This will nerf SSBs without making the completely gimping SSBs.

Take, for example, a rank 1181 ship (because I'm pretty close to this rank and it's a nice number for the damage calculations).

MY PROPOSAL:

Current damage cap formulae:

Maximum ( Decks/2 and Rank+19/2 )

Recommend damage cap formulae:

Maximum ( Decks/2 and Rank+19 )

I'm an MSB at 4400 decks; my damage cap is 2200.

An SSB at rank 1181 has a damage cap of 600. Using my own unbuffed stats (so as if I were attacking myself), this leads to:



So there's a representative 50 shots and the average of those shots, as well as the true average for those stats.

At my current damage cap:



So there's the obvious disparity between SSB and MSB. An SSB taking about the average of taking about a quarter of the damage that an MSB would take, though I think I am at the tip-top for MSB deck count. With my proposed changes, in terms of my ship I would see no change at all. The maximum is still going to be my decks/2. For someone who has a low enough deck count, this means a change. That SSB with 1200 decks now has a damage cap of 1200. How do the numbers reflect this change?



Well the average damage is certainly higher now. Not incredibly so, but it is definitely higher. With an average damage of about 140 I'm not even going to bother trying. 280? Well that's twice as good but it's still not fantastic from the point of view as me as an attacker, but now it doesn't seem like an impossible feat.


Impacts of this change:

This change would nerf the SSB advantage of the super-low damage cap without completely and utterly gimping it. There is still a strong advantage to being SSB, but maybe now it's a little bit more realistic.

-1.

modifying the rank attribute would definitely nerf SSB, but in order to be an effective SSB, sacrifices in time and opportunity costs needed to be made to get there. your proposal would undercut the years worth of effort put into making the build.

instead of modifying one of the existing 2 factors, add a 3rd factor. it is at the higher ranks that PvP seems to stagnate, so throw in a 3rd factor based on crew count (or crew count per rank). then EVERYONE has to adjust, like they did when the rank factor was added 4 years ago.

so, if you are a low.ranked SSB with massive crew from sitting in a level 8 base and pulling artis without ranking, the 3rd factor will suddenly make freeze ranking less attractive. at the higher ranks, the massive crews, which currently don't have any neg, would instead come with a corresponding cost in damage cap.

-1

Do you want to kill an already dwindling player base?

because that's how you get ants... I mean that's how you kill an already dwindling player base.

Yes, it would nerf it but not completely gimp it. Those sacrifices aren't invalidated and it doesn't even come close to destroying everything a SSB has worked for.

of course it does. when i started, being a sub.rank 100 SSB would have been crazy talk. bases were happy to be at level 6, and arti payouts could not be relied upon to sustain a ship as they can now. it took me 2 YEARS of play to get myself into a position where SSB was a reasonable prospect and now i am enjoying the benefits of it. those who built a MSB or LSB enjoyed those benefits right from the get.go.

your suggestion only takes away from SSB when the deck / rank based damage cap is NOT the only thing wrong with PvP. the last damage cap nerf added the rank factor which killed off the clearly unsustainable 'scout of mass destruction' (which had sprung up the 6 months since the previous damage cap nerf). SSBs, on the other hand, HAVE proven themselves to be sustainable ... they just have a MUCH longer lead time to get there. the biggest PvP drag now at both the lowest and highest ranks is endless crew (and hull and shield from endless AP). adding a 3rd factor based on crew would shake EVERYBODY up, not just nerf SSB.

EDIT: heck, i'll even go halfway. you want to nerf the rank factor from (rank+19)/2 to (rank+19). so going from a factor of 1/2 to 1/1. so instead of just having a divisor, use the crew per rank. say 50 crew per rank is the new 'standard'. then the rank factor would become (rank+19)*(CPR/100), with CPR/100 having a minimum floor of 0.5. so someone at 100 crew per rank would now match your suggestion. someone with 150 crew per rank would have 3x their previous damage cap based on rank.

I don't really think simply doubling the damage cap for the small number of strict SSBs is a very fair proposal.

Not an SSB myself, just doesn't seem right.

As for Senator's crew suggestion, similar thoughts apply.
Growing crew is the only way to increase ship strength after a certain point, and the same rationale of not nerfing years of effort applies.

Sigh.

Insert analogies about science fiction technology and what a "small ship" is.

Additional paragraph about how this weakens the few who sacrificed to do a particular build, instead of giving advantages to a different build that is lacking.

Finish up on friendly hints about this argument could be found via search engine quite easily.

P.S
At least this one has thought out and tested a little. Some of the suggestions we get... Thank you.

I realize it's off topic, but people need to realize that the reason why PvP stagnates at higher ranks is because there is no incentive. There's nothing wrong with high rank PvP, that some new *cheap* production boosters/planet structures wouldn't fix.

I say that as someone that has added 4k player kills post rank 2k. So fwiw it's not the damage caps that stagnate high rank PvP... it might make the badge cost more energy, but if i had a nice *cheap* reward to gain, i think more people wouldn't care about killing the SSB ships, as the gain would be worth the cost.

