is obviously SSSB (decks = Rank+19)
The next three lines are self-explanatory what they represent.
The Red curve represents HSB as of 8061 decks required.

The equations are the form of ___^(0.999...^(__x))+__
No other standard types of equations could produce anything close to the square root function. This was probably the closest I could get, while elongating the tail without significantly dropping the height of the first half.
The LSB equation cannot be applied beyond ranks 2500 because of its nature, it will cross the HSB function first before it reaches the 1x ratio.
There was a lot of experimentation in place, but some specific endpoints were used
SSB ends at rank 1000
MSB ends at rank 2000
LSB has 4000 decks at rank 2000

f(x) = 8061/x <---- HSB curve
f(x) = 9.25^(0.9994655^(2.15x))+0.75 <---- Typical LSB
f(x) = 6.25^(0.999304011^(1.45x))-0.3 <---- Typical MSB
f(x) = 3.5^(0.9991597^(1.25x))-0.55 <---- Typical SSB
f(x) = 1 <---- SSSB line

Edit2: I realize equations for MSB and SSB dont actually start at 6 and 3. They start at 5.95 and 2.95 respectively. This is because I had already perfected the graphs before I realized I made the mistake, and I dont intend on going back to fixing the endpoints when the y-intercept error is so trivial.

Another change I proposed is instead of
-If you are less than function 1, you are SSB
-If you are less than function 2 but more than function 1, you are MSB

I instead opted for this type of analysis:
Each function represents what I believe is an average ship build of each type.
- The closer you are to function 1, the closer you are to a typical SSB. If you are above it, you a large for an average SSB, if you are below, you are small for an average SSB.
- The closer you are to function X, the closer you are to a typical XB. If you are above it, you are large for an average XB, if you are below, you are small for an average XB

I think it is a little ridiculous to assign arbitrary endpoints to things like MSB.

According to both charts, despite not adding decks and despite adding ranks, people supposedly magically become LSB?

If your badging range contains people with decks from 4400-7700+, why would you *not* call something in the 2000-3000 range an MSB?
Small, Medium, Large - seems pretty straightforward to me without the need for an equation.

It's more that MSB is defined as rathe a ship style that uses decks necessary to be more versatile then a SsB by not requiring as much mod shuffling. Once you pass 2000-2500 deck range, the main purpose of MSB becomes lost. Then the only thing left to consider is damage cap, and by then your are definitely approaching a LSB damage cap.

So basically, yes MSB does have a upper limit since it's based around the number of useful mods available, but less limiting than SSB.
Regardless f it's because of rank, having 3000 decks at rank 3000 is extremely questionable as SSB, since tha is no longer a small damage cap to peers, and way more decks than necessary for only the most useful mods. The same thinking can be applied to disqualify it from MSB. Thus, a 3k deck ship regardless of rank is definitely becoming LSB

LSB wa th original play style. SSB and MSB evolved as an individual playstyle to excel at pvp and more (for msb) while maintaining a lower damage cap. The term was not created o refer to smaller ships you'd find on your BT. These were created from individual up, not peers down

As Annabell points out, damage cap does still make a difference at higher ranks.

In addition, the idea that 3000 decks has more than enough space for only the most efficient mods is just plain wrong.
If you want to hunt with the big boys (and gals *doffs cap to Dixie*) then you are going to find "non-essential" stuff like scan and cloak increasingly important.
That is unless you want to only have 4 potential targets on your BT and continually have your planets crit hacked.

The idea that although I have not added a single deck in 800 ranks I am still somehow moving inevitably towards being a Large Ship is just obviously wrong.

The terms Small, Medium and Large are relative terms... if you have 2599 decks and someone else has 6000, you are not both Large Ships.