View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:22 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 senatorhung's analysis: 100% DCR (SSB strategy guide) 
Author Message

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:31 am
Posts: 453
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Deigobene wrote:
As Annabell points out, damage cap does still make a difference at higher ranks.

In addition, the idea that 3000 decks has more than enough space for only the most efficient mods is just plain wrong.
If you want to hunt with the big boys (and gals *doffs cap to Dixie*) then you are going to find "non-essential" stuff like scan and cloak increasingly important.
That is unless you want to only have 4 potential targets on your BT and continually have your planets crit hacked.

The idea that although I have not added a single deck in 800 ranks I am still somehow moving inevitably towards being a Large Ship is just obviously wrong.

The terms Small, Medium and Large are relative terms... if you have 2599 decks and someone else has 6000, you are not both Large Ships.

It may seem as if your moving closer to L
SB because your point in the graph move right faster than down, but remember all the functions elongate the further they go right. All the functions get compressed. You are closer to the LSB line, but so are all the other functions the further you move right. All the functions will come close to converging if you stretc them very far, like rank 1000000 far.

Tl;dr: your not getting much closer to LSB by not adding decks, its mostly all the functions compressing together. They all eventually come really close to converging.

Also remember in Ghznls model the lines are average builds, not ship build boudaries like in senators. So your still a MSB if you are above or below that function, as long as you aren't closer to the LSb line than the MSB line

_________________
Slow Ranking Noob, following the footsteps of TheBlackPearl
Leader of The Fallen
Unbuffed Rank 781 | Attack: 192437 T.O.s: 146116 | Defense: 114171 |
Click below to join us and we will rise together!

Image

Tue May 20, 2014 1:39 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:26 pm
Posts: 1045
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Oh yeah mate, I get how it works, but I still argue that it shouldn't.
Imo, there is something wrong with the curves if you can stay the same size (2599) and from Rank 400 to 1200 somehow move closer towards the arbitrary LSB point.
I suggest that a Rank 400 ship that remains the same size should be much closer to LSB at Rank 400 than it should be at Rank 1200+, at which time it is clearly medium in relation to the Battle Tab opponents it faces.
Just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

To be honest, I don't really get the need for equations and such.
For me:
If your ship is designed with almost religious attention to the damage cap, you are SSB.
If you don't care about the damage cap and like to throw on everything (like Mylarai Plasma Lances :P ) you are probably an LSB.
If you fall somewhere in between those 2 extremes for the Battle Tab that can see you at your particular rank, chances are you're an MSB :)

Good luck with the equations though everyone.

_________________
Be the hunter, not the hunted: Find out more about The Wild Hunt
Image
Deigobene


Tue May 20, 2014 2:06 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am
Posts: 3143
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Deigobene wrote:
Imo, there is something wrong with the curves if you can stay the same size (2599) and from Rank 400 to 1200 somehow move closer towards the arbitrary LSB point.

rank 400: SSB decks = 419 ... 2599/419 = 6.2
rank 1200: SSB decks = 1219 ... 2599/1219 = 2.1
Image
Deigobene wrote:
I suggest that a Rank 400 ship that remains the same size should be much closer to LSB at Rank 400 than it should be at Rank 1200+, at which time it is clearly medium in relation to the Battle Tab opponents it faces.
Just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

and this is EXACTLY what this graph demonstrates. at rank 400, a y-axis value of 6.2 drops you into HSB above the blue curve. at rank 1200, a y-axis value of 2.1 drops you into LSB territory, but very much closer to MSB status. the curves that Ghznl and i generated are attempting to somewhat match the improvement that happens when someone stops adding more decks while still ranking up.

Deigobene wrote:
1. If your ship is designed with almost religious attention to the damage cap, you are SSB.
2. If you don't care about the damage cap and like to throw on everything (like Mylarai Plasma Lances :P ) you are probably an LSB.
3. If you fall somewhere in between those 2 extremes for the Battle Tab that can see you at your particular rank, chances are you're an MSB

Image
x-axis = decks / 10k max decks for all ship mods
y-axis = decks / (rank + 19)

so your situation 1 corresponds to the top of this graph where decks are set equal to SSB decks. situation 2 corresponds to the far right of this graph where the pilots have 70% of the deck capacity to install all available ship mods (tho using 10k instead of the 8k figure that Annabell came up with). anyone in.between those extremes ... you can see Golgotha's green line ... has 20% ship mod capacity, and is steadily going vertically upwards indicating that he has been adding few or no decks.