I only do it because i need 3 yellows every 40 hours(Lepus Ally) and atm 5 additional yellows/reds for my Darmos/Thraacti Ally ranking every 20 hours.

If i could purchase a 1:1 artifact building for 10 red badges, and a different 1:1 artifact building for 15 yellow and a third 1:1 artifact building for 30 blue badges, i'm sure more people would PvP, simply because people always be asking for more structures for planets that don't suck ass and cost a fortune to purchase.

in the spirit of the op's idea...maybe again a crew cap per deck....or add a third factor to dam cap --that being days played...you can be a clever and well built ssb but the people hanging out for months at rank would slowly start to feel the pain.

tbh i think high rank pvp is fine..limited options, but fine

mid rank pvp is silly....all halcs or all ssb and a few msb hunters

low rank is total joke, and is where pvp breaks down....there are literally hundreds of ships lurking under rank 200 doing nothing but collecting and hitting any ship who isnt an ssb (and playing the same way)...it's like a group of alligators waiting for one gazelle to float by. need some way to change their cap/damage set up to drive more play.

aside: i like tree's idea...give people better mods..worthwhile ones from pvp and it will/should spark more interest...won't steer people who don't fight into being titans of battle, but any increase would be good

problem with pvp is their are NOT alot of people who want to pvp, their are alot of people who want free prizes, you want pvpers, make it so that you can only engage people with similar win/loss ratios as yourself. no more trolling for laughables/low ranks, only people proven in pvp give you a reward, then see how many people "like and want" pvp. Easiest way of doing is a one time opt out system, you opt out you can't partake in pvp, EVER, no badages (reds/yellows/blues) but no being badaged. You can only attack ships that have invaded your planets/blockading your invasion on a planet. then people hwo want pvp will have pvp, a true honorable arena of the dedicated pvpers who can and will pvp to their hearts content, no more halcs no more calming amps your perfect little world. Everyone wins if you are a true pvper and not just after cheep/easy stuff.

Sorry, Draxx..... I disagree with almost all of that What you are talking about will essentially split the game in two, further deleting the player pool. I really, reallllly don't get everyone's issues with the whole lot. Pvp. halcs, calming amps, all of it. I think the system is fine just the way it is. You like to Pvp.....more power to you, go for it. You want to "opt out".....halc and amp up. Easy Peasy. As a side note.....I kinda think it's already pretty well balanced since each side biches about the other so much

Also, Pvp hardly grants free prizes.....it's return on energy spent is far lower than NPCing already. If anything the Pvp prizes need to be improved. Add to that players who constantly like being able to do both. We're in the same legion, check my ship/logs......."halced blue", "halced blue", "halced blue", 175 actions (Doh! ICBLF isn't reading this is he!). I, and I expect a lot of others, enjoy the variety the game has to offer. With a little planning it's easy enough to do both and/or combat against both.

[quote="juiceman"

mid rank pvp is silly....all halcs or all ssb and a few msb hunters

low rank is total joke, and is where pvp breaks down....there are literally hundreds of ships lurking under rank 200 doing nothing but collecting and hitting any ship who isnt an ssb (and playing the same way)...it's like a group of alligators waiting for one gazelle to float by. need some way to change their cap/damage set up to drive more play.
[/quote]


This is where the game has taken a turn for the worst..

Cant obtain new players cause of the above mentioned statement plus older players are quitting ...

sooo ppl at the lower ranks need to understand that in reality they are hurting them self and everyone else above them which it will kill this game..

So gratz to all the SSB's and their achievements..

-1

if you want to help large ships in combat, simply change the dammage cap from

Maximum ( Decks/2 or Rank+19/2 )


to
sqr( (rank+19) * Decks ) / 2
and keep the Rank+19/2 as well, to prevent the 10 decks scout of death

for a SSB build that would basickly change nothing, they would still get the full benefit from beeing small

but for a huge ship rank 1000, 6000 decks, a formular like that, would reduce the cap from 3000 to
sqr (1019 * 6000) / 2 = 1236 max dammage pr hit


but main problem is still, that only levels the playing field a bit, but doesnt realy solve the problem that is realy killing PvP at high rank
a 600 dammage cap vs 500K+ hull, = a minimum of 833 clicks to kill a ship like that, presuming you are able to actualy hit the cap

Can't stop what's been done before, but I would suggest (and it's been mentioned elsewhere) that a BT that provides targets closer to your time in the game may help.

SSBs and resets can't prey on noobs, and noobs can't get their ships and spirits crushed by those who they have zero chance of retaliating against.

Let the SSBs fight it out, even if that makes things less appealing, and let new players grow and fight together.

