Nope, nothing wrong with one shot kills... If someone with 100k attack hits someone with 5k defense.. it should one shot them, or if the RNG hates them that day, 2 shots..

Limiting damage based on the defenders ship is like saying "This RPG is going to do less damage to that small boat than it will to that big huge Air Craft Carrier.... really?

All depends on where you hit them. Look at it this way... If damage capability is based on the attacker, what difference does it make whether the defender is big or little? If I attack a rank 1000 with 4000 decks, 35000 defense and 100k hull and then attack a rank 1000 with 1000 decks, 35000 defense and 100k hull, I should expect to do less damage to the smaller ship specifically because they are smaller. We're not shooting stuff with one big huge destructo ray. We're firing a bunch of smaller weapons, some of which you should expect to miss the smaller vessel, thereby reducing the amount of damage you can do.

and that's where the defense stat comes into play. Lets look at it this way:

• Defense = Dampeners (reduces damage taken), Thrusters (Ability to manuever) and Helmsmen (Ability to drive the ship/ dodge/execute evasive actions, cause 'misses') this is already calculated in the defense stat).
• Attack = Cannons (Firepower) and Tactical Officers (ability to target ships, aim the cannons and hit with more precise shots)

The higher defense means hits are less accurate hits. As I said I could concede giving smaller ships a % bonus to defense based on size, something like starting with a 15% bonus to defense for a Scout sized ship and reducing it by 1% each time the ship goes up a 'size' so it would be 1% for a Heavy Titan, and 0% after that. (just some random numbers, this of course could be adjusted up or down).

BUT to Limit the damage of a weapon based on the Size of the defensive target is backwards, if anything a "Smaller" target would / should feel the effects of the damage MORE than a larger ship (RPG hits small boat = blown to bits, RPG hits Air Craft Carrier = decent sized hole, some damage, fires, etc. but ship is still intact and able to operate) ... Logic..

I tried to ignore the RPG analogy. Really, I did. The flaw there is that you're actually shooting say 100 at the dinghy and carrier. You might get lucky and one of the 100 hits that evil rowboat and releases X amount of energy while all 100 hit that carrier releasing 100*X energy.

Don't get me wrong, I get that your intentions are for improvement and I am by no means pro-SSB (nor am I anti-SSB). Right now, with the current PvP mechanics driving 99% of PVP to offline targets, damage cap is meaningless. Unless there's a total overhaul of PvP, raising the damcap isn't going to change that fact.

So don't think Dingy.. think.. TugBoat vs Carrier... damage is still the same, just the carrier can handle it better.. the maximum damage/explosion power, etc of the RPG doesn't change, just the amount of damage able to be sustained by each target. (and if you can miss a tug boat or a carrier with an RGP, you shouldn't be firing one in the first place)

I agree, Damage cap is just one of the mechanics that needs to be changed for PVP, but it is a Large portion of it. Other random things could be done.. such as limit # of repair nano's that can be used in x time frame, same with shield restorer's. A option to use more than 5 energy per attack, all sorts of things.. but.. until the damage cap is changed those are just band aids to an already backwards broken system.

Or maybe we just do away with halcs... that would improve it more.

Or maybe, just maybe, people quit moaning about SSBs and move on...

I don't think either are suggestions that are going to happen though.

Whether or not a ship can "handle" the damage depends solely on hull value, nothing to do with whether or not it's big or small.
To consider a 100 deck tugboat with 10k hull vs a 2000 deck carrier with 10k hull, the former would have to be made from titanium allow while the latter out of paper mache! The latter is NOT going to withstand any more punishment than the former. To say that the bigger ship can stand more punishment, the 2000 deck ship would have to have 200k hull to be considered to be made of same sort of material.
However, following that line of logic, given a specific size, even if you use the toughest of materials there is some limit to how much hull it can have. That's why passive hull should be taken into consideration, just not linearly in any way or form or it defeats the purposes. two-third power or cube root of some sort would probably be most fitting. And at the same time, because you can fit stuff in the region already occupied by deck, you'd get a "discount" of this part of the cap based on deck.

