I am unsure how this would be implanted (as I am no good at making formulas) but I would love to see a damage cap re-balance.

The current damage caps makes very little sense and they encourage 'cheap' and lazy builds which make player vs player mode boring and heavily time consuming, just for a single kill.

Now less give an example, say a ship with 50 attack attacks a ship with minimal defense and has 20 decks.
The maximum damage a the player can do is 10 damage, even if he had 20,000 attack he would still only do 10 damage.

Perhaps smaller ships have increased defense and larger ships have higher health (hull/shield) and attack instead of having a ridiculously low damage cap.

If this problem doesn't get fixed any time soon I wouldn't be surprised. Though I would like to see a slight improvement at the very least.

EDIT: I know this thread has been suggested, many, many times. But the cap was last updated THREE YEARS ago. People have made their ships stronger and now the current formula is outdated. If you think tiny ships taking out much larger ships with minimal damage is fair, then I have concerns.

I'll just jump on this grenade....been suggested in many ways form many angles...its been the way it is for years...ain't changing...get used to it and accomodateo your play and targets accordingly.

Yeah, at this late stage of the game, and with so many players having invested so much effort in their ship builds / strategy, I don't see this changing anytime soon. Or ever, really. I get the whole "it's harder to hit a small ship, yada, yada, yada". What I don't get is how it follows that if you have a large ship it must necessarily be a fragile, delicate thing that takes massive damage when hit. Doesn't make sense to me, but it is what it is and is likely never changing.

Lol....Can I steal that for the next time some Pvp malcontent claims Halcs / Calming Amps are unfair and should be nerfed?

I havent seen so many comments in one night i agree with fully in a while.

Roddenberry.. you succinctly express my issue with the current cap. Who cares if ssb take less...why must a lsb get ass hosed just for deck size.

That's the end of any rant on my part. But we all should accept and move on that things are how they are. It's not a sudden surprise nor did it sneak up on us. Unless 2-3 years is a sneaking window of time.

Love ya man.

Troll people.

Make the current damage cap formula be the minimum amount of damage you can deal to a ship. :v


(It makes sense, logically. Bigger target = easier to hit. Not really sure it makes for a good gameplay mechanic though.)

Bigger target; easier to hit..... yes. Easier to do massive amounts of damage to it when you do hit it? Entirely different question.....

Feel free to steal

If a semi traveling at 100 mph hits a bicycle, will the bicycle survive with nothing more than a scratch? No, it won't. The damage cap in this game is ludicrous. It makes PVP a clickfest, and this is a bad thing considering much of this game has already become a clickfest due to the lack of "use all" buttons, etc. The deck factor should be completely removed. Damage should be based on attack vs. defense. Dan could possibly add some random factors in to slightly modify the attack or defense on any given hit, but this should not be a significant factor.

I'm sure some SSBs would hate the change, but let's think about it. It would be really easy for most SSBs to adjust after the damage cap gets removed. Most of us have 100s to 1000s of ship bots that sit in our cargo collecting dust. All these SSBs would have to do is add some decks and install the researched modules that they ignored. Some of the other modules from missions and such could take more time, but once again, it wouldn't be difficult to adjust. If they refuse to adapt, they can halc like 90% of the players in this game or they can get destroyed by the big guns. Like the FDOT tells me when they install toll roads here, "The choice is yours!"

KEvin,

I don't totally disagree with you. But i do think since the change occurred a couple of years ago..many if not all people who reset or started since play with cap in mind for their long term build.. To switch mid stream would seem unfair.

There are tons of threads on cap and ssb and arguments and unhappiness on all ends. I totally agree that there is somewhere out there a medium balance that doesn't let ships get killed in 2 hits by mega ships while at same time not letting people slide by with nothing equiped and yet deal atrocious damage. Not to mention, as you say, ship bots are fairly worthless to most of us..and adding modules and decks for benefits oft= being a weaker ship due to taking more damage.

I say cap the damage smaller ships can take, BUT they cannot DEAL more than their own cap to anyone else. THAT would make things interesting again.

So sure, you want to have a 300 cap..groovy...sweet, you are a tank. But you can't nuke strike larger ships at the same time with crew (flinging themselves?) at the other ship. MAke the benefit have a handicap.