going back to your example:

2599 decks / 10,000 = 0.2599
rank 400: SSB decks = 419 ... 419/2599 = 0.161
rank 1200: SSB decks = 1219 ... 1219/2599 = 0.469

so from rank 400 to rank 1200, by freezing decks, you go up vertically at 26% on the x-axis, improving your damage cap rating from 0.161 to 0.469.

in terms of SSB strategy, you will always strive to move up as high vertically as possible. the real decision then, is to determine at how many decks you want to make that move. you can do like i did (gold) and move to efficient damage cap decks early, sacrificing ship mod flexibility, or you can choose more ship mod flexibility like Golgotha did (green). or you can follow elerian's path (mint) and add all the ship goodies, only eventually starting to rise vertically after you have no other ship mods that you deem worthwhile to install. or you can follow icarium's red path and just not worry about damage cap at all.

_________________
Rank 2381 Sillixx Fixer 100% DCR r385-r2200 GL Marauder #26
_____________Image
PvP leaderboards: 57662 raids: #1; 29214 kills: #2; 52610 hacks: #2;


Last edited by senatorhung on Tue May 20, 2014 3:56 am, edited 6 times in total.



Tue May 20, 2014 3:43 am
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 140
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Deigobene wrote:
Oh yeah mate, I get how it works, but I still argue that it shouldn't.
Imo, there is something wrong with the curves if you can stay the same size (2599) and from Rank 400 to 1200 somehow move closer towards the arbitrary LSB point.
I suggest that a Rank 400 ship that remains the same size should be much closer to LSB at Rank 400 than it should be at Rank 1200+, at which time it is clearly medium in relation to the Battle Tab opponents it faces.
Just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

To be honest, I don't really get the need for equations and such.
For me:
If your ship is designed with almost religious attention to the damage cap, you are SSB.
If you don't care about the damage cap and like to throw on everything (like Mylarai Plasma Lances :P ) you are probably an LSB.
If you fall somewhere in between those 2 extremes for the Battle Tab that can see you at your particular rank, chances are you're an MSB :)

Good luck with the equations though everyone.


Point 1:
Actually the exact example you gave, 2599 decks at rank 400 vs at rank 1200

At rank 400, that gives 2599/419 = 6.2. This is above the hsb line for a rank 400
At rank 1200, that gives 2599/1219 = 2.132. This is below the hsb line for a rank 1200

Int he example you gave my equations work exactly as you believed a proper equation should have. By not adding decks, youve gone from a larger than average hsb at rank 400 to a smaller than average hsb at rank 1200.

Im not sure where you got your original assumption that by not adding decks brings you closer to LSB as you rank came from. It may have come from senators graph, idk, because I have not evaluted his method

Point 2:
Also the converging bit I was talking about. It makes perfectly fine sense. THe whole point is the entire graph will converge, so it only makes sense that over time you should get closer to the LSB line. This is REGARDLESS IF YOU ARE ABOVE OR BELOW THE LINE.
If you are below, it will seem as if your rising to meet the average LSB. If you are above, it will still seem like your falling to meet the average LSB. However, in theory if the equations are perfect (which they arent, but I tried to make them as close as I believe is possible), you should never actually reach the LSB line. This is an example of *asymptotic behaviour*. The function that defines your constant number of decks as your rank, along with the HSB line will get squished until they are infiinitely close together at a very high rank.

Reasoning observe: Would you not agree that all ship builds eventually slow down in adding decks? Would you not agree that at an extremely high rank, everyones # of decks willl be orders of magnitudes smaller than the # that represents the rank?
Thus, when you calculate decks/SSB decks at say, rank 1000000 *One million*, you probably still wont have more than 10000 *ten thousand* decks. At this point, the equation y =decks/SSBdecks are all very, very small numbers. It doesnt matter if you only have 100 decks.
Sure, the ratio between a 100 deck rank one mil compared to a 10000 deck rank one mil is very different when you compute decks/SSB decks (It will be an order of 100 larger), but notice the actual values you get

10000/1000019 = 0.01
100/1000019 = 0.00001

When you plot this on the y-axis on the graph, they basically look like 0. Thus, you have a SSB and a LSB that have VISUALLY identical spots on the graph. These two equations are both considered to = 0 when the denominator is very large. This is an example of the asymptotic behaviour I was talking about. If this is observed, it is supposed to happen. If anything, this would actually prove the equation is working properly. I know my equations are actually off, which is why this may not happen...yet.