And one more thing, target-size aside, ship size(and therefore mass and inertia) also affects the agility of the ship. Given the same amount of thrust power(part of the defense value) and therefore the same amount of "force", the acceleration of an object is indirectly proportional to its inertia. Simply put, smaller stuff can dodge better.

you can argue til you are blue in the face, but the game developer disagrees.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31&hilit=damage+cap&start=2

and a topic from 4 years ago does not change the fact that the system is Backwards Broken and Illogical as it currently stands and needs to be re-visited. 4 Years ago there was not such a large margin of difference in ranks either. Without argument everyone would just go on thinking everything was just perfectly fine when it isn't. You can continue to try to defend a broken system with threads from 4 years ago, but it doesn't change the facts. People keep asking about the dwindling of pvp I can honestly say I have spoken to quite a few ships in game that dislike or refuse to pvp because of this broken system and these are mid to higher ranked ships, if that is affecting them do you honestly believe it has Zero effect on new players quitting the game?

Make my ship do the damage that it should based on my attack, not the size of the ship I am hitting, make it so my damage will allow me to kill someone 500 ranks less than me with 30k + less defense than my attack in 4 hits (depending on their amount of hull + sheilds) and I'll shut up.. until then..

Let me guess...

Until then we are stuck with your 'Wah, wah, wah, me, me, me' posts about how SSBs are the root cause of all evil in the world and were directly responsible for the outbreak of WW2 ( trust me on that last part, I also spoke to multiple mid and high rankers about it).

Here's an idea, stop whining and play the game...

(A little clue- SSBs don't stop you playing or enjoying the game. They may hurt your ego, but that's your problem)

call it wah wah wah, what ever you want, the fact is I am pointing out how Illogical and flawed that the current system is and have yet to hear/read a single argument that counters any of my points against it... well anything logical or anything that isn't "this is how it was decided 4 years ago". What would the world be like to day if throughout the centuries people just accepted things because "that's how it is". I do play the game, I spend more time in game than I probably should.. The system is broken, will sitting quietly by and doing nothing change it? No..

It makes sense now... the logic behind SSBs...

Decks determine how much damage your ship can take in one blast (due to surface area) while hull determines the durability of your ship. Hence having a smaller ship (less decks) and a high hull durability (lots of hull) it only makes sense that durable hull can withstand more assaults (due to having less decks (less surface area)). A small ship with a very hard hull should be tough to crack.

The damage cap isn't broken at all.

Really? Not one single one? Really??



Erm... Yeah, actually it is broke. It's just that SSBs are not the reason it's broke.

Only one I have heard is "Smaller ships are harder to hit"... yup, I agree with that, but that doesn't validate a smaller ship taking less damage than a larger ship from the same cannons / same attack.. What that does validate is adding a Defensive bonus to ships under a certain size as I suggested before.

Less surface area = less maximum damage that can be dealt to a ship in one hit.

In case you are missing my post: two ship of same hull small vs big would be titanium small vs paper mache big ship, so yes, smaller ship does take less damage. To consider "real" ships of same material, the bigger ship would have to have propotionaly more hull.
Comparing 2000 ton frigate vs 50,000 to battleship, the latter have 25x more hull
Conversely, for same hull amounts, instead of comparing how much fire power it takes to sink 1 frigate vs 1 battleship, you have to compare sinking 25 frigates in a row vs one battleship. I'd say the former is significantly harder as long as the weapon used is of significant threat to the battleship (specifically, vulcan cannon might not do any real damage to a battleship at all while it can wear do the frigate)

That said, however, working size into defense is a reasonable way to do it, but it's going to be much more significant than just 15% or whatever it is that you said.

Once again.. let me break it down..

Weapon A = X amount of damage.. period, a weapons damage capability does NOT change with target size
Defense = How much damage a target can lessen / avoid (dampers & thrusters) done by Weapon A
Integrity of the target = How much damage a target can take before being destroyed (Hull & Shields)

For example, a Tomahawk Missile does the same amount of damage, it has a fixed payload, regardless of the size of the target it hits.