The true sadness is that the cap has effectually discouraged many people from utilizing so many of the games features and play format in lieu of trying to avoid dying more. Gone are the days for leviathan (metaphor, not ship class in GL) ships cruising around with cool stuff installed. Now ,like the dinosaurs, are archaic and slowly, but very steadily phasing out. A few old holdovers with so much AP that God couldnt count have lots of decks...but they are outliers in what has become a candy shell version of the way things used to be.

So don't hold your breathe waiting on cap to change.. Accomodate what it is..arti spam if needed.

interesting ... but would also tilt the field too much in favour of the behemoths then. a smaller ship would never be able to retal effectively against the massively bigger ship and higher ranks would just feed on lower ranks willy nilly.

the highest rank player in the game and i have traded disables for the daily mission arti. he is up 2 to 1 on the count, but i suspect that both of us put in about the same amount of energy for our results. nerfing HIS damage cap to match mine would have made my disable of him nearly impossible.

but going partway might give a better result. each ship's damage cap would continue to be the same number. but the damage dealt could by any ship would be capped by the average of the damage caps between the 2 ships.

so ship1: rank 1000 SSB - 1019 decks ... 509.5 damage cap
ship2: rank 5000 LSB - 7000 decks ... 2509.5 damage cap

the LSB would still only be able to deal 509.5 damage cap when the SSB is fully EMP'd.

the SSB would however only be able to deal (2509.5 + 509.5) /2 = 1509.5 damage cap to the LSB. so a 40% decrease in the possible damage dealt by the SSB per hit.

using that formula would lessen the negative associated with damage done to LSBs without deprecating all of the hard work put in by SSBs.

as for Kevin's argument that SSBs can easily adjust ... hogwash. SSBs have designed themselves for years to be tough to kill in PvP, giving up advantages in other areas of the game that the LSBs have enjoyed for those same years. the fairness is not in adjusting to a new regime, but in losing out on all of the opportunities that they sacrificed in order to achieve SSB.

I think that's how it should be.


To the idea though, maybe not more damage than their cap, but a multiple of it. You shouldn't be able to deal more than 2 x your damage cap, for example. It's a little less hard on the little guys.

I think your suggestion would add to the clickfest problem, because it effectively would force SSBs to click a lot more to disable other players. In the end, your idea would also force SSBs to move toward LSBs.



The part about converting to LSB isn't hogwash, but I can understand how you make a case for fairness. However, something needs to be done. It's unfair that ships are effectively crippled in PVP for having too many decks. Attack and defense should be the major factors. All other considerations should be minor, at best.

Out of curiosity, what advantages do I enjoy as a LSB?

#1. no need to shuffle mods. SSBs need time to shuffle mods out and in when they switch between game modes - scanning ... invasions ... PvP ... NPC ... hacking ... missions - each requires a different setup. the time taken can mean the difference between taking that alerted or newly scanned 15x or being too late. i almost missed out on getting on Exotica yesterday as i had to quickly shift from hull mods to attack mods when i thought the H1 guards were going to abandon their posts (turns out i had to take out a few first anyway). as well, the constant shuffling means that modules break and have to be repaired.

#2. better overall ship stats since you can even include the least efficient ship modules. SSBs have to have an extreme focus on efficiency and trade.offs. the higher attack that LSBs can bring to bear means easier planet invasions ... quicker base takedowns ... less energy and xp spent to NPC. higher scan means more chance of getting that choice enemy planet. higher cloak makes for easier hacking ... yadda yadda.

#3. no need to be concerned about ranking speed. LSBs can do any mission, auto.rank as many levels as they want NPC'ing, donate as much energy as they want to bases. they get more planet slots quicker. SSBs always have to watch out for rank increases because each time they rank up, their damage cap increases.

here is my 100% damage cap rating (SSB) strategy guide.

basically, it takes alot of work and time to become a successful SSB. LSBs get advantages in all other aspects of the game besides PvP. SSBs succeed in the PvP arena at the expense of other aspects of the game (at first ... eventually EVERY ship reaches 100% damage cap rating).

and juice's idea of limiting damage done by SSBs was originally floated in this topic. i will echo the point i made in that previous discussion: "the real issue is that at high-ranks, ship modules do not measure up to the crew and hull/shield from artifacts. addressing that issue would allow folks to build their ship however they please."

IMO, the best solution would be to have non cloak/scan/recharge modules "powered" by your crew, brackets, xcharges -- instead of a basic attack, defense, shield, hull, energy, give each module an "efficiency rating" that is multiplied by your ship's permabuffs.