Point 3:
You stated earlier that a 6k deck ship is LSB, therefore a 2599 deck ship cant be LSB. You have to realize ranks are still important in this game. LSB is still determined by what is available to you at a given rank, because that limits how many decks you will logically install. There is no rank 100 ship with 6k decks, because there simply arent enough modules available at rank 100 to fill 6k decks. Thus a 2599 deck rank 100 is LSB. On the other hand, when you are rank 2000, 2599 decks is nowhere near enough to fit everything on the ship. Many many more modules are available, thus 6k decks would be an example of a proper LSB at rank 2000. There is no clear cut way to measure the decks without taking rank and peers into consideration. The whole point of decks is to add modules, and what you can equip depends on how far you are in the game


Tue May 20, 2014 3:50 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:26 pm
Posts: 1045
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Thanks for the reasoned replies guys, and I appreciate the efforts you have taken.
Of course I know that my strength/toughness etc has increased as my damage cap relative to rank has decreased.
However, my main concern remains that for the ships in my badging range (not rank, though in that respect too) a ship my size is just not considered large.
For this reason alone I think the endpoints need some adjusting.

For example, this is not something I have ever heard from the Rank 2000+ ships that can see my ship:
Quote:
...smaller than average hsb at rank 1200.

In fact, at Rank 800-odd, higher ranked people started comming about the smaller ship build... which frankly surprised me at the time.

I applaud your attempts to quantify the ranges, but I really feel both of your cut-off points need tweaking.
There may come a time when MSB ceases to be relevant, but I don't think it is quite that early.
For example, if Golgotha is approaching the upper end of the MSB spectrum then I think the underlying assumptions may need reworking.

The difficulty, as I see it, is that the vast rank range of targets and predators on your BT after a certain point makes considerations of your rank less significant in many respects.
For me, it is all about that range you are playing in rather than your rank alone, which naturally makes finding a suitable equation that fits much harder.

Anyway, best of luck with your endeavours.

EDIT: Sorry guys, I forgot to apologise to both of you for not being clearer.
I totally agree that both of your graphs work quite well in tracking progress to this point.
My concerns were that after dropping down from whatever category the respective graphs put you in by staying at the same number of decks that inevitably in just a few hundred ranks someone around my size reaches your cutoff points and rises back up again:
HSB > smaller than average HSB > HSB or LSB > MSB > LSB.

So I guess really my primary question is around the cutoffs, as they define your ranges.

_________________
Be the hunter, not the hunted: Find out more about The Wild Hunt
Image
Deigobene


Tue May 20, 2014 4:43 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 140
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Deigobene wrote:
Thanks for the reasoned replies guys, and I appreciate the efforts you have taken.
Of course I know that my strength/toughness etc has increased as my damage cap relative to rank has decreased.
However, my main concern remains that for the ships in my badging range (not rank, though in that respect too) a ship my size is just not considered large.
For this reason alone I think the endpoints need some adjusting.

For example, this is not something I have ever heard from the Rank 2000+ ships that can see my ship:
Quote:
...smaller than average hsb at rank 1200.

In fact, at Rank 800-odd, higher ranked people started comming about the smaller ship build... which frankly surprised me at the time.

I applaud your attempts to quantify the ranges, but I really feel both of your cut-off points need tweaking.
There may come a time when MSB ceases to be relevant, but I don't think it is quite that early.
For example, if Golgotha is approaching the upper end of the MSB spectrum then I think the underlying assumptions may need reworking.

The difficulty, as I see it, is that the vast rank range of targets and predators on your BT after a certain point makes considerations of your rank less significant in many respects.
For me, it is all about that range you are playing in rather than your rank alone, which naturally makes finding a suitable equation that fits much harder.

Anyway, best of luck with your endeavours.

EDIT: Sorry guys, I forgot to apologise to both of you for not being clearer.
I totally agree that both of your graphs work quite well in tracking progress to this point.
My concerns were that after dropping down from whatever category the respective graphs put you in by staying at the same number of decks that inevitably in just a few hundred ranks someone around my size reaches your cutoff points and rises back up again:
HSB > smaller than average HSB > HSB or LSB > MSB > LSB.

So I guess really my primary question is around the cutoffs, as they define your ranges.

