Kirk,

You make decent and reasonable points. In a small counterpoint i would say for a high rank, who among us is dissauded from killing someone if 400 hits is all it takes? From what i gather, myself included, we pretty much accept this to be the case for anyone of decent rank and power if we attack them.

That said, you are totally right, if we converted the remainder of the non ssb galaxy to ssb, pvp would be like prying food from the jaws of an alligator. Not really worth it.

if you ask me, where the ships have a 4000 cap or it is reduced to 1200'ish with this artifact doesnt realy matter
ships are already adding rediculious high levels of hull + shield making them cost far to many hits to kill to make PvP combat any fun at rank 2000+
giving players an option to decrease theire cap, just level the playing field a bit





I agrey with that, increasing defence helps quite a lot - my cap is somewere around 3550 dammage pr hit from 7100 decks
and with the defence I'm running it not uncommon that I get combat results like this one, where the ship only do around 1/10 of my cap in dammage



but problem here, is that makes the combat winner who ever have picked up the most artifact points over time
I get this result simply becoures I have picked up more artifact points over time then the other ship
and that encoridge the "just sit on your a.. and pick up artifact points instead of actualy playing the game" stradegy quite a lot of SSB ships are using, to get insane combat ratings at rank 100 to 500

personaly I would prefere a stradegy that actualy rewarded players for playing the game and instaling modules on theire ships instead of that





as I sayed before, I have around 7100 decks myself, would I use the anti ships bot if I could build them ?, proberly not
my ship is a trophy case of NPC modules and rare mission modules, and I like it that way

the sugestion here was: give players an option to remove decks.
so with the anti ships bot I tryed to put a fair price on what I think it should cost to do so....

at 75.000 Tactical Officers, 15.000 Engineers and 75.000 Helmsmen less to remove 1000 decks it actualy becomes an interestion tactical choice, where players can consider where they will benefit the most from decreasing theire Cap with 500 points or increasing theire defence with 75.000 to 150.000 extra defence from Helmsmen + bonuses

for some ships like your own, decressing your number of decks would be a real option even at that cost
and other ships that doesnt have your artifact production, would proberly benefit more from the extra defence

yes it will make all ships harder to kill in the long run, but that is already happening simply by players instaling brackets on theire ships every day

and even my ship will eventualy become SSB, once I hit rank 7100, as theire are no modules left worth instaling
and if I need more space for a new rare npc/mission module, I can always just replace a Proxy-Universe Reactor - Mark IV x3 with Engineers to free up space.



this one I presume..... viewtopic.php?f=5&t=43443
havent even bothered to coment on it, but as I see it if players are to lazy to even install the artifacts they get, then pehaps GL isnt the game for them

I think it takes a special kind of crazy for an SSB . All for what? Not to get a imaginary space shiped all blowed up? They have repair thingies ffs.

well if it only takes 3000 AP to add 2 decks then to be fair wouldn't about 6000 ap to remove 1 be reasonable? Add a new common artifact to the list for 6000 ap that removes 1 deck.

I've said it before, so at the risk of sounding repetitive, the problem is the damage cap formula. It should not have anything to do with decks -- that's what led to the insanity of defenseless ships supposedly being consistently harder to hit than larger ones with all kinds of evasive modules. Regardless of all the android TOs you can pile up, they're ALWAYS lousy shots and their targeting never improves no matter how many tries they get to hit a theoretically slow moving small target. (And, the idea that additional crew alone can make your ship more and more powerful on identically configured ships makes no real sense in a space game.) The current damage cap is causing all PVP to become increasingly expensive (and boring and repetitive) over time. Everyone will stop growing at some deck size so everyone will have a fixed maximum damage cap based on the build they chose -- but they'll keep adding defense, hull, and shields forever if the game goes on as it is. Attack will continue to grow as well, but you can never expect to exceed the damage cap because there is no "real" critical hit possible -- just a higher probability of hitting for the cap. Although there is no logical reason a ship should not be allowed to shrink as much as grow if you want (it's an arbitrary game rule), allowing everyone to shrink their ship to lower their damage cap would just exacerbate the problem caused by the broken PVP combat formula.

purf,

well put...+1

I don't know at this stage and with so many people with such crazy ap that there is an equitable way to do cap anymore. There have been tons of suggestions all over the board...i guess it could be moderated. The insanity of unchecked crew growth to do damage or defense and the calc of damage based on deck are both ridiculous.

If there was some factor to size v crew and perhaps an upkeep to crew (food planets?) , and even further on a limb a cap to how many crew could efficiently use a weapon, we might have something. Cause 100k tacs manning 4 dom cannons doesnt really strike one as the ultimate attack machine against anything.