senatorhung's analysis: 100% DCR (SSB strategy guide)
Author 
Message 
senatorhung
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am Posts: 3087

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Annabell wrote: senatorhung wrote: rank 1  SSB up to 3x, MSB 3x to 6x, LSB 6x to 10x rank 500  SSB up to 1x, MSB 1x to 5x, LSB 5x to 8x rank 1500  MSB up to 1x, LSB 1x to 2.5x (assuming LSB 1x at rank 2000) Again, all I see a pretty picture, but no coherent formula that allows me to plug in anyone's Rank and Decks to get a value.that's because there is NO formula that will allow you to equate rate a rank 1200 with a decks / ssb deck ratio of 1.5x as a MSB along with a rank 50 with a decks / ssb deck ratio of 5x  hence my use of ranges. even then, you will need to test the values using all 3 curves for LSB, MSB, and SSB in sequence to determine where a ship falls (LSB includes all MSB, MSB includes all SSB). another reason i did not bother with the equations is that until there is agreement on the endpoints of the ranges, that is just wasted effort. Annabell wrote: Not trying to be mean, I'm serious about wanting to know what an MSB is, but is it just fair to say that the concept of SSB/MSB only applies to slowranking low rankers, and they don't care about anybody else but themselves, so it doesn't work beyond the middle of the midranks (about Rank 1340)? the concept of SSB / MSB / LSB has to do with damage cap considerations, which really are only applicable below about rank 1000. you are trying to bring in deck efficiency, which, if you want it to apply from low rank to high rank, needs a different kind of analysis. your SSSB number is already included in my efficiency chart, but it obviously has gone right over your head.
_________________ Rank 2232 Sillixx Fixer 100% DCR r385r2200 GL Marauder #26 _____________ PvP leaderboards: 56105 raids: #1; 27806 kills: #2; 47334 hacks: #2;
Last edited by senatorhung on Sun May 18, 2014 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 18, 2014 1:28 am 


maxer
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:51 am Posts: 304

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Why dont you guys just categorize ships based on the range of damage they can take instead of amount of decks.

Sun May 18, 2014 1:33 am 


dannic
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:55 pm Posts: 104

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
alright. took a look at what I was doing. how about this?
Ratio = deck / ((rank+19)/2)
This would in effect take into account the rank and would give a ratio that we could use to define the different ship builds.
Say a ship build of 3 or less would be SSB. Equal to or greater than three but less than seven would be an MSB. Anything greater than seven would be a LSB.
so a player at rank 1500 with 6000 deck would have a LSB at a ratio of 7.89. Where as the same rank with a build of 2500 decks would be an MSB with 3.29. They would have to get down to about 2250 to be a SSB.
Just an example. maybe it would work?
_________________

Sun May 18, 2014 1:37 am 


senatorhung
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am Posts: 3087

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
maxer wrote: Why dont you guys just categorize ships based on the range of damage they can take instead of amount of decks. assuming that decks / ssb decks reflects at 1x reflects 1 unit of damage, 2x roughly doubles the damage (defense neglected). so range of damage is already covered in the analysis. if you are considering fixed values of damage, 1000 damage on a rank 200 is not the same as 1000 damage on a rank 1000. dannic wrote: alright. took a look at what I was doing. how about this?
Ratio = deck / ((rank+19)/2) this ratio is just 2x (decks / SSB decks) ... so take this chart and just double all the numbers on the y.axis. any straight line across will still run into issues at the higher ranks.
_________________ Rank 2232 Sillixx Fixer 100% DCR r385r2200 GL Marauder #26 _____________ PvP leaderboards: 56105 raids: #1; 27806 kills: #2; 47334 hacks: #2;
Last edited by senatorhung on Sun May 18, 2014 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 18, 2014 1:52 am 


Annabell
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:33 pm Posts: 1988 Location: Aboard Blackwood Hall

