EXTREMELY CHEAP SOTL!!!!!!

[Banger]

The cheapest way is keep it at level 2, then when it lowers to 1, level it up. Then when it gains enough ATT, raise it up to 10. But it is a gamble. Your just as likely to lose ATT as you are to gain it.

At level 2, its generally pretty cheap to run the risk.

[PFH]

The cheapest way is keep it at level 2, then when it lowers to 1, level it up. Then when it gains enough ATT, raise it up to 10. But it is a gamble. Your just as likely to lose ATT as you are to gain it.

It can stay as a level 2 with 60 atts just would be easy to sink

[Cdv]

Simply from seeing so many battles, Wins and Loses...

I wonder what is the highest number of attributes that has been achieved. I think I have seen a 76 before.

[Banger]

Simply from seeing so many battles, Wins and Loses...

I wonder what is the highest number of attributes that has been achieved. I think I have seen a 76 before.

I have a 75

[Sebena]

I had cutter 85 att points but it ended on scrap yard by accident when I was cleaning

[sXs]

70 att SOTL best I have.

[DezNutz]

There is a difference between a trader running unarmed ships in the hope they wont be attacked, (but if so, they pay the toll) and deliberately engaging in battles you have no intent to win just to lose some levels in the hope the rebuild gains more atts than you lose.
If traders made attacks with their unarmed ships, it would, of course, be considered deliberate.

It isn't in the hope that they don't get attacked. It's basic economics. Most trade fleets aren't going to win a battle. Why put cannons on them that cost gc to upkeep, thus diminishing your overall profits, when they are going to lose anyway. Traders know that at some point there fleets will be hit. It's a deliberate action knowing full well that in any battle they will lose and potentially losing a level on their tail. If traders were worried about winning battles, they would trade with war fleets. I see it as the same, you are setting up to deliberately lose in battle. The difference is the why.

Also those that attack to lose a level are taking a significant risk. The ship must be the tail for them to lose a level and attacking adds danger (assuming you are attacking players and not NPCs). As well, there is the chance that losing and re-leveling results in a negative attribute change.

[DezNutz]

Simply from seeing so many battles, Wins and Loses...

I wonder what is the highest number of attributes that has been achieved. I think I have seen a 76 before.

Admin's Cutter. I'm sure the attributes are well beyond 70.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Yeah, you can just hunt for NPCs and remove your cannons. No need to attack other players at all.

Yep, thus my point about it could be viewed as an exploit : its choosing to go into battle deliberately to lose. An unarmed trader does not seek battle, they just know if engaged, unwillingly, they will most likely lose even if armed.

Its certainly foul play in game rules to deliberately lose a PvP battle : maybe admin should enlighten us if that also applies to PvE.

I do see cases of 'fair play' in that though : some nation mission NPC's are so strong, you need to grind them down with repeated hits to get the final win. You can also do that in PvP, sacrificing your first hit but knowing it will add damage to the target which your next hits will benefit from. It's long been the case that a busy war-fleets tail will often end up with high atts : is that deliberate? No, its inevitable. So, its a grey area.

[Windy]

Though it sucks for people like me. We can barely afford to level up good ships