• Missile hits a Toyota = Toyota destroyed, blown into tiny little bits (Toyota has little to no defense and low Integrity)
• Missle hits a M1 Abrams Tank = Tank Severely Damaged but possibly still functional(?) (Higher Defense / Integrity than Toyota, not much bigger)
• Missile hits Battleship = Battleship damaged greatly but not destroyed or at least not blown into tiny little bits. (Has greater defense to take damage and higher Integrity than Toyota)
• Missile hits Building same size as Battleship = Building explodes into rubble, remains collapse and is destroyed (less Defense / Integrity of target than Battleship)

As we can see here in our examples, the SIZE of the Target DOES NOT Matter, what does matter is the DEFENSE and Integrity

Please, give me a logical argument that defies this (logic, fact, physics)

So lets put this in game terms now..

Attack = Damage and Ability to Hit the Target (cannons, attack modules, TO's)
Defense = Ability to Lessen / Avoid Damage (Dampers, Thrusters, Helmsmen)
Hull + Shields = How Much Damage a Ship can take before being destroyed.

I have already conceded that a smaller ship should reflect a better ability to AVOID damage (included with thrusters & helmsmen calculated in DEFENSE) so they should Maybe receive a % bonus to their defense for being able to maneuver better, BUT SIZE SHOULD NOT Reduce the Damage capability of the attackers weapons.

Take your Abraham example and Battleship example:
Make it so the two side have same total integerity: i.e. ~900 Abrams(60 ton each) vs 1 Battleship(~50,000 ton)
Fire Tomhawks until both side are all destroyed
Which side takes more Tomhawks?
That will tell you for the same hull and rougly same defense, which takes more shots.

At the same time, for the same hull and therefore intgerity, let's compare 1 Abrams and a model of a battleship made out of same amount of material as one Abram but have a size of a real battleship, i.e. 200mx30mx10m shell made of just 60 ton of steel(and Abrams isn't even a solid block of steel). Do you know how thick that steel is? Considering that the shell is irregular is shape, it probably have ~20,000 square meter of surface area, which means 3 kg per sqaure meter, about 1/3000 of a meter, or 0.03cm thick. I'm sorry, that won't take a tomhawk, I can probably destroy it with a well placed kick.

Given the same integrity(meaning mass of object) and defense(meaning material), the smaller it is, the harder it is to destroy.

Okay, much as I don't really want to post on another silly damage cap thread, I just have to point this out:

Regarding comparing an Aircraft Carrier and a rowboat:
Nimitz-class Aircraft Carrier - Displacement: 100,000+ tons
Rowboat - Displacement: <1 ton (assuming you're not really, really fat)

Difference in size >100,000:1 ...so not really comparable to GL in the slighest.

Instead, if try a bit harder to compare Apples with Apples and Oranges and Oranges:
Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer - Displacement: ranging from 8,315 to 9,200 tons
Iowa-class Battleship - Displacement: 45,000 tons

Difference in size: Around 5:1 ...so quite comparable to GL

Number of Battleships currently in use and/or in reserve in navies throughout the world: 0

Reason: they were already largely strategically obsolete during World War II, because of their cost, size and vulnerability due to their lack of maneuverability.
Quite simply, their job could more efficiently be performed by smaller, faster and more maneuverable ships.

As with the GL damage cap, in real life large slow-moving vessels with "advantages" in size, armor and both offensive and defensive firepower does not necessarily equal "better".

I think you are missing the Point... the SIZE of the Target does not regulate how much damage a WEAPON (Attack) does. Which is what our current Damage cap system is.. The Size of the Target is Regulating the Damage output of the weapon(s) of the attacking ship. This is WRONG.

Basically our system now says If you have 1000 decks your damage cap is 500 that is the Max anyone with any amount of attack can hit you for. So If it takes 30k attack vs your Ships Defense to hit your damage cap, a ship with 35k attack hits you for 500 damage per hit but a ship with 90k attack also ONLY hits you for 500 per hit.. which is insane. why bother having an extra 55k attack? This is the point that I am trying to make, this backwards Illogical absurdity.

I am really mind blown how the "defenders of damage cap based on decks" can, in good conscious, claim that this is good for the game, or even think that this is "Acceptable"...