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
maxer wrote: Why dont you guys just categorize ships based on the range of damage they can take instead of amount of decks. 'cause he's heavily invested in the notion that SSB/MSB/LSB is a longterm style of effective game play, yet then turns 'round and says it is no longer relevant beyond Rank 1000 (lower midranks).
Thus, if he agreed that my suggestion about damage cap ranges (that you're effectively endorsing), makes more far sense to the galaxy as a whole, it would marginalize the low rank obsession he's clinging to, rather than work to help illuminate a formula that works for the entire spectrum of the game, which his does not, unless you think the MyLilPony with 12861 Decks is an SSB like senatorhung's 3xSSSB formula asserts.
Oh, and don't forget at the same time he thinks that there's a difference between deck efficiency and minimizing the damage cap.
And to think the whole reason I posted here was to try and get a definition for an MSB that at least worked for my legion's average rank. ::sigh::dannic wrote: Ratio = deck / ((rank+19)/2) This doesn't take into account that Decks effectively cap at the max needed for all modules, which is currently ~8061.
_________________ DixieLandDelight: Lord SoulPlay's Padawan & Warden of the Chesterton Royal Asylum

Sun May 18, 2014 4:00 am 


Ghznl
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:17 pm Posts: 140

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Looks like my post got buried, but this is why you need curves to analyze it, and cant just use that decks/max decks list you gave to classify all ships: Annabell wrote: Ghznl wrote: This one doesnt apply properly to low ranks. I know a rank 150 with 2500 decks. Thats far and large a LSB. Yet according to your listing, he would be on the boarder of SSB/MSB But that's where you're wrong or just not seeing the big picture of what I'm trying to say.
Your friend is absolutely a midrange damage cap. I would hit him for 1250 per shot; meanwhile, I hit the average ship on my Battle tab for two or three times that each and every shot, no question, and consider those I hit for less than fourdigits damage to be a small ship build. (Yes, there are Rank 1200+ ships that easily take 3500+ damage per shot.)Except a rank 1200 ship with 3500 cap is 7000 decks, or 5.833 deck ratio A rank 150 with 1250 cap has 2500 decks, which is a 16.67 deck ratio So back to the rank 150 with 2500 decks, sure thats a good mid game cap for a mid rank player, but the player definitely is not a mid rank. Just looking at the deck ratio heavily implies a LSB for his rank, and suggests aiming for a HSB. When looking at a ship build, I believe its categorized first by rank before damage cap or decks. This is because you can only be hit by people within your range on your BT. Thus, we are looking at a low rank ship who just happens to have a midgame damage cap, not a ship with a midgame damage cap that just happens to be low rank. Thus, this suggests if he had a midgame rank, he would have an end game cap. But according to your formula, 2500 decks/ 8061 max decks = 0.31 SSSB score. This is barely within the MSB range. Sure its a midgame cap to you, but the build of the ship is dependent on rank. If we only use your formula (which completely disregards rank), then it heavily implies almost every single subrank 100 is a SSSB, and almost all ships in the rank 100200 range are SSBs. This is why the equation cannot be applied to low ranks. td;lr: 2500 decks = mid game cap, rank 150 = early game. Your equation suggests barely MSB, but ship is clearly LSB by far and wide. Annabell wrote: Why not something simple, like:
(Decks/Max Decks) = SSSB Score
SSSB Score <0.1 = SSSB
SSSB Score of 0.1 to 0.25 = SSB
SSSB Score of 0.25 to 0.5 = MSB
SSSB Score of 0.5 to 0.99 = LSB
SSB Score of 1.0 = HSB
A rank 150 ship is not mid rank at all. The game has evolved to the point where rank 150 is still pretty near low rank. Extremely early Midrank game content would be in reference to command nexus, and hypergrids. These dont even start showing until rank 200+. Rank 150 is still on the first set of elites in the game. Lets look at a few examples that prove it is only applicable to higher ranks. rank 50 with 200 decks, your equation suggests SSSB, this is truly a MSB build rank 150 with 800 decks, your equations still suggest SSSB, but this is easily MSB build rank 150 with 2500 decks, your equations suggests barely MSB, this is easily LSB build rank 500 with 2500 decks, your equations suggests barely MSB, this is an actual MSB build rank 1000 with 3000 decks, your equations suggest a MSB on its way to LSB, this is actually a somewhat smaller build than an average MSB rank 2000 with 3000 decks, your equations suggest a MSB on its way to LSB, this is what happens if you decide to stop adding decks but use your system. This is a SSB/MSB, not MSB/LSB rank 3500 with 4000 decks, your equations suggests MSB/LSB, but this is closest to SSB (Although I see how at such a high rank, SSSB/SSB/MSB/LSB/HSB analysis becomes a moot point) Although some of the above examples are correct when using your equations, they are generally incorrect. Notice how when the lower rank analysis is incorrect, it is significantly more inaccurate than the inaccuracy of analyzing the higher ranks. This proves the equation is not useful for low rank analysis.
Last edited by Ghznl on Sun May 18, 2014 6:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 18, 2014 5:32 am 


