please make a modification to the XP system again. for attacking ships, reduce the XP to 1 xp for every 5 points in energy spent if the player attacking is more than 10+ levels above. there should be NO incentives for high levels to kill low levels for XP. BUT, low levels killing high should earn significantly higher XP for every level above theirs.

the new XP system is great, but its being abused.

It would be unfair for us who have no one near our level. Why should you guys be allowed to level fast but we are stuck sitting around letting you guys catch up to us. That wouldn't really make sense. I understand that being a lowbie sucks but I would except a better thing to be done about this is maybe not allowing a person to disable a ship more than once per 3 or 4 hours.

I agree with a "disable limit" as well. If you disabled ship X, you shouldn't be able to disable it again for a set amount of time.

Try my strategy. Don't repair. High levels will soon get bored finding you always disabled. Do missions that can be done on a disabled ship

Absolutely.

i did that, but then i leveled and that brought my ship back to life. and the other time a legion member revived me, and i was dead immediately. it gives a day or so immunity at best.

I think that the whole repair legion thing is kinda stupid. I don't want to be an ass but if someone is targeting me and a friend repairs me, I will probably rage at him because the guy who killed me will probably do it again.

it has its uses if you cannot afford repairs (not very likely but possible).

I agree with Hunter 100% on this one. The XP bonus for attacking higher level players is healthy, there SHOULD be some reward for aiming high and beating the odds. It might also give more reason for higher levels to spend their points on something other than decks. High levels really should NOT be able to farm low levels, though. It will lead to some major abuse. Not so much now, the game is still young, and for the player core mostly consists of reasonable & mature players. But as the game grows (and I'm doing what I can to make that happen) we will see more and more chainers, cheaters, griefers, and abusers.

Most games don't even allow high levels to attack low levels. I'm not suggesting that, I like how PvP works in GL. People on the battle list are roughly equal but anyone can attack anyone if they appear on an alert or ships log. But when that happens it should be for a reason, such as retribution or helping your legion. Not for any XP incentive.

I like the idea of -1 XP per 2 levels when attacking a lower level, but cap it at a 5 XP minimum.

All good points. The battle XP should not lean towards rewarding "farming" of weaker ships, as it *can* be the case now. The only incentive for attacking a ship of a much lower rank should be revenge, not xp.

I like headless' suggestion regarding a XP rank penalty, with a low end cap.

Though I agree with where this is coming from, you have to admit this is a bit unfair for the higher ranked people. Modules still scale as we go up, to the point where if we still want to be in the race for the highest rank we cant focus much on PVP. meaning that even though I may be over 60 ranks ahead of you guys Im still just as vulnerable as a PVPing rank 15.

Imagine this I (rank 101) have the equivalent of what a rank 15 thats focusing on PVP would have, now a rank 40 sees me, probes me, and realizes im an easy target. Even though im the equivalent of a rank 15 im treated as a rank 101, so the rank 40 gets a ridiculous amount of XP for something he would get almost nothing for in most situations. Plus if I stayed like this Id become known as an easy target, bringing more attention to myself and thusly being targeted more, disabled more, and being in the same ship as those rank >20s who were being bullied.

Rank ≠ Combat Strength

Because of this I feel that instead of the XP gain being based on rank, it should instead be based on the attack/defense/conditions(we should debate on this) of your opponent, not rank.

I like how it is. Its like cath said if I am scanning and someone runs across me and kills me then they get a good experience. I think it sort of gives you incentive to level. I think leaving the higher levels in the dark because they either started earlier or spent money on GP isn't really the way to go. I don't even like the idea of scaling because I finally have a reason to kill people. I'll give you an example.

Me at level 92
Joe Blow at level 20

Joe blow is going to continuously level rapidly because he has people that are near his level. So when he scans for people near his level he will find them and kill them.
Im at 92 I have a full list and a half page of people to kill. 9 times out of 10 half my list is already taken out. So I can attack these people and kill them and then whatever energy I have left I spend on missions. I can't continuously kill people my level.

Now how this could be dealt with (especially in hunter's case) is have share enemy scans last as long as planets do. I hate it too but it sort of makes sense in regards to how new players are. Don't make us not be allowed to kill lower level people because we are going to have lvl 30-60 continuously scanning/attempting to take over our planets.

You could then skew the battle page to people only 40 levels under (which is sort of what it already is) and go from there. I think my current build is set up more of a defensive as I only have 400 attack usually and 900 defense. I think it depends on your style of play. If you want to do missions stack defense and energy and people will kill you less. I don't intentionally kill people more often than not, but when I do 40 damage a hit its kinda hard not to.