E.g. your Heavy Singularity Launchers are not very efficient, but on the bright side, they are cheap. Each one of these cannons adds 69 to your attack plus its efficiency times Tactical Officers (0.008 * TOs), meaning a ship with 10k TOs gains 1192 attack with all 8 cannons installed, while a ship with 100k TOs gains 6952.

On the other hand, if you want to spend a boatload of credits, you could install the Heavy Quasi blasters, and get a much higher efficiency rating: 143 base attack [i]plus[i] its efficiency times Tactical Officers (0.015 * TOs), meaning a ship with 10k TOs gains 2344 attack with all 8 cannons installed, while a ship with 100k TOs gains 13144.

Or if you want to get really crazy, earn your Tri-Blasters with the best efficiency rating: 103 base attack [i]plus[i] its efficiency times Tactical Officers (0.021 * TOs), meaning a ship with 10k TOs gains 1252 attack with all 4 blasters installed, while a ship with 100k TOs gains 8812.

Basically: you want more attack? You gotta install something for your TOs to use. Whether you want to go for maximum space efficiency or just throw on as much as possible is up to you. Same principle would be in play with defensive, energy, hull, shield, modules.

I can't see this ever happening, because the change would be too radical, but I think it would be fair, and really encourage different styles of play (minimalists/specialists, efficiency builds, death stars, and everything in between).

A more practical solution with the system we have in play and are used to would be to simply to allow critical hits to surpass damage cap.

I like both pongo's idea and senators. Both have merit for making lsb more playable, while altering the ssb advantage but not nerfing it. I am still an advocate of not killing the ssb. I am still an advocate of making the use of modules an enticement for people rather than cookie cutter ships with no flare.

The attack advantage gained by modules drops sharply over time. At low ranks it may be advantageous for a while to install those big hunking items...but when you reach a point, you will get ass jacked by everyone if you are relying on that for your power. To's are the ultimate play and that comes from production. Invades/attack/basing, all boils down to production...modules lose efficiency in a somewhat linear fashion inversely to rank in my estimation. The other part is that the cost is a prohibitive factor for people. I've seen a lot of ships struggle paying for all that crap. Which means they don't invade planets, cant buy structures...and so on.

To the end point, i concur that people use/gain the advantages of what they install over time...thats the whole purpose of having those things. And for all intents EXCEPT pvp, the space may be worth the while. As the game is somewhat pvp centric..at its core...well...eventually they will regret those items.

Have the damage cap be modified by the attackers scan relative to the defenders cloak (with cloak not just affecting the chance of receiving 'critical' damage). It might be a small ship, but if I can target it effectively it should be able to be hit just as effectively...
Maybe have the standard damage cap + (10% of (attackers scan - defenders cloak))

At the moment LSBs are penalised heavily in PvP against an SSB... An example from the last week of PvP:
Rank 1025 (SSB) vs rank 1598 (LSB)
SSB: Attack: 48928+ / Defense: 23970+
LSB: Attack: 142416 / Defense: 149601
SSB: 119 damage received
LSB: 1208 damage received

No matter how you look at it, that sort of damage with that rank and attack vs defence differential should not not occur... Hence why I think that the damage cap is broken...

And what about an option for removing decks from a ship? An 'anti-ship bot' arti, for example, that allows people to reduce the size on their ship if they have too many decks (rather than having to do a reset to become a SSB and lose 4-5 years of effort in the process).

I have no desire to talk yet again about the damage cap but if (as I suspect) you have grabbed those stats from the combat window rather than a probe, they are not correct... the + indicates you are missing information, so the comparison is completely flawed.

I only point this out because I have noticed this is a consistent mistake people make.
Basing arguments that damage cap is broken based on fatally flawed comparisons is obviously problematic.
It can (and does) make a huge difference, especially at higher levels where researched mods make up such a tiny proportion of both attack and defense.

Eg: A ship with these weapons installed and a selection of maxed allies is going to return a value a little over 10k attack unbuffed... that is not what the unbuffed attack value of this ship is.

Radiant Surge Cannon - Mark VIII x2, Raix Megaweapon, Bralkir Ritual Chamber, Nightclaw Fighter, Hull-Adaptive Ray, Uldri Wave Ejector, Cosmic Rail, CK69 Assault Sentry, Dominion Tri-Blaster x4, T-Plasma Gemini Cannon x3, Cerulean Fighter, Chromatic Cannon 3.0, Korteth Twin-Blaster x4, Composite Ray - Type S x4, Drone Cluster, Combat Analyzer, Prototype Mech XV