goodie, something to work with !

term by term:

1. (Decks + Rank) / 2 ... basically doubles the current damage cap on existing SSB's. adjusting the denominator from 2 to 3 would drop the effective damage cap increase to 50% for SSBs. so, the damage cap for the smallest ships would thereby increase by a large percentage, while those at the highest ranks see no change, which would be unfair unless there is at least some kind of way to drop decks, if not some kind of compensation for those running SSB. if implemented, there should be an option to convert rank/10 existing decks into rank points.

2. (Hull * 0.5%) ...

http://galaxylegion.com/wiki/index.php/ ... _%28PVP%29

from webguydan's post of 02jul2010:



so adding hull back into the damage cap formula would partially reverse this 4 year old decision. however, if this is done, hull * 0.005 is still a bit high. my ship of 57733 hull would have its damage cap boosted by 288 ... an increase of 71.90%. hull * 0.001 would be more reasonable. my ship with 57733 hull would then have its damage cap boosted by 57 ... an increase of 14.36%. this would also increase the relative value of shields versus hull as they would NOT increase your damage cap.

3. MaxTotalCrew = Rank * 150 ... i am only up to 70.64 crew per rank, so this would mostly affect higher ranks with higher productions. if this is implemented, there should be an option to move 10% of existing crew into rank points. i suspect that there are some players who DO have more than 10% on top of 150 crew per rank ... but those few should get some kind of one-off from Dan to compensate them for their loss.

this change would NOT increase the relative value of ship mods (as i can currently run my ship with minimal mods), so in order for this to truly effect ship mod decisions, the crew cap would have to go down to 25 or 20 per rank ... which would cause much more pain all around, with lots more crew members ejected out the airlocks.

this would also DECREASE the relative value of high arti production ... affecting planet desirability.

4. Raid/HackLoot = Current * 5 ... rather than a multiple of the current fixed amount (based on the target's rank) ... instead go towards a % of cargo available. if set to 10%, your first raid would garner you the most loot, with diminishing returns thereafter, so multi.raiding would have less attraction, and the target's hold would never be completely emptied. spy probe resources would be much more worthwhile to use to select targets to multi.raid.

Trying to dissect the formula I posited is ridiculous, you need to look at the effect as a whole. Oh, and you people need to get off the idea that the damage cap issue is solely because of SSBs. Seriously. And don't try to throw Dan's original change at me, I was here when that happened. I disagreed with how it was changed then, and if you flip back to page 1, you'll see I still disagree with it. He muffed when he took hull COMPLETELY out of consideration. At the time though, it made sense how he did it. Like so many other "freshman" features, I wonder if he wasn't really expecting this game to last 1 year, let alone 4+.

Now, on to your counter to max-crew. I just threw in an X multiplier. Something a little more generous like 200, 250 might be better. And as far as the loot goes, that's not an actual calculation, that's just what needs to happen. AT LEAST 5x what you get now, really, but I knew people would cry about 10x lol.

Oh, if you're still thinking this is an anti-SSB suggestion, stuff it. My own damage cap would be increased by 1500. Coupled with increased rewards/loot (especially if based on production per hour rather than accumulated resources, even to going in the negatives), it makes it more interesting to go after someone while they are online. Killing someone offline is easy, and it doesn't really matter what their DamCap is. Go get someone while they are online and have some fun.

@Ravadge... Proposed in various forms before. Though, I'd rather see what we have now fixed before adding new mechanics into the mix.