senatorhung
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am Posts: 3087

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Ghznl wrote: Looks like my post got buried, but this is why you need curves to analyze it, and cant just use that decks/max decks list you gave to classify all ships: i think she has blinders on. both of us have offerred solutions that could be applied to all ranks, but she is still stuck on the concept that a single number can determine SSB / MSB / LSB. i understood right away how your curves could be introduced, but i'm not willing to do the math until the endpoints are deemed reasonable. she also appears to be graphically challenged. continuing to focus on 3x / 6x as if i did not clearly indicate how those would diminish with increasing rank shows that she is not being reasonable, or in other words, trolling. as far as her contention that an SSB ship build strategy is a loser in the long.term due to the ever.increasing damage cap ... as long as your defense, hull and shield is increased every rank more than the effect of the damage cap, the build style will continue to provide benefits in terms of pvp. i already notice less module shuffling at my rank due to the increase in decks, but i have to consciously try to make the most out of my arti pulls before each rankup. if i do that all the way up to rank 1500 ? maybe i can be the first ship that requires a minimum of 1000 hits to disable
_________________ Rank 2232 Sillixx Fixer 100% DCR r385r2200 GL Marauder #26 _____________ PvP leaderboards: 56105 raids: #1; 27806 kills: #2; 47334 hacks: #2;

Sun May 18, 2014 5:57 am 


Annabell
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:33 pm Posts: 1988 Location: Aboard Blackwood Hall

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Ghznl wrote: If we only use your formula (which completely disregards rank), then it heavily implies almost every single subrank 100 is a SSSB, and almost all ships in the rank 100200 range are SSBs. This is why the equation cannot be applied to low ranks. I was offering the SSSB Score as a quick poorlyexplained idea of a possible modifier to compensate for decks maxing, NOT intended as a stand alone formula for anything other than relative damage and should have noted I just guessed at the ranges of the four builds.
In other words, I'm trying to brainstorm and inspire others to use something similar as part of a solution, since I don't know how best to piece all the concerns together, or I wouldn't have come here with my question if I did.
Also, I never said the Rank 150 was midranked, I said the damage from 2500 Decks was midranged relative to the entire spectrum.
Part of the problem is I'm trying to use the SSB/MSB/LSB nomenclature to describe what would better be called "efficiently diminishing damage cup".
senatorhung wrote: Ghznl wrote: Looks like my post got buried, but this is why you need curves to analyze it, and cant just use that decks/max decks list you gave to classify all ships: i think she has blinders on. both of us have offerred solutions that could be applied to all ranks, but she is still stuck on the concept that a single number can determine SSB / MSB / LSB. i understood right away how your curves could be introduced, but i'm not willing to do the math until the endpoints are deemed reasonable. she also appears to be graphically challenged. continuing to focus on 3x / 6x as if i did not clearly indicate how those would diminish with increasing rank shows that she is not being reasonable, or in other words, trolling. Not trolling at all, I'm completely serious that I came to the forum looking for a formula that adequately describes an MSB beyond low ranks.
I doesn't need to be simple, it should be complex with more than one variable, and I'm truly not sure why y'all are averse to a modifier that compensates for max decks to prevent the silly numbers given from the straight rank formulas that are clearly written in the OP as definitive with NO mention there of their diminishing with rank.
_________________ DixieLandDelight: Lord SoulPlay's Padawan & Warden of the Chesterton Royal Asylum

