again people need to take a step back and read what i have posted in no way shape or form have i whined about losing i dont care if i lose i routinely get disabled multiple times a day it doesnt bother me. here is my problem if one ship has 3 times the guns and 4.5 times the defense who should be doing the more damage. i dont care if it meant i had to use 1k energy what matters is he shouldn't be doing double the damage with less effective stats. again when comparing att to defense of a ship im at a 6 hes at a .5 how does that equate to twice the damage.

You've posted the same thing like 4 times now and people have given you the reasoning like 4 times now if your not going to get it really no point in others wasting there time.

He has a valid point. I'm not saying I agree with it since it's well beyond the point of revising the entire pvp system, but he does have a point.

SSB isn't broken, it does exactly what it's meant to do. The problem is that a small ship may be able to fly circles around you, but that shouldn't mean it's shots should be more effective. The way the system should logically work is that if you attack an SSB with a ship drastically overpowering it, you should do drastically reduced damage, but still not take increased damage in return. SSB is there to lower their damage cap, not lower the required attack to damage a larger ship. That same SSB would be blasted if it tried to attack the larger ship on its own, so why should it do increased damage while defending itself?

Again, I don't think the system should be altered after this much time, but the point does hold merit.

LOL.. about every 6 months these threads show up. Ok.. OP.. Dan wants it this way, it will not change, that you need to understand. Many have complained before you, and many will after.. it is what it is.

Now.. to try to explain further... he is not able to cause more damage than you can. You are just unable to hit him.. ie direct hits. If he were of equal size you would do more damage than he.

Next.. compared to you his gameplay experience sucks. He is not capable of scanning near the planets you can... ever. He has low energy compared to what you can/will. He will have no real hope of taking decently defended planets.. which you will/can. He can't hack worth crap. He will never enjoy the many many modules that are available in the game.. you can/will. After he hits rank 300-400 he will realize all this and either try to fix the build (but is too late to be competitive), reset, or quit in all likelyhood. So.. before you worry about this little issue.. think of all that, and use the extra bit of energy and kill him, while you laugh at the poor sap.

defense is relative.

2 ship stats:

Ship A has
100 decks w/ damage cap 50
4,000 Attack
4,000 Defense
10,000 Hull

Ship B has
1,000 decks w/ damage cap 500
8,000 Attack
8,000 Defense
10,000 Hull

Think of this image, damage cap is on the left and attack along the bottom


The closer you get to doing max damge the more attack you need, doubling your attack will NOT double the damage dealt.

So, even though ship B has a higher attack and defense because the damage cap is much higher ship A does more damage ie ship manages to hit for 1/3 damage cap (167) but ship B does full damage (50).

wah wah wah.

on the high seas, there were plenty of big fat galleons with big cannons that got taken to pieces by smaller, smarter pirate ships with expert boarding parties. me, i like sending my tactical officers out there in their combat suits with real-time guidance from my helmsmen. starship troopers anyone ? they are cherry-picking prime targets on your ship while you are still floundering like a whale to turn about to face where my ship USED to be.

those who aim for the ssb have done so after learning how the pvp system actually works. if you didn't bother to figure it out before building your massive ship, that's your oversight. tough noogies.

and myth raises good points about the constraints an ssb player must work within. but some of us do like the challenge ...

ok, let's try to describe damage formula by the way it is given.
1. instead of thinking of one attack as "one shot", think it as a volley of shot fired by all your cannons and TO(using rifles or whatever)
2. instead of all attacks going to the exact same direction, they are made, instead, "in the general direction" of the target, like a cone.
3. the maneuverability of the ship, that is to say the defense, is thus used to find the area within enemy fire that have the least "shot density" so to speak.
4. given the above, the attack/defense ratio therefore governs the density of fire that the ship will be hit with, which is percisely described as tanh(attack*(random(0.6 to 1.666))/(defense*5)) Note that "1" would be the saturation point at which no more attack can be fit into the region.
5. The damage cap of a ship is the SIZE of the ship(deck=size~), and that governs the CROSS-SECTION of the ship.
6. the damage that a ship received would be, therefore, the density of the attack in the region multiplied by the cross section (similiar to pressure*area=force)

Per line #4, the SSB will end up in a area of "denser" fire than your ship.
However, as you can see, due to his smaller size, he will still take less damage simply because less area is applied.

This is more or less a perfect illustration in the exact fashion that the damage formula works...

You can also consider the case of sunlight. even in the case where the moon is between the sun and earth, the moon will still recieve less total light than earth, because while it is closer to the sun so the light is more intense(light per unit area), its smaller size makes the total light (intensity times area) smaller.

ty for a some support. what the others are not looking at is my point or they are ignoring it. no where ever in game or real life does the size of a ship confer more powerful guns. his att relative to my defense was at a .54. now any where else in real life or game terms when someone has way inferior guns compared to defense they do less damage. what im trying to point out is that the cap system is implemented badly. the reason i say this is that if you probe someones numbers to find out strength and weakness that those numbers mean absolutly nothing because decks then are the only determining value of damage. that to me seems wrong when compared to everything else ever learned. where the strength of a gun or the strength of a hull determines damage.

SSBs also have a harder time making a competitive ship (the lack of space for guns/defenses and the minimal space for energy means almost all rank points must be split between these) and have a myriad of annoying disadvantages such as having to constantly swap modules to do just about anything. In return for these annoyances which require micromanagement and generally (in terms of ship strength) a weaker ship than their peers, they are rewarded with a smaller damage cap and higher PvP abilities.

its a bloody game, its not meant to emulate real life. people know how the game works, they have worked within the game mechanics to make the best pvp ship available.

Put it this way, 1 tiny little fighter destroyed the Death Star, go figure.

Did you even read uy's argument? It explains it fairly clearly.

You want a real life example? You have a .50 caliber and they have a 9mm.
you try to shoot then but they dodge and you only barely hit their foot. Because you move slowly though they hit you in the head.

Sure one guy had the bigger gun but who did more damage?

I've seen this sort question pop up for a while now every now and then and while I can see you frustration I feel like adding my 2 cents.



Gotta agree, properly the best quote i've ever read on this forum, at the end of the day it really comes down to game-play styles If someone whats to plough all them points into helmsman and tac for a good SSB build then fair play to them for the time and effort spent going down that route. I like to stick most my points (almost 98% at least) into decks and in the future while having a load mods on my ship I know that my ship will be under-powered in pvp compared to others due to my pitiful 33 tac offices, but what I will be able to do is NPC - Missions - Scan or just contribute to base energy depending on how I feel at the time. Basically I'm trading off one thing (pvp strength and damage dealt and received) for the flexibility of been able to play any style I like at any time. SSB's have taken the time to understand the game dynamic's and use them to their advantage, changing the rules now would just make most of them quit overnight and that's not a good solution at all.

Can we just crash our humongus ship into their tiny ship and annialate it?

but they are faster than you.... can't crash things you can't catch

you do know that attack comes from tacs as well as cannons? to me it sounds like you are complaining about having tacs and no guns and he still beats you.....quit your whining and play the game

Your examples here do make things much simpler, but they also leave out a key bit of information that is what the OP is having an issue with. In both cases you are operating under the assumption that the incoming fire (or sunlight) is a constant, where the problem here is that we are dealing with unequal attack values. Like I said last time (and unless I'm mistaken the OP said as well) the problem is not so much that an SSB receives less damage per "volley" of fire than a larger ship under attack by the same attacker, it's that an SSB will do more damage in return than a larger attacker even if the larger ship had more attack.

As I said it's not exactly a problem, the system is what the system is and we all have to work with the system just like everyone else. The "problem" is the jump in logic that happens when an SSB does more damage simply because it is an SSB.

If I were to attack a ship with 500 decks and 500 attack, and a ship with 2000 decks and 10000 attack, the larger ship should logically take more damage AND do more damage. His attack should be relative to my own ship size, not his ship size. A 9mm round fired by a midget shouldn't do more damage than a 9mm round fired by a giant just because the midget is harder for me to shoot in return.

You see, words are like bullets...

@follyuu: your logic is backwards. A ssb does not do more damage because it is an ssb. It only receives less damage.

If a ship with 10k decks and an ssb both had 5k attack and they both attacked the same player, they would both do the same damage.

That segment was worded poorly, it was referring to when the SSB is under attack. In my experiences with SSB they have done an inordinate amount of damage when on the receiving end of an attack as compared to larger ships with comparable attack. I was going to edit it for clarity but Nar already quoted me so I just left it as is lol.

Basically what I was getting at is that if I attacked a small ship he should be harder to hit, and I should be easier to hit. However the damage cap should be just that, a damage CAP, not a % modifier for all return fire. If an SSB only has 300 attack for example, and I attack with my 16k defense, the SSB should only be able to do a pitifully small amount of damage. Course since I don't make a habit of going after people with stats that low I wouldn't know the avg damage they would do in actuality so I can't quote that for you, but I'm sure you get the idea. Yeah they might hit me, but less attack should mean either lower caliber bullets or fewer bullets depending on the analogy you wanna go with. They should have an outgoing damage cap relative to their small attack just as I have an incoming damage cap.

I can clarify if needed, it seems like the points are being lost in translation by trying to keep up all these analogies that have been thrown around.