Had an idea (uh oh).

Basically, it changes the way crew works. Instead of 1 TO = 1 Attack, it goes something like 100 TO = 1% increase in Attack.

Some numbers:


Forces you to have more attack modules if you want more attack. The same principle can be applied to defense and, with caution, energy.

Module efficiency remains, so you could still pull off an SSB but it just wouldn't as as effective.

Thoughts?

(Disclaimer: I honestly haven't put much thought into this so balancing will be required. Just throwing it out there.)

I would be all for ANY system that makes the choice between small and big ship one where you have to carefully weigh the pros and cons of your ship design vs. the current (and IMO broken) system, where time and AP makes it only a question of "how small can I stand to keep my ship?" for strategic-minded players.

I've posted something similar to your idea before:



Have also suggested awesome (but deck-dependent) Ship Modules, that would only be available to larger ships...

Would love to see something done on the Damage Cap/Ship Build front!

wont change mutch, as you still need TO's to actualy get that bonus

and if you have 300.000 TO's = 300.000 attack (before bonuses)
where or not you also get 8 * 13,330 = 106.640 extra attack from your 8 Heavy Quasi wont make mutch difrence exept in planet invasions against planets with 300K defence

sure it a nice bonus, but in PvP you are proberly still better off not adding the 8 * 55 = 440 decks needed to install the 8 Heavy Quasi
as no matter how high your attack gets, all you can do is the dammage cap of your enemy ship in dammage pr hit

DarkMar, he is saying instead of 1 TO:1 attack, it would go toward the ship modules output, so it would make a very big difference.

Yeah, your TOs would no longer add attack themselves. They'd just increase the attack of your Modules.

That sounds like it might actually work. Could use this for other crew as well....

No surprise that the master of poorly thought out random crap thinks it could be a winner.

Any idea that suggests changing the basic foundations in place since the beginning many moons ago is dumb.
This one is very dumb. Like seriously, industrial-strength stupid.

Mainly because:
a) It is too far down the track to alter the entire nature of how things work in that way.
Suggest tweaks by all means, like Pongo's big ass mods, but if you want a new game entirely, go make it yourself.

b) it is ridiculously more difficult to code... instead of 1 TO being +1 Attack, you want it to be 1% of 1% of the installed attack... my god, so stupid it burns. Mind-numbingly, head-shakingly, ground-breakingly hard to retrofit to a system that is currently 1=1.

c) TOs would be useless to anyone that doesn't already have fully upgraded Quasis and a full set of weapons.
Doesn't just affect high rankers and SSBs. Why should the TO of a random 5-year+ player who can't understand math or damage cap be worth more than a new Rank 100? Seriously, why should it?

d) What person in their right mind wants someone else's dumb idea taking away the attack they have worked for?

my bad then, read it as giving both attack and that bonus...

1% bonus from 100 TO's might be to mutch,
deleted my standart weapons, but as I remember it you can get around 35K to 40K attacks from modules now now if you install all weapons, and other systems that add attack and upgrade them

35K * 31 (from 300K TO's) would give you 1.085.000'ish attack before bonuses if we presume it a standart attack bonus that effect all installed systems

-1

The idea doesn't make decks relevant again.

It makes any work SSB's or LSB's have put in the last few years irrelevant is what it does. That year you spent investing in 20k TO's, means crap because TO's just represent % boost now rather than actual attack.

I honestly wonder where suggestions like this come from, because from my mind as a LSB, decks are already relevant. If you want to install every ship module, that's the relevancy right there.

Not having to piss around with your ship 40x a day because at different stages of the day you;

PvP
Scan
Defend a planet with your ship
Defend yourself from PvP
NPC
Hit a base
Hack Players

Or any other thing you might want to otherwise do as a SSB that would require you to swap modules around. That right there is where decks are already relevant, they already provide a half dozen purposes... they don't need a fundamental game change to make them useful.

This idea just seems like a way to get people to increase their damage caps by directly eliminating something they've spent years investing into(TO's). So it's yet another thread trying to take away a SSB's advantage, because lets not kid ourselves here, that's what your entire premise does.

You want to make TO's, Helmsman and Engineers provide a % boost rather than their current 1:1 ratio. So what this idea will do is force SSB's to add thousands of decks, because your idea means their ships are trash unless they install several thousand more decks to fit every module.

I'll concede that that may not have been your intention with the idea, but that is exactly what it does.

How does it? The advantage of an SSB is that you take significantly reduced damage in PvP because of your low cap. You still get to keep that cap. You've just got to have more AP/h and more crew to remain as effective as larger ships.

Please don't tell me that's not a good trade-off.

lol you must not have read your own idea.

There are SSB's at rank 500 who have 30k+ attack.