The term MSB is slowly being redefined by the reset and newer players. Im guessing the reason why the higher ranks commented about your supposedly smaller ship at rank 800 stems from the fact that it wasnt too too long ago SSB was looked down upon as pointless. Therefore, it would only make sense a larger majority of the population would be inclined to move towards larger ship builds. It wasnt until SSB was significantly brought into the spotlight that many people started considering smaller ship builds. Then again, remember, my lines represent ship build AVERAGES while sens represent ship build BOUNDARIES. I actually built up my entire graph from MSB first, and used Golgothas growth patterns as the model for an ideal MSB. But I do agree it is too early to say the end points are concrete. As more time passes and we see more ship logs from tiny ranks advancing into the higher ranks, we will be able to see more of what the community considers to be SSB vs MSB vs LSB from those who pay particular attention to how they build their ship.

About your last point, my graphs were built in mind with being able to slowly add decks over time. I did a couple of checks to make sure that you can still add decks if you match the average LSB or MSB. Technically, if you dont add any decks, you should never reach a cutoff point for MSB.
The cutoff only truly applies to SSB, since both the averages of MSB and SSB have an endpoint, therefore, the SSB boundary must be somewhere in between
The LSB average line never realistically reaches y=1, while the average MSB lines does. Therefore, the MSB limit must be somewhere in between. Since your trying to find the middle point between the MSB average endpoint and where average LSB stretches infinitely far, you can argue that the MSB boundary also travels off the graph.

tl;dr Put it this way, once you are passed the MSB average endpoint, as long as you are closer to the y-axis than the LSB line, you are still MSB.

I specifically AVOIDED boundary end points and instead opted for average endpoints to avoid having to put clear cut restrictions on when SSB becomes MSB and when MSB becomes LSB.


Tue May 20, 2014 5:28 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:26 pm
Posts: 1045
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Maybe that explains my concerns about both systems: into the future, I'm not sure SSB should have a cutoff point.

In my opinion, Golgotha continues to move steadily closer to being SSB rather than MSB, so is a fair bit more impressive than the average MSB.
Mr Cupcake is certainly an SSB regardless of his rank - hitting the cutoff point didn't make him an MSB, at least to my way of thinking.
Nor sure what Sharnhorst's decks are atm but would love to know where he would fit in.

_________________
Be the hunter, not the hunted: Find out more about The Wild Hunt
Image
Deigobene


Tue May 20, 2014 5:51 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am
Posts: 3143
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
i think for the purposes of the original post, i will modify the SSB designation to be associated with the damage cap rating. using a formula for damage cap rating of [(rank + 19) / decks], a 'true' SSB would have a 100% rating, anyone with at least an 85% rating would still generally be considered SSB, while anyone with higher than a 40% rating would be considered a MSB (medium ship-build). any ship with lower than a 40% rating would be considered a LSB (large ship-build).

so once someone starts freezing decks, their damage cap rating can only improve.

here would be the new first chart of the shiplog showdown. (ship mod rating updated to use the 8061 decks figure that Annabell came up with here).

Image

the comments on the perceptions of 'large' vs 'small' are valid. but again, those are perceptions. you can see that Golgotha is still under 80% so would be classified as a MSB under my new reckoning, but is very close to becoming the SSB that he is perceived to be by those who find him on their bt. looking at rank 1400 on the minimum hits to disable, you can see that Golgotha requires 4x the number of hits that icarium does. with a damage cap rating of 16% vs 75%, i think that corresponds well.

senatorhung's analysis: ship log showdown !; SSB strategy; leader in: Ancient Untouchables

_________________
Rank 2381 Sillixx Fixer 100% DCR r385-r2200 GL Marauder #26
_____________Image
PvP leaderboards: 57662 raids: #1; 29214 kills: #2; 52610 hacks: #2;


Last edited by senatorhung on Fri May 30, 2014 11:18 am, edited 2 times in total.



Tue May 20, 2014 6:19 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:33 pm
Posts: 1988
Location: Aboard Blackwood Hall
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Don’t want to burst your bubble, but I suspect the vast majority of players absolutely still look down upon SSBs as pointless.

Being smaller is an acquired taste, because it’s at times time-consuming, at times frustrating, at times quite expensive, and after (Rank+19) = (Max Decks Required To Fit All Modules), the benefits are totally nullified.

Oh, and just a bit of clarity, the term I added to this discussion, Huge Ship Build (HSB), specifically means the maximum possible decks to install all available modules at a given rank, so I don’t think there’s such thing as a “smaller than average HSB”, you either are maxed or you aren’t.