Regarding the crew limit... Maybe have a crew limit for rank instead of for decks? That scales? No more than a certain number of any particular type of crew. This needs to be non-linear due to the nature of crew with rank (based upon my data for strength with rank shown below - I don't have information on crews). I'm not sure a flat out rank squared would work... At low ranks it's too constricting. A limit of 4 of each crew member of a rank 2 player (when they have 5 rank points already which could have scientists as high as 16 by this point) but at rank 1000, you could have 1,000,000 of each crew type which seems an absurdly high limit. High ranks are looking at 10,000,000 and higher. So it needs to be some sort of mid-point. Linear won't work, just look at the graph. Any suggestions?

This. If the prize is worth it, players will work for it. If it's not worth it... they'll find other things to do.

-------
I've said this 100 times, but I think:

• altering the critical hit formula so that crits can surpass the damage cap; and
• offering rewards (repeatable artifact and/or cloak structures) that incentivize PVP activity.

Would be a super simple fix that wouldn't screw over SSBs and would get a LOT more people fighting.

I mean, seriously... can you imagine how much more often people would hack one another if the Nexus Command Center Upgrade gave +2 artifact and/or a small % cloak bonus? Or if there was a simple 1:1 "Dominion Turret" arti structure you could buy with red badges? Come on!

As always, I strongly advocate the inclusion of a critical hit system that bypasses damage caps. One based on cloak/scan of course, so the advantage is for ships who equip such things, not just a % chance of crit (That would hurt big ships even more)

Also agree with incentivizing PVP, but recommend a hard level cap or medal cap on those good things, because as mentioned, the sub 200 feeding frenzy is bad enough already.

I am leery of having crew limits based on ANYTHING, but i guess rank is a better thing to base it on than decks. Still thing it discourages growth. Still think that can kill enjoyment. However, if we must, I suggest that you can add past the maximum, but they simply do not function unless you have a sufficient rank to control that many people. If rank = command ability, it even makes a certain amount of sense.

Actually, what could be cool is if you had control over what percentage of each crew you use.. So say you can control a max of 100k crew, but have 50k in each crew already you could set your usage to 50% total engineers, 40% helmsmen and 10% scientists while doing missions, then next cycle change your percentages to 50% TO's, 30% helms, and 20% engineers for a pvp run. Dynamic hiring policies!

Still don't like crew caps, but if we are going to do it, make it Interesting not boring!

Now i'm impressed...three or four legit ideas and well thought out comments in a row. I'm with Golgotha. I think that MIGHT have teeth as a decent modification to the existing system.

I very much +1 the idea of a 'command' presense, if you will. Give rank some importance. In most games rank truly denotes more power and leveling up carries great benefits. In this game its 2 to's (less really) and a free energy refill. (plus you move further away from some elites and slowly increase your dam cap).

Personally I still am not bother as much by the defensive capability of an ssb, as by the return fire stats. I think the dam cap formula quite possible should shift to a higher modifier for the defense part of the calc and/or add (decks*??? + defense) on the divisible portion. Others can pan out the math to see if this is ludicrous or plausible---but it just seems to wacky that a ship with 10k att can do 500 damage to me with over 140k def, while i attack at 125k to their 8k def and do 150.

Just my opin.

what about:

(Attack-defense) / (crew/Maximum of ( Decks/2 or Rank/2 )) * scan/cloak = final dmg

surplus of aggressors attack over target defense divided by crew to decks/rank ratio and then mutiplied by aggressor scan divided by target cloak to have also critical hits?

just draft, cause not sure how balance would be to have attacker with scan 2000 and target with cloak e.g. 400 or less => multipier 5+

or just:
(Attack-defense) / (crew/Maximum of ( Decks/2 or Rank/2 )) * RNG = final dmg

I'll re-write it a bit, so it easyer to read

(Attack-defense) * ((Maximum of Decks/2 or Rank/2 )/ crew) * RNG = final dmg


if we look at (Attack-defense)

what you are basickly sugesting is, if attacker have less attack then defender have defence he will actualy HEAL the defenders ship
or if attacker have presisly the same attac as defender have defence you automaticaly end up doing 0 dammage

this basickly only helps ships that already have extreamly high attack stat, so NO thanks



if we look at ((Maximum of Decks/2 or Rank/2 )/ crew)

what that part does, is basickly kill the dammage of any ships with 100.000+ crew

if we take a huge 8K decks ship, with 100.000 crew, you basickly end up with
(8.000 /2) / 100.000 = 0.04 * dam

if we presume the 80% of that crew is TO's and theire is 20K attack from ship systems
you basickly end up with a max dammage of 100.000 attack -defence * 0.04 = 4000 max dam before you factor in defence and the random factor

increasing the crew to 200.000 under the same preference (8K decks, and 80% TO's) and you end up with
(8.000 / 2) / 200.000 = 0.02 * dam

so again, before random factor and defence, the max dammage wil now be
(160.000 + 20.000) * 0.02 = 3.600


so if we use your dammage formular, increasing your crew will only end up hurting dammage, faster then you can increase your attack stat

and the factor from this, will be even lower then the 0.02 if you look at SSB ships, due to low deck count

so NO, this simply just doesnt work