30k is only a 300% increase to their attack.

You show me a SSB rank 500 with 30k attack who can fit 10k attacks worth of weapons into 260 decks.

Then you want to make Engineers and Helmsman do the same thing?

So they might need to fit 10k attack from weapons, 5k defense from mods and like 2k nrg from modules into just 260 decks?

You tell me how they can do that and remain a SSB.

Screw around with the numbers then. I did write:

Nah that's your job, see you made the suggestion. I(and others) just showed you the flaws in your idea.

I wouldn't make a suggestion on this subject, because as i and others pointed out its a daft idea. Decks are already relevant because they let you fit more #&$# on your ship.

Some players just choose not to use them and those are called SSB's.

Also, It's not our job to have to work on your idea for you. Maybe just don't make the suggestion next time without doing some simple math on it that i did in 30 seconds.

Then don't.

I haven't nor do i ever intend to, because there is nothing wrong with decks at the moment. There's an issue with a couple hundred people with huge deck numbers having sucky ships, but most have had 3+ years to fix that, they are just inept at doing so.


Rule #1 in suggestion making is to do all the leg work yourself before making a suggestion, it's not our jobs to fix your suggestion which is what you seem really perturbed at.

Our jobs would be to add constructive criticism sure, but the idea itself is fundamentally flawed to begin with, and you can be constructive about an idea that is unworkable on the face of it.

People could save themselves hassle and any back and forth like this, if they just put time into their suggestions instead of just pouring mindpuke into a post and stating disclaimer #&$# that could easily be condensed into;

Disclaimer: I didn't think about any of this, i came up with this bs in 3 minutes with no fact checking. It's ace.

i agree with dieg here even though he a ssb and i can not stand ssb damage cap and would not dan to purge that advantage from the game as show me a small car hitting a big truck and who survives the truck will lol.

but with this idea i agree to leave it be this is 1 of the worse idea's to try and crush the ssb advantage it would even crush some of the bigger ships advantage making some so weak compare to some others it take them another 4 to 5 years to get back to the stage they are at now making those who stayed the same much higher in strength.

/ff

Just to clarify, while I am on the small side, at Rank 1731 with 2602 decks I am not really in the SSB category.
Think I am probably safely in the MSB ranks for some time yet.

In fact, this suggestion would not affect me much more than the very largest of ships, because I can easily swap out scan and replace with researched weapons again.

What it would mean is that larger ships with only a decent amount of AP would have considerably less attack against the same number of decks.
Whoops... I'm not sure that was part of the plan - nerf Large ships, nerf Small ships, make Medium ships even more awesome than I already think they are.

So my concerns are not really about size, but with the problems of a percentage based system.

No big deal, everyone above a certain rank with good AP would suffer more or less equally... by which I mean, anyone who has taken the time and effort to build up good AP would in the short term lose the benefit of most of their work, while people who had not done anything would still be weaker, just by much less.
Not so fair really in the short term, though what happens in the long term would be much worse, but in the opposite direction entirely.

As Pokerman points out and as did Kirk, this suggestion would affect everyone who has built up their TOs, not just SSBs.
Initially, you would literally be carving out 100s of 1000s of attack from some individual large ships as well.

Then, in the not so distant future when larger numbers of people inevitably get to a certain number of TO's their attack would shoot up significantly due to the percentage.

For example, let's say someone has a modest attack with mods, allies and upgrades of 20k and hits 200k TOs... then instead of +200k TOs + 20k attack = 220k attack you have an unbuffed attack of 400k... ouch!
Add buffs and they are giggling like a supervillain.

If you then hit 300k TOs, you have would have 600k, so would be getting double the value of each TO to what you are now.
*Cue maniacal laughter*

So in a very real sense, a % based system would just hurt young players, making all TO's below a certain level essentially meaningless.
At the other end of the spectrum, those who have good AP might take an initial hit before eventually wetting their pants with delight once their TOs start generating way more attack than the current 1:1 ratio.
Doesn't really matter how you tweak the numbers, make it any less and the attack bonus for low levels is even worse.

Low rankers, far more than high, would get completely screwed as their hard-earned TOs would be worth a tiny fraction of what they are now, which is straight out unfair and counter-productive.

Thanks for your reply Diego. I don't think I can argue with much of what you've said, lol.

I concede. Thanks for giving me insight as to why this idea is not a good one.

Sorry mate, I only got your second PM after I'd taken the time to more thoroughly outline my concerns.
Certainly never intended to imply you were dumb or stupid in my original reply, but as soon as I did some sums on your suggestion I was horrified by the ramifications.
I should have taken more time then to write it down properly then and I apologize if you thought it was an ad hominem attack.