@Peticks... You sound like an SSB who farms offline people all day? "Nuff said" never is enough to say. Yinz all want me to explain why this idea or that idea is bad, so I do it. I show why they are bad by examining it from all angles. Surely, my proposition deserves the same respect? Don't be shy.

well, for someone who is stating that this isn't an anti-SSB suggestion, the 'effect as a whole' is to nerf SSB with no compensating benefit. your damage cap would go up by 1500 ... at rank 1504 ... if you were a SSB, your current damage cap would be 761 ... so your cap would go up 2x to 300%. pretty hefty increase alright, but you aint a SSB, so your % increase drops rapidly. plus, you maintain the benefit of higher attack power and hull from ship mods.

for me, your formula would boost my damage cap from 402 to 1081, an increase of 679, or 1.5x to 250%. and i am stuck with my relatively pitiful attack and hull from mods (still swapping between heavy quantum devastators and merged nexus armor) so targeting online active players is an even bigger waste of time.

your suggestion does not help PvP (as Dan has implemented it) because all the players currently playing the PvP game with any sense get shafted. picking online active targets ? my ship build is all about efficiency ... ship mod efficiency ... xp efficiency ... credits effficiency. burning up energy xp and nulls to run a kvt gauntlet is not my idea of 'fun', and no tweaking of the PvP reward drops is going to change that. only reason i am PvP'ing is for leaderboard bragging rights (such as they are). if there were other leaderboards that i could aim for (say weekly or montly ones), PvP would drop way down the priority list.

so, other than boosting the raid / hack drops, your original suggestion would in fact diminish PvP as the current PvP players drop out. you completely ignored the tweaks that i proposed to alleviate some of my concerns, which leads to the conclusion that you are not really interested in pursuing serious changes in this regard.

All these suggestions about 'improving PvP' yet no mention of the fact that the vast majority of players are under Halcyons... If you think SSBs are the worst aspect of PvP then you are severely in the wrong

Troll suggestion to greatly improve PvP- Remove Halcyon traps altogether.

No I dont farm offline people all day, but anyway

Allright then... How about we start to scale drops of prisoners and brackets by ap? So average ap to get 1 prisoner = aproduction*2.4
Does that sound like a stupid idea? Yes because firstly you are changing a fundemental part of the game that people have built their productions around and secondly there is no longer any incentive to increase ap production because the good artifacts are gained at roughly 10 per day either way.

This damage cap formular including hull. not only does it change a fundemental part of the gameplay but it also makes increasing hull past a certain level pretty pointless. One could even argue it is vica versa with a tiny hull and huge sheilds providing more protection so long as a kritonite isn't used.

Any change to the formulars that the game is built on is wrong. The only, ONLY reason there is so much opposition to ssb is that those at higher ranks are beggining to see their pokemon gameplay has made them weaker in a element of the game and thats something they cant handle. You think pvp is such a imporant area of the game to focus your entire ship around, sure go ahead and reset and become a ssb. is that seen as not worth it? then stay as a lsb because obviously its not realy affecting you as negativly as you like to make out.

I like it,

but the .5% * hull factor might need to be a bit lower
as the formular is theire, as long as you can hit the Cap the max hit you would need against any Player ship is 200 = 1000 energy

take a Rank 1000 with 3.000 decks

with 50.000 hull
cap = 2000 + 0,005 * 50.000 = 2250
50.000 / 2250 = 23 hits or 115 energy

with 500.000 hull
cap = 2000 + 0,005 * 500.000 = 4500 max dammage pr hit
500.000 / 4500 = 112 hits or 560 energy for the kill

with 1.000.000 hull
cap = 2000 + 0,005 * 1.000.000 = 7000 max dammage pr hit
1.000.000 / 7000 = 142 hits or 710 energy for the kill

with 100.000.000 Hull
Cap = cap = 2000 + 0,005 * 100.000.000 = 502.000 max dammage pr hit
100.000.000 / 502.000 = 200 hits or 1000 energy for the kill


but I'm not sure it would realy help mutch
instead of beeing able to design a Ship with low deck Count designed for PvP, you are simply giving the advantage in PvP back to players that have high artifact production, have 0 sientists on ship and max out enginers, helmsmen and tactical officers to your MaxTotalCrew = Rank * 150 cap

rank 1000 = 150.000 max crew
so proberly 20K enginers, 100K TO's and 30K helmsmen + 0 Scientists if you want an attack ship
or 20K enginers, 70K TO's and 60K helmsmen + 0 Scientists, if you want a more balanced ship

You guys just don't get it. The system you are clinging to like the One Ring is inherently flawed to begin with.

@darkmar... 200 max taps to disable someone by hitting cap I don't think is unreasonable, but of course the actual multiplier is always open for tweaking. Same goes for max crew. That's valid about not using slots for nerds, so just ignore them in the calculation since they only have a minimal effect on ship ability anyway. Only have meaning while you're actually researching also just knock them out of both ends of the Raid calf.

there is still a possibility, if Dan decide so, to test the mentioned new formula/s in line with existing formula in case a PvP arena would be implemented, which would provide a platform to test new damage cap formula/s. anyhow meanwhile the PvP is rather dying if not dead - cause max 10% of DAU (I think I am generous) does care about PvP... all those players, who like the PvP content moves to other games...

PvP arena can last 1-3 months (or whatever time period) and the results can be compared to avoid a major change to worse.

till the rank and crew is not linked by formula to the deck size, the PVP will remain as it is = DEAD from the perspective of total number of GL players.

NB: square km for 1 deck is not an argument/fact, it is solely a fantasy. same if somebody talks about debuff artis and is silent about buff artis
PS: " tell me how thin is the hull on the Death Star?" - this made my day, direct hit bro!

Why can't we just use the same formula as npcs? Damage cap = 2.5X rank? If its good enough for the vast sum of the galaxy (which lets be honest npcs outnumber us 100 to 1, then it should be good enough for us. Easy simple and already coded in to exsistance.

we agrey Darth Flagitious, 200 clicks is very reasonable for a PvP kill
with the present system it takes for to many clicks to kill a SSB ship with 1.000.000 hull

main problem I have with it is have is you more or less remove the design factor, and it more or less becomes a matter of your total attack/defence (as that will determine where or not you can hit the cap) and where or not you have the artifact production needed to max crew

and it also makes adding brackets a bit pointless, if you are already close to your 200 hits to kill you cap

but compaired to the pressent dammage cap, I think the one you are sugesting here would be better

That's essentially punishing people for ranking up, and not ranking at all = not playing, which is worse for the game. With that kind of a formula, you'll end up with the majority of the population population being low ranked, super strong ships.... I think that currently, even the largest ships have a cap of 4000 damage. If we were to switch to that formula, it's possible that the caps of the current highest-ranked ships would double (or increase even more)

Bringing Hull, Shields, Deck into the equation should not happen (even rank should be ignored), and to explain why, lets look at some stats:

Attack: How much Damage Your ship can do


Defense: How well your ship can defend against attacks


Shields: A protective energy barrier that protects your hull from damage, depleted after enough damage is done


Hull: How much damage your ship can take, basically after the damage is reduced by your defense how many hits your ship can take before being disabled


Decks: How much space you have on your ship for installing modules, crew, etc.


So these are the stats that determine the strength of a ship I believe we can all acknowledge the logic of these, that being said, Defense vs Attack should be the ONLY two factors that determine how much damage you take or do (depending upon if your the Attacker or the Defender).

Defense is Made up of Dampeners (Reduces damage taken), Thrusters and Helmsmen (once again ability to maneuver and dodge attack)
Attack is Made up of Cannons (Ability to fire blasts of energy, radiation, whatever) and Tactical Officers, the ability to aim those weapons.

There is NOTHING that should ever cause any consideration of Deckspace, Hull, or anything else that should determine how much damage I hit someone for or how much damage they hit me for. Those stats are IRRELEVANT when considering damage (or at least they should be), Those only come into play after I have attacked (or been attacked) and damage is DONE.

I have an even better Idea than trying to work out all sorts of different equations to limit damage.. Let just Remove the Damage cap all together. Attack vs Defense, damage is calculated based on that alone with no cap. How it should be.. If someone with 100k attack rating attacks a ship with 5k defense, they should obliterate them in one or two shots.. Period.

Edit* - And if we are going to even consider ship size as a factor for damage then we need to consider actual SIZE, Decks + Cargo.. yes all those cargo holds would contribute to the actual SIZE of the Ship.

Also to expand on the original Idea: Add a new line of research "Crew Quarters", If you read the description of "Space" or basically decks, it is space for installing modules and equipment, nothing regarding living quarters. So New modules would need to be researched, added to the ship to accommodate the Crew. Each module would grow in capacity and size the same as any other module.

Oh cool! Toss about 35 EMPs at Negron and he's a one-shot kill. You don't see how absurd that is?

Nope... do it likemost other effects, make EMP's non-stackable, they dont stack on npc's why should they on players? problem solved

So you dont like the idea of removing the damage cap.. fine, but I still stand behind the reasoning why decks / ship space, hull, shields should affect the damage cap

So then the top ships should be nigh invincible?

Gotta have a happy medium between invincibility and helplessness. That's what the Damage Cap is for. So, no, I don't like the idea of removing the Damage Cap. It just needs fixed as part of a general overhaul of the PvP mechanics in order for there to be balance moving forward.

Depends... I do think that Negron or someone with a good ship shouldn't be able to be debuffed to nothing because someone can throw enough EMPS on them.

Split the difference and let people only put on one but each person could put on one. It would make legion alerts more effective and make teamwork more essential for Exotica.

this, exactly... still, to avoid 50-60 EMPs on one player, we could have a max number of EMPs active on one player.

Basically, they would be invincible to ships without enough attack to damage them. Now Peticks said we shouldnt use cinema to post as examples (eh), but its a futuristic sci-fi game, dont really have any other reference .. so.. Think about this.... Without having been able to steal the plans, The Death Star would basically have been invincible to just about anything other than another Death Star...

If someone has put that much into getting their defense that high, then yes, that is how it should be, want to disable him, push your attack high enough to damage him..

Don't get me wrong, I dont overly think that the damage cap should be completely removed (although it would make player killing a lot more interesting) but it should not be dependant on anything other than Attack vs Defense.

Another option:

Split Attack & Damage. Add a new research chain for "Targeting Modules" which combined with TO's give you an attack rating, your attack is then compared vs defense to see what % of your damage you can hit for

Cannons would be then given a "Damage" stat. What the Max Damage you could do is then a Total of the damage of all your cannons added together. Damage is then limited by how many cannons you have installed and what the damage rating on each cannon is. So lets say for example a Heavy Quasi-Chaotic Blaster gives 430 Damage instead of attack (this could be increased, or just add a new "Damage stat to them and leave the attack bonus), if you only have those cannons installed and have all of them then your max possible damage would be 3440


Basically each time you would attack your attack it would be "*(Attack / Defense) * 100)*Damage = How much damage that shot did

last I checked I had around 20K attack from cannons and other modules on ship
but been scrapping Heavy Thetacron Cannons to make room for the new LM modules as I have been adding more TO's

still 20.000 dammage cap vs 1.000.000 hull = 1.000.000 / 20.000 = 50 hits
and most ships out theire doesnt even have 1.000.000 hull

so this is basickly just as bad as the pressent dammage cap - only difrence is it give the adavntage in PvP to Huge ships that have as many modules as posible installed

Please Re-Read, you missed the entire point.. Tactical officers would no longer be added to your "Damage" (New stat), Attack Rating would not Determine Max Damage, Max Damage would be calculated by the "Damage Rating" of the Cannons you had Installed. so if you only had 2 cannons installed each with a damage rating of 500, your max possible damage you could do to ANY Ship would be 1,000 (the amount of damage you actually hit for calculated out by the forumla based on attack and defense)