Lastly, I’ve hit Diegobene’s ship on numerous occasions and, without having run his numbers through the formulas, would say it definitely is solidly MSB relative to everyone in our badge range.

    P.S. Great stuff in the last post above mine.

_________________
DixieLandDelight: Lord SoulPlay's Padawan & Warden of the Chesterton Royal Asylum

Image
Image


Last edited by Annabell on Tue May 20, 2014 6:25 am, edited 1 time in total.



Tue May 20, 2014 6:21 am
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 140
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Yea I didnt talk much about the HSB curve, that one was supposed to represent the maximum value you should have on the graph. It wasnt really a point of my discussion I built on, but I just added it in anyways because I felt it would add perspective when graphing higher ranks onto it

Ill admit Id have to tweak my graphs in the future then. If what Im using are Deigos rank and decks....than my equation suggests hes at the MSB/LSB imaginary boundary on my graph....which is higher than Id like him to show up.
Rank 1200 with 2599 decks?


edit: I also strongly approve of the improvement to the SSB definition outlined above in sens post


Tue May 20, 2014 6:25 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:26 pm
Posts: 1045
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Awesome progress everyone... you duck out to smash one little base ;)

_________________
Be the hunter, not the hunted: Find out more about The Wild Hunt
Image
Deigobene


Tue May 20, 2014 6:38 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am
Posts: 3143
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Annabell wrote:
Don’t want to burst your bubble, but I suspect the vast majority of players absolutely still look down upon SSBs as pointless.

Being smaller is an acquired taste, because it’s at times time-consuming, at times frustrating, at times quite expensive, and after (Rank+19) = (Max Decks Required To Fit All Modules), the benefits are totally nullified.

    P.S. Great stuff in the last post above mine.


thanks, it is nice to be able to make a positive change to this nearly year-old guide.

as for SSB being pointless ? any long.time player will eventually reach rank 8042 and nullify the damage cap benefits of an SSB focus, but those who can reach a damage cap rating of 100% earlier, will enjoy those damage cap benefits for longer. for me, those benefits are worth the frustrations, but if someone else doesn't think it's worth the bother, i did include links to alernative ship building advice in the original post.

_________________
Rank 2381 Sillixx Fixer 100% DCR r385-r2200 GL Marauder #26
_____________Image
PvP leaderboards: 57662 raids: #1; 29214 kills: #2; 52610 hacks: #2;


Tue May 20, 2014 6:42 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:33 pm
Posts: 1988
Location: Aboard Blackwood Hall
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
senatorhung wrote:
thanks, it is nice to be able to make a positive change to this nearly year-old guide.

as for SSB being pointless ? any long.time player will eventually reach rank 8042 and nullify the damage cap benefits of an SSB focus, but those who can reach a damage cap rating of 100% earlier, will enjoy those damage cap benefits for longer. for me, those benefits are worth the frustrations, but if someone else doesn't think it's worth the bother, i did include links to alernative ship building advice in the original post.

Yeah, I'll never be an SSB (I think I had 2660 Decks by Rank 250), but I like the mechanics of being smaller than most of my peers, and I don't mean the damage cap mechanics, (that's just a perk), I just enjoy tweaking my various builds to fit whatever pieces that I have to efficiently do the task that that build is intended for, sorta like a bit of a puzzle; however, what I'm saying is the majority of players think we waste our time for limited benefits, and that's fine, they're entitled to think that and to whine when they try to badge us back. Plus we get to laugh when we log in and find they used three Gifts to the Naughty and eighteen EMP Spheres for a single badge while we were sleeping.

_________________
DixieLandDelight: Lord SoulPlay's Padawan & Warden of the Chesterton Royal Asylum

Image
Image


Sat May 24, 2014 3:08 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am
Posts: 3143
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: 100% DCR (SSB strategy guide)
someone couldn't find this topic for some reason ....

_________________
Rank 2381 Sillixx Fixer 100% DCR r385-r2200 GL Marauder #26
_____________Image
PvP leaderboards: 57662 raids: #1; 29214 kills: #2; 52610 hacks: #2;


Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:52 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am
Posts: 3143
Post Re: senatorhung's analysis: 100% DCR (SSB strategy guide)
senatorhung wrote:
someone couldn't find this topic for some reason ....

bumping again for the same reason.

_________________
Rank 2381 Sillixx Fixer 100% DCR r385-r2200 GL Marauder #26
_____________Image
PvP leaderboards: 57662 raids: #1; 29214 kills: #2; 52610 hacks: #2;


Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:54 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: