QFT

No, you are thinking about this wrong. You are not firing ONE weapon at the ship, you are firing a volley of assorted attacks.
So no, the damage output of ONE weapon is, most likely, not affected. The smaller ship is just hit by a fewer number of your overall volley, hence less damage overall. So a size 600 ship takes 100 dmg from "an attack" that deals 200 to a 1200 size ship, that's probably because out of the say 50 10-damage shots, the 600 ship is only hit by 10 and the 1200 is hit by 20.
Of course, we COULD do a dice roll for each of your weapon and then each of your TO etc, but that only increases the variance, the effective average would be the same.(thou it would be fun to have a complete miss and/or a one-shot kill on extreme ends of the luck spectrum)

So basically your saying Attacking ship 1 has 5 cannons and the damage from those 5 cannons are required to hit damage cap, so when ship 1 fires all 5 cannons always hit. but Ship 2 has 20 cannons only 5 are required to hit to always do damage cap... your telling me that 15 cannons (or 75% of the cannons) ALWAYS Miss? What? Do you have Stormtroopers firing your cannons?

Sigh... I give up.

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious... to most people at least.

Your attack is like a volley or barrage from all your different guns.

Think of your attack as a shotgun blast, with lots of different pellets all flying in a general direction.

If the blast radius of the shotgun is smaller than the target then every pellet is useful, and the full potential attack power is unleashed on the target.

If the target is smaller than the blast radius, the excess pellets are simply wasted. The attack power of the shotgun remains unchanged... the only difference is the size of the target.

The smaller target doesn't change the attack power of the shotgun, it simply gets hit by less of it.

No Stormtrooper shooting skills required.

How much damage is lessened or Avoided by a ship is already calculated by Attack vs Defense.. Remember Defense includes Helmsmen & Thrusters which tells us already how well a ship can maneuver and avoid damage/attacks being thrown at it. So lets it avoids 10 the blasts from 10 cannons in the volley in one hit, but only 15 cannons the next.. the Damage is STILL only 500 because the ship is smaller? Basically, the current system says it doesn't matter of 5 cannons or 50 cannons in a volley hit the ship it is still only going to take 500 damage... once again, absurd, ridiculous.

And remember we are not talking X-Wing sized ships here, we arn't even talking Millennium Falcon sized ships.. we are talking ships the size of Star Destroyers, Death Stars, Battlestars, at the smallest of the size range, your talking Enterprise or Enterprise D sized ships (which can only hold like 1,000 crew members, and we have ships out there are holding 100k crew or more)... come on, really? still want to try to defend the broken damage cap system? Do you really want to defend something so Illogical.

What a load of rubbish...

How much damage is lessened or avoided by a ship is already calculated by Attack vs Defense modified by... wait for it... the damage cap.

Just because you don't like it, or don't understand it, or can't use it, or feel it is your right to 2-shot people 800 ranks below you doesn't alter the fact that is how it works.

If you don't care what other people think, nor wish to consider any opposing views to your own, then perhaps posting continually in the Suggestions section of the forum is not the best plan?

The very least you could do is label the threads honestly.
Maybe something like:
"Damage Caps suck: Couldn't disable someone 500 ranks lower than me and now I feel sad and powerless"

At least then we could all just ignore it in peace

As previously mentioned...this whole thread comes across as a bruised ego.

You have been given two explanations for the purpose and reason behind the damage cap for SSBs







This game lacks logic in a lot of other places, but it doesn't matter. Why? Because this is a game...

Take a minute to comprehend the two explanations right there. If you can't understand that then don't comment on this thread about SSBs having flawed damage caps. If you do it only proves that you don't understand it.

Not exactly, my point is and always was simply that from the same volley of attacks, with same defense, a larger ship would take more damage than a smaller ship.
I am not, however, necessarily ok with deck being the sole factor of "size", I think passive hull should enter into play as well.
I am also not satisfied with the concept of hard cap, diminishing return sure but not hard cap. In other words, I have a problem with the tanh part of the formula and NOT the damage cap part of the formula(thou if it can exceed one and grow indefinitely, it would not be a "cap" but rather a modifier)
But regardless of modification, a twice as large target with same amount of defense should take, if not 2x more damage, at least sqrt(2) more damage.

I have no problems with there being a Damage Cap. What I am totally against is a Damage cap being based upon the size (decks/space) of the defending ship instead of being capped by the Power of the Attacking ship.

The Size of the ship does not decrease the amount of damage my ship is CAPABLE of doing. The Defense of a ship should determine how much damage was avoided (due to thrusters & helmsmen) and how much damage was able to be absorbed (dampeners) from my attack. Period, ship size (space or decks) should not determine this.



That's kinda like saying a Toyota Prius will take less damage than a Semi Tractor Trailer would take from a being shot with a Shotgun Blast.

For the record, I player kill when I have to, I keep an Insane combat rep, but do I enjoy it? no, because the current system sucks (there, I said it, happy?), yes the system Sucks, it's backwards and Broken. And no, It's not because I can't disable ships, its a simple fact that it is not Logical.

As a player, would I expect my ship to get destroyed in a few hits by someone 800 to 1k ranks higher than me, or more? yes if they had the attack power to do it. I would expect someone with 200k attack to come along and blow up a ship with 40-50k defense in 1, 2, 3 or 4 hits. That's logical, their ship has more firepower than the defending ship could hope to withstand, regardless of the 'size' of the ship. Would I expect that the ship with 40k-50k defense puts up a heck of a fight and is a pain to disable for someone that has 50k attack, sure of course, once again regardless of the 'size' of the ship

keep crying dude

Good times don't come easy, dreams don't all come true
The world looks like a prison when you're stinging with the blues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3oAHER-fbw

The Current system is Broken period. Unfortunately those people who feel that they should be able to fend off attacks from people hundreds of ranks higher than them or players that have 10's of thousands or more attack than their ship has defense and want to defend the flawed system don't want to see it that way.

So anyone who comes here and posts to make suggestions to Improve the PVP system, to correct it so that more people actually want to pvp instead of quitting or hiding behind halcs .. they are just whining, crying.. sure, ok.. That's what I'm doing, I don't want to see a broken system change to better the game.. nope, that has nothing to do with it.. /sarcasm off

Wah, wah, wah, but don't worry, don't worry though, your use of sarcasm really showed us the validity of your arguments (arguments which have been answered numerous times btw)

PvP ain't broke (beyond everyone hunkering down below a halc-srsly man up guys and girls), I still do plenty of it...

In fact it does, if shot from a sufficient range, chances are more pellets will miss the Toyota Than the Semi.
Now, the Semi will also be able to, probably, withstand more shots. But that's only because it have more hull. But it does take more damage per shot nevertheless.
And most certainly our ships are not being shot at point blank.
And no, it doesn't matter even if our ship is bigger than the sun. Given enough distance, even a tiny angle difference can miss the sun. And space battle can very well be fought outside of visual range. Heck, most fighter planes of this age do just that(granted their visual range is shorter)

Wow, Chade... you are dense. Is your ego hurt?

I think the shotgun analogy is not accurate. You can't have a "volley" of 50 or 100 weapons AND compare it to a single shot from a shotgun.

btw, I hadn't really thought about the fact that you don't have just ONE weapon, but a group of weapons firing on a target.

Think of Star Destroyer from Star Wars. They have a bunch of blasters and cannons on them. Each individual weapon would have it's own firing solution. (ie a weapon on the front of the ship would fire at a different angle than the weapon at the back of the ship. Hence the shotgun analogy is invalid because each individual pellet wouldn't have it's own firing solution.) In movie 4, RoTJ, the opening scene is a Star Destroyer firing at a Corellian Corvett. The Corvett is much smaller and some of the shots from the SD hit it, and some miss. Each INDIVIDUAL shot that actually hits the target has a set amount of damage it would do to it's hull and shields.

Now, I think the only way to REALISTICALLY use a damage cap based on this information, is to give the attacking ship (and the defending ship too, if it ever wants to fire back when being attacked) a variable based on the size of the ship it's firing at. A smaller target is harder to hit, so maybe only 30 of the 50 weapons hit it's target. So add up the damage from 30 random weapons that actually hit their target, and THAT is the damage the target should take. The smaller ship returns fire, and a larger target is easier to hit so maybe 20 of the 22 weapons hit their target (remember a smaller ship will have less weapons due to space restrictions). Likewise, add up the damage from the 20 of the 22 random weapons that find their target, and THAT is the damage it does in return.


Now to address the amount of Hull a ship has. Seriously, are you saying you could fit as much hull from a battleship into something the size of a tank? Not gonna happen. There's just not enough room in the tank to put that much hull. Even with the strongest material known to man. Also, constructing a ship made of paper mache? (shakes head, rolls eyes). So imho, the best way to integrate hull into this is to make all hull (whether it be on a big ship, or a little ship) made of the same material and thickness. The way it is now in the game, hull and decks are independent of each other, and therefore, unrealistic in relation to each other. Now a smaller ship will have less surface are needed for hull, and a larger ship would need more hull. So to make it realistic, you would have to limit the hull a ship has by the number of decks the ship has. The more decks, the more hull. Not so many decks, well, less hull. But more maneuverability, so less of the weapons firing at you will actually hit you.

Shields wouldn't need to be worried about as much and could be left the way they are without trouble I think.

Thus the damage cap would not be based directly on the size of the target ship, but rather indirectly through the number of weapons firing at the target which actually hit it. The number of weapons that hit it could be varied by an RNG so you might end up with some shots being 25/50 that hit, and some being 40/50 that hit. Critical hits might have all 50/50 hit critical or sensitive areas.

Now, you might think I forgot something, and I almost did. TO's. To apply TO's to the attack, you would divide your total number of TO's by the number of weapons on your ship, adding to each weapons attack power.


Now, I know for a fact a lot of people with ssb's would probably HATE this, simply because they could lose out on a bunch of hull. But if you want it to be realistic, I think this is the way it should be done. If you like ssb's and want to keep it the way it is, then you obviously don't want a realistic game experience. Which is fine.

Had this been the way it was from the start, I think this would have been a GREAT way to go, but to change it to this way now would probably piss off a lot of ssb players and make a bunch quit.

Why not? The Attack power of your ship is represented by the shotgun, the individual shots from different weapons represented by the shotgun pellets.
I could have just as easily referenced any actual volley, broadside or barrage from any battleship, ever... it's exactly the same principle.
Lots of different weapons, all aimed at the same target... but not every weapon will find its target.

My point was that thinking of your Ship Attack as a single projectile fired from a single weapon doesn't make sense in the context of GL...
especially given anyone complaining about the damage cap is likely to have at least 50 different weapons installed.

So far as I can tell, your suggestion to factor in hits and misses based on size is just a more difficult way coding-wise of factoring in what the damage cap already tries to do.
I may well have missed something there though.

On the subject of hull, the description of Durtanium Brackets is helpful I believe:

To my way of thinking, the game specifies that Durtanium Brackets don't add to space, as they are interior stabilization of bulkheads, not exterior.
They are not physically increasing the actual amount of hull, they are increasing the structural integrity of the existing armor or hull.

While the statistic itself is referred to as "Hull", what the actual number refers to is therefore better thought of as Hull Integrity.

Anyway, enough from me, I have a game to play Have fun all!

Be as it may, there would be a limit to how much you can put onto the thing. Hence my suggested concept of counting passive hull but with a discount for deck(first deck*500, for example, passive hull does not apply toward damage cap)
I mean think about it, regardless of how you use it, the bracket is a piece of matter of defined size and a ship of specific deck size would certainly have a finite amount of space, therefore there exists a finite amount of bracket that can be fit without the ship being filled up. Even if the ratio is bigger(5000 instead of 500 or whatever), it should still exist. It'd be better to be added when no one have really reached it than to be added retroactively when many have.


On the matter of TO-for-weapons, I'd rather the TO increase the accuracy of weapons than damage. Or perhaps allow some amount of damage increase, to maybe 2x, and then the rest are accuracy. Quite frankly, a weapon can only handle so much load before exploding.