Sun May 18, 2014 6:43 am 


Ghznl
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:17 pm Posts: 140

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Basically all we need now is equations to match up with the graphs that are drawn, and it will be more accurate. I might find time to work on some graphs myself tomorrow, since its getting pretty late here.
Ah, I guess I misread that part on midrange. Then again, a midrange cap is usually associated with a midranked player. But well, my point is stated and Im happy where my part of the discussion went.

Sun May 18, 2014 6:55 am 


Annabell
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:33 pm Posts: 1988 Location: Aboard Blackwood Hall

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Ghznl wrote: Basically all we need now is equations to match up with the graphs that are drawn, and it will be more accurate. I might find time to work on some graphs myself tomorrow, since its getting pretty late here.
Ah, I guess I misread that part on midrange. Then again, a midrange cap is usually associated with a midranked player. But well, my point is stated and Im happy where my part of the discussion went. I'm quite happy with my ship today, but she started out like your friend's, and so I'm really just looking for an equation that can help me set goals to continue to improve her through the midranks, but can't do that if I don't know where the target for the MSB/LSB borderline is at my rank.
Anyway, thanks for your time. I appreciate it and hope you rest well. ^_^
_________________ DixieLandDelight: Lord SoulPlay's Padawan & Warden of the Chesterton Royal Asylum

Sun May 18, 2014 7:06 am 


senatorhung
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am Posts: 3087

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Annabell wrote: In other words, I'm trying to brainstorm and inspire others to use something similar as part of a solution, since I don't know how best to piece all the concerns together, or I wouldn't have come here with my question if I did.
Part of the problem is I'm trying to use the SSB/MSB/LSB nomenclature to describe what would better be called "efficiently diminishing damage cup". okay that clarifies matters. when you threw in the max decks for all ship mods, i thought you were somehow trying to work in ship mod efficiency so that's why i drafted up the deck efficiency chart (damage cap vs max decks). i can mostly jettison that now, but then your aim is just to ensure that the yaxis decks / ssb decks = 1. SSB / MSB / LSB doesn't even come into the picture. xaxis = decks / 10k max decks for all ship mods yaxis = decks / (rank + 19) Annabell wrote: senatorhung wrote: continuing to focus on 3x / 6x as if i did not clearly indicate how those would diminish with increasing rank shows that she is not being reasonable, or in other words, trolling. Not trolling at all, I'm completely serious that I came to the forum looking for a formula that adequately describes an MSB beyond low ranks. I doesn't need to be simple, it should be complex with more than one variable, and I'm truly not sure why y'all are averse to a modifier that compensates for max decks to prevent the silly numbers given from the straight rank formulas that are clearly written in the OP as definitive with NO mention there of their diminishing with rank.[/color] the OP was written nearly a year ago and used the information from the shiplog showdown that was available to me. Golgotha was the highest ranked, just past 1200 or so, so the definitions i came up with were intended only as rough guidelines. in the many months since, no one else had come up with anything better. for most folks using this guide, anything past rank 1000 is a *LONG* ways off, so there is no point in updating that info until we come up with an update that works. i proposed a new outline that Ghznl is willing to generate curves for ... awesome. but i think a rough agreement on the specific endpoints of the ranges would be prudent before he does all that work of tweaking how sharply the curves should drop. that is why i stuck with the straight diagonal lines ... the equations would be much more straightforward. if he comes up with something workable, i would be glad to update the OP. but in this reckoning, SSB only applies up to about rank 500 or 600. if so, i don't think you will be able to extend the terminology for MSB effectively into higher ranks anyway. so you may be looking for something that won't exist. so a rank 2000 with 1x decks / SSB decks can't reasonably be called a 'small' ship build, but it *IS* optimized for damage cap, which might require a different terminology. but again, there shouldn't be anyone over rank 1000 that needs to use this guide to SSB strategy.
_________________ Rank 2232 Sillixx Fixer 100% DCR r385r2200 GL Marauder #26 _____________ PvP leaderboards: 56105 raids: #1; 27806 kills: #2; 47334 hacks: #2;