I think this should be dealt with similar to the planet problem. You have defenses use them or else risk being killed. Many of the players that I currently kill that show up on my list are learning and using traps + high defense builds to ward me off. They are learning how the attack/defend game is played.

I agree that killing someone at level 40 isn't great at level 90 but I should still have that option. In other games you have links that people share so I can find lowbies if I need to kill them.

Overall the best idea is hunter's removal of shared enemies because the chance of me finding a person that low is pretty slim unless shared. The lowest person on my battle board is 50.

I see where you & Noah are coming from. But the key thing isn't your current strength, but your current potential. If at lvl 101 you are the equivilent of a lvl 15, that means you made some choices to end up like that. You have 500 rank points, did they all go to energy, cargo, & decks? A lvl 40 player would be in for a surprise if you put 50 or 100 of those 500 points into defense. If you rely only on your modules, then yes you're at risk if you don't keep your defenses installed. You have the option to keep a defensive loadout. Its your build choices that make you vulnerable.

That level 40 player doesn't have the same options. If you decide to smear him across the galaxy, you will, and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. There is no way he could have enough deck space or research to prevent you from destroying him over and over. That's the difference, and it's why you shouldn't be able to target weak players for the XP.

yes but PVP sucks unless your going for people your rank, directly below or higher. Theres no point for me to continuously blow him to hell. And through my suggestion he wouldn't be worth killing if he didnt have to resources to defend against me.

I don't quite understand your point of view ying yang guy (I forgot to check your name b4 posting). If I put 500 defense in my rank that would cost quite a bit of points and I wouldn't have enough deck to really do anything. I don't think that is a good example. 500/2 = 250/5 = 50 so for 50 levels I had to put it into defense to have 500 defense points. Not really a good example if you dumped that into defense O_o.

@headless. You kinda bolstered my point. They have the option to set up for defense. Now when the person is really low level they don't have that option which is why I said cut off the ability to battle them at 50 levels below in the battle window. Level 50-60s have the ability to do defense. If you haven't realized building and implementing defense is amazingly cheap. 3 mill for a module that adds 204 defense.

I use MicroWarp Nacelles which are low on the research tier for defense. 3.2 mil and 13 pawlacite to implement one and it takes up 54 space. Yes that is a lot of space but if you don't waste your points on anything and go deck by 50 say you realize that you have to go deck space by 20 and so for the next 30 levels you go deck. You then have 150 deck space on top of w/e the normal starting deck space is and can equip 2 of these items. Yes it takes up space but you have the option to build yourself that way.

This game is all about doing what you want to do and you cant be kickass at everything until way later and even then you can't be kickass at everything. So figure out what you want to do and if you don't like dieing implement defense/attack and retaliate. Yes it takes time but #&$# those of us at 90+ didn't get that way over night. I had people every day who hacked me and killed me through the early levels but I struggled through it and sometimes got angry and now I am pretty high up.

Noobs have to realize that they can't start a game and instantly become great. I never understood this mentality that you start something and it instantly becomes easy. Its not easy and you have to work at becoming better. In my opinion that is one of the best parts of this game. You don't start out entirely owning everyone like in Zynga games or World At War. In WAW I start out and if I add legion and get given a few good items I rape everyone my level and generally higher levels can't touch me. So it gives this sort of feeling that your winning at something when you are really just a little noob who is working his way up in the ranks.

I don't disagree with that. But from a programming standpoint it sounds like it could be a nightmare, compared to the system that's already in place which just needs to be expanded. But yeah, if XP reward were based on total attack & defense it would still be fair for any level.

Ya it could be horrible to implement but i think it would be worth it.

I think you guys are missing the point. We can't target players that are insanely below us unless a friend shares it with us. So its not like I am searching and destroying level 20s because I feel like it. I kill level 20s because someone says "Hey this #$&*$# is killing me can you own him up a bit?". I then go and kill the person. The current problem for me is that there are very few people who are my level and above and those that are either stay dead or are in my legion. 50-80 is plenty of level to build defense. As a matter of fact when I was 60-70 I had like 300+ defense. So its not impossible to defend.

Light Cruiser
215/215
Attack: 239
Defense: 384
Scan: 106
Cloak: 5
Upkeep: 101k T.T

This was me at level 60. I posted this information in strategy. It is not impossible to defend.

If XP is based on Attack+ defence... You can abuse it. Equip your modules, kill someone. Unequip them and let them kill you only to find the XP very low.