Sun May 18, 2014 8:50 am 


senatorhung
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am Posts: 3087

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
so given this chart: #1. SSB deck boundary (y) = 3  0.0757*SQRT(rank)  3x at rank 1, 1x at rank 700 #2. MSB deck boundary (y) = 6  0.129*SQRT(rank)  6x at rank 1, 1x at rank 1500 #3. LSB deck boundary (y) = 10  0.2012*SQRT(rank)  10x at rank 1, 1x at rank 2000 so, plug your rank into equation #1. if your value for (decks / (rank + 19)) is less than what you get from equation #1, then congratulation, you are a SSB. if your value is more, plug your rank into equation #2. if your value is less, you are a MSB. if your value is more, plug your rank into equation #3. if your value is less, you are a LSB. if your value is more, you are a HSB.
_________________ Rank 2232 Sillixx Fixer 100% DCR r385r2200 GL Marauder #26 _____________ PvP leaderboards: 56105 raids: #1; 27806 kills: #2; 47334 hacks: #2;
Last edited by senatorhung on Mon May 19, 2014 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon May 19, 2014 2:39 pm 


umbongo
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:04 pm Posts: 1063

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
senatorhung wrote: so given this chart: LSB deck boundary (y) = 10  0.2012*SQRT(rank)  10x at rank 1, 1x at rank 2000 MSB deck boundary (y) = 6  0.129*SQRT(rank)  6x at rank 1, 1x at rank 1500 SSB deck boundary (y) = 3  0.0757*SQRT(rank)  3x at rank 1, 1x at rank 700 No matter the outcome of this re: what actually dictates SSB, I have to say keep up the good work Senatorhung
_________________ UmBongo, UmBongo, they drink it in the Congo....
I did some naughty things, and now they have put me in the Royal Asylum, based in Chesterton
Alumni of the Crimson Lances and Lords of Infinity
Rank 971, Strict SSB,Possibly the jazziest ship in the universe

Mon May 19, 2014 2:47 pm 


Ghznl
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:17 pm Posts: 140

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
ah, I got caught up with work yesterday, and I got called in for a holiday shift today, so I have not gotten around to making the curves yet. But those are some pretty nice curves and I appreciate the effort.
Only 1 thing to pick at. Isn't Golgotha considered a MSB? At rank 1539 with 2049 decks, the graph places him walking into LSB territory.
Maybe the curves could level out slower. Peticks ship build is still pretty SSB compared to almost all other ships in his rank range (rank 600), but is about to step out of a whats considered SSB on the graph.
I'm not advocating a change must happen, But after looking at the curves (which make it easier to evaluate then lines actually), I imagined end points at 1000 and 2000 for SSB and MSB respectively. A LSB could be somewhere between 28003000 decks? A rank 2000 with 2000 decks still seems pretty MSB to me, because a lot of shuffling is still required with just that many decks at a high rank due to module availability

Mon May 19, 2014 3:08 pm 


senatorhung
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am Posts: 3087

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Ghznl wrote: Only 1 thing to pick at. Isn't Golgotha considered a MSB? At rank 1539 with 2049 decks, the graph places him walking into LSB territory.
Maybe the curves could level out slower. Peticks ship build is still pretty SSB compared to almost all other ships in his rank range (rank 600), but is about to step out of a whats considered SSB on the graph.
I'm not advocating a change must happen, But after looking at the curves (which make it easier to evaluate then lines actually), I imagined end points at 1000 and 2000 for SSB and MSB respectively. A LSB could be somewhere between 28003000 decks? A rank 2000 with 2000 decks still seems pretty MSB to me, because a lot of shuffling is still required with just that many decks at a high rank due to module availability now that i have things in the spreadsheet, i can tweak the endpoints readily enough. i used SQRT as it gives a more gradual curve ... do you have any suggestions for another function that would lengthen the tail without distorting the rest of the curve unduly ? however, i think this gets back to the confusion about SSB as damage cap versus SSB as requiring major ship mod shuffling. if MSB is about an in.between mode of module shuffling, then a rank 2000 endpoint makes sense for that, but it doesn't for damage cap. the formulation for 3x and 6x in the original post were dealing with damage cap considerations. the new formulation is attempting to cover the ship mod shuffling, so it might make more sense just to use total decks on the y.axis. the contrast between these 2 is what the 'deck efficiency' chart was attempting to reflect (yaxis for damage cap, xaxis for mod shuffling flexibility). they are both deck oriented, but are 2 distinct concepts.
_________________ Rank 2232 Sillixx Fixer 100% DCR r385r2200 GL Marauder #26 _____________ PvP leaderboards: 56105 raids: #1; 27806 kills: #2; 47334 hacks: #2;

Mon May 19, 2014 3:29 pm 


Ghznl
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:17 pm Posts: 140

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Alright, so I made my own version of the graphs from what I believe works, your opinion would be appreciated. The axis labels arent there, since I just used a cheap online graphing site to do this. Its still decks/SSB decks on yaxis and rank on xaxis. For the general public, instead of plugging your values into the line equations, there is a simpler way to do this. Simply compute Yourdecks/(rank+19). Now find where that is on the yaxis. You should easily be able to find your rank on the xaxis. You should know what to do from here. These should correspond to a point. Use that point to extrapolate which ship build your closest to. These are by no means the strict definitions of each build, rather a wawy to just quickly visually see where you stand for an average build of each type.Code: http://graphsketch.com/?eqn1_color=2&eqn1_eqn=&eqn2_color=2&eqn2_eqn=8061%2Fx&eqn3_color=2&eqn3_eqn=1&eqn4_color=4&eqn4_eqn=9.25%5E(0.9994655%5E(2.15x))%2B0.75&eqn5_color=5&eqn5_eqn=6.25%5E(0.999304011%5E(1.45x))0.3&eqn6_color=6&eqn6_eqn=3.5%5E(0.9991597%5E(1.25x))0.55&x_min=125&x_max=3000&y_min=1.25&y_max=10&x_tick=100&y_tick=1&x_label_freq=5&y_label_freq=2&do_grid=0&do_grid=1&bold_labeled_lines=0&bold_labeled_lines=1&line_width=4&image_w=850&image_h=525
Typical SSB Typical MSB Typical LSB HSB curve limitEdit: The link doesnt work properly when posted as a whole, for some reason, the link breaks where )) brackets are present The bottom red line is obviously SSSB (decks = Rank+19) The next three lines are selfexplanatory what they represent. The Red curve represents HSB as of 8061 decks required. The equations are the form of ___^(0.999...^(__x))+__ No other standard types of equations could produce anything close to the square root function. This was probably the closest I could get, while elongating the tail without significantly dropping the height of the first half. The LSB equation cannot be applied beyond ranks 2500 because of its nature, it will cross the HSB function first before it reaches the 1x ratio. There was a lot of experimentation in place, but some specific endpoints were used SSB ends at rank 1000 MSB ends at rank 2000 LSB has 4000 decks at rank 2000 f(x) = 8061/x < HSB curve f(x) = 9.25^(0.9994655^(2.15x))+0.75 < Typical LSB f(x) = 6.25^(0.999304011^(1.45x))0.3 < Typical MSB f(x) = 3.5^(0.9991597^(1.25x))0.55 < Typical SSB f(x) = 1 < SSSB line Edit2: I realize equations for MSB and SSB dont actually start at 6 and 3. They start at 5.95 and 2.95 respectively. This is because I had already perfected the graphs before I realized I made the mistake, and I dont intend on going back to fixing the endpoints when the yintercept error is so trivial. Another change I proposed is instead of If you are less than function 1, you are SSB If you are less than function 2 but more than function 1, you are MSB I instead opted for this type of analysis: Each function represents what I believe is an average ship build of each type.  The closer you are to function 1, the closer you are to a typical SSB. If you are above it, you a large for an average SSB, if you are below, you are small for an average SSB.  The closer you are to function X, the closer you are to a typical XB. If you are above it, you are large for an average XB, if you are below, you are small for an average XB

Mon May 19, 2014 6:50 pm 


Deigobene
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:26 pm Posts: 1036

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
I think it is a little ridiculous to assign arbitrary endpoints to things like MSB.
According to both charts, despite not adding decks and despite adding ranks, people supposedly magically become LSB?
If your badging range contains people with decks from 44007700+, why would you *not* call something in the 20003000 range an MSB? Small, Medium, Large  seems pretty straightforward to me without the need for an equation.
_________________ Be the hunter, not the hunted: Find out more about The Wild Hunt
Deigobene

Mon May 19, 2014 9:19 pm 


TrinityThree
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:31 am Posts: 453

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
It's more that MSB is defined as rathe a ship style that uses decks necessary to be more versatile then a SsB by not requiring as much mod shuffling. Once you pass 20002500 deck range, the main purpose of MSB becomes lost. Then the only thing left to consider is damage cap, and by then your are definitely approaching a LSB damage cap.
So basically, yes MSB does have a upper limit since it's based around the number of useful mods available, but less limiting than SSB. Regardless f it's because of rank, having 3000 decks at rank 3000 is extremely questionable as SSB, since tha is no longer a small damage cap to peers, and way more decks than necessary for only the most useful mods. The same thinking can be applied to disqualify it from MSB. Thus, a 3k deck ship regardless of rank is definitely becoming LSB
LSB wa th original play style. SSB and MSB evolved as an individual playstyle to excel at pvp and more (for msb) while maintaining a lower damage cap. The term was not created o refer to smaller ships you'd find on your BT. These were created from individual up, not peers down
_________________ 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!

Mon May 19, 2014 10:36 pm 


Annabell
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:33 pm Posts: 1988 Location: Aboard Blackwood Hall

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
Okay, so if I'm doing this right, then...
Senatorhung’s formulas:
SSB @ Rank 1357 = ~0.21 MSB @ Rank 1357 = ~1.25 LSB @ Rank 1357 = ~2.59 HSB @ Rank 1357 = ~5.86 Ghznl’s formulas:
SSB @ Rank 1357 = ~0.8 MSB @ Rank 1357 = ~1.29 LSB @ Rank 1357 = ~2.35 HSB @ Rank 1357 = ~5.86 Which puts me at the lower end of LSB, which I knew, but these give me a great idea of how much larger I am than an accepted range for an MSB at my rank.
Thank you both very much. ^_^
TrinityThree wrote: [...] having 3000 decks at rank 3000 is extremely questionable as SSB, since tha is no longer a small damage cap to peers, and way more decks than necessary for only the most useful mods. The same thinking can be applied to disqualify it from MSB. Thus, a 3k deck ship regardless of rank is definitely becoming LSB I don't disagree that the common terminology doesn't work at higher ranks, but I absolutely disagree that a difference doesn't still exist nor that their peers don't note a smaller damage cap in that instance.
Having a damage cap of 3000 when your peers have a damage cap of 4031 means the former is likely noticeably smaller when paired with a significant crew and allows for things like longer sustained siege between repairs during base combat, all other stats equivalent.
Obviously the quality of the efficiently diminished damage cap wanes with rank, but it still exists in some fraction up to Rank 4011. (And this ceiling will increase as content continues to expand max decks.)
_________________ DixieLandDelight: Lord SoulPlay's Padawan & Warden of the Chesterton Royal Asylum

Mon May 19, 2014 10:49 pm 


Deigobene
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:26 pm Posts: 1036

Re: senatorhung's analysis: SSB strategy
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 "nonessential" 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.
_________________ Be the hunter, not the hunted: Find out more about The Wild Hunt
Deigobene

Mon May 19, 2014 11:11 pm 



Who is online 
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests 

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

