You are making the argument for self-imposed disadvantages that being a SSB creates. The LSB PVP disadvantage is not self-imposed, but is the result of an actual game mechanic.

As a LSB, I also have to uninstall/install modules to get the results I'm looking for. For example, when I go on PVP runs, I uninstall some scan modules. Why? I'd rather see a battle tab full of players mostly below my rank than over it.

As for taking a planet that has been alerted, freshly scanned, or even recently stolen from you, that's about the only advantage I have over a SSB. However, once again, that "disadvantage" is created by you. It is not being created by the game’s code.

If I understand correctly, you were taking Exotica so you had to install your attack modules to take it because they were defending? Planet defending via guarding highlights another issue with the SSB damage cap.

Lastly, the price of repairing modules is negligible once you hit a certain point in this game. I have to repair my scan modules and relays all the time because I'm constantly installing and removing them for PVP or maximizing energy when ranking. Credits are not a problem late game.



There is no advantage for LSBs here. When it comes to the researched ship modules, their total of your overall stats becomes negligible outside of the early stages of the game. Artifact production becomes key for stats such as attack and defense.

SSBs can have very high SS so I fail to see your planet invasion argument. Base takedowns have everything to do with your SS as well but more so teamwork. Refer to my statements earlier in this paragraph concerning artifact production’s role in attack and defense. No advantage for LSBs here.

How does being a SSB or LSB change how much energy you spend or XP you earn to NPC? It doesn't. If your energy bar is too low for your rank, dump some rank points into engineers. Once again, this is easily accomplished with good artifact production. No advantage for LSBs here.

As you argued with your point #1, you can install scan modules for your scan runs. In other words, SSBs can boost their scan in the short term to have a chance at scanning planets with higher cloak. SSBs therefore have the ability to match the scan of the LSBs when scanning. No advantage for LSBs here.

Higher cloak doesn’t really matter. If someone really wants to hack you they will hit you with a flare. There are plenty of people even as a LSB I can’t hack without using a flare first. No advantage for LSBs here.



How is this an advantage for LSBs? If we rank up, our damage cap also increases, does it not? The only advantage here is an artificial one created by SSBs by slow ranking so that they can dominate newcomers who come within their pvp badge ranges. Slow ranking is another major problem in GL and IMO, it drives away a lot of new players. However, let’s save slow ranking for another discussion so we don’t highjack this thread. 



I think I addressed how being a LSB has no real advantage when compared to the major advantages SSBs have. I look forward to your response and encourage others to join the debate to help find a solution.

change it. i agree. defense means nothing while rank and decks mean everything. few arties and defense is negative actually

True, there is missing information, but that's not the only thing to focus on... Consider the number of Tac Officers and Helmsmen that have to go in to getting an attack & defence of 140k-150k (to save you thinking, it's about 70k TOs and 45k Helmsmen).... And the relative ranks - unless the r1025 was slow ranking as an SSB for the last 5 years or had 150k aph for the last 2 years, he wouldn't be able to get enough RP to add enough TOs and Helmsmen to be in the same ball park...

Anyway, his attack only influences the damage he does to me, which is dictated by my damage cap (which is nearly the same from decks or rank), so is an irrelevant number here... And unless he had been putting a large amount of RP into Helmsmen, which is unlikely at that rank unless he had so many RP that he couldn't be bothered putting them all in to TOs and Engineers, his actual defence would not get to the point where it could almost negate 142k attack...

The issue is that the damage cap on an SSB prevents an LSB from from being effective in PvP, and currently there is no game mechanism to change that. In all honesty, I would happily remove lots of decks and go to swapping between modules - but that's not even an option in the game. The core of the issue is that the damage cap limitation introduces an unlevel playing field that prevents people from enjoying the game (and I wonder how many players will have left the game by the end of the current biweekly - but that's another issue entirely).
But if you don't want to talk about the damage cap, then keep out of the conversation

lol, I will happily stay out of the conversation if people stop posting inaccurate attack and defense stats to support their arguments

@Kevin:
#1. Dan introduced the damage cap to ensure that 1.shot kills prevalent in other online games were impossible in his Galaxy. he tweaked the formula a number of times in the first 14 months of the game, but has left it alone since April 2011 (over 4 years).

#2. you scoff at the "self-imposed" disadvantages of low.rank SSB and the time and effort required to become a high.rank and effective SSB. you state that damage cap is just a game mechanic ... well so is attack from ship modules. the whole point of the SSB is to make a trade.off of lower decks (and lower attack) now, for higher PvP advantage later. tortoise and the hare. lower attack means more energy spent on NPC and PvP and lower chances to invade planets, all that multiplied by the time spent as SSB. LSB has an OBVIOUS advantage and you would have to be blind hare not to see it (apologies to blind people).

#3. high.rank PvP is a pain. i get it. but as i have always stated: "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." using high.rank LSB vs SSB as a reason to nerf SSB misses the point that runaway arti production makes EVERY ship a beast. the only reason a SSB can have high ship strength is by playing for years with high arti production. LSB can also get high ship strength that way, but can also get there much earlier with ship mods, and can keep that advantage for hundreds of ranks, if not thousands.

#4. arguments that conflate high.rank LSB vs SSB and offer solutions to that realm without recognizing that those solutions apply to low.ranks as well (and badly at that). the 'unfair' damage that SSBs deal at higher ranks is completely miniscule at lower ranks, so nerfing SSB would just mean that no one would ever choose to go SSB, undercutting Dan's intention to allow for a variety of ship builds and ensuring that bigger is not always better.

#5. scan scan scan. how many decks does it take to fit all the scan modules? i count 2163. so, the highest ranked SSB that can include every scan module is rank 2144. so until then, LSB will always have higher potential scan than the SSB. higher scan = better chance to scan for and LOCK planets with higher cloak (those which tend to give higher production).

#6. LSBs have more decks than SSBs right ? so of the 2 formulae that determine damage cap:
1. decks / 2
2. ranks + 19 / 2
LSBs rely on the first one. hence, ranking up does not affect their damage cap, while ranking up DOES affect a SSB since they rely on the 2d one.

#7. of course credit costs don't mean anything to anyone above rank 750. but remember that the SSB will rank more slowly in order to build up AP to get the crew and androids needed to become successful later. that means more time spent at the lower ranks where credit costs ARE still a major factor.

silly that this post is now...i have solid data points for ssb damage versus lsb...myself...i sitll think some middle ground is needed....much like Christian preachers on corners yelling at the masses..people dismiss the argument based on the arguer. This does not negate the validity of the argument, it just masks it due to the ineptness of the presenter. I think educated people know the cap is slanted heavily for ssb... I know i'm educated and have tracked stats and it is.

I have and continue to state I don;t like ssb, but respect the players and don't want to nerf their play style. At the same time, i DO want to promote the larger ship profile, which endemically involves a shift in cap and/or how modules play a part in games mechanics.

People complain that ssb have to shift scan modules, to that i say so what. How oft do you scan and thus how many seconds have you lost to swap things out?
People share planets and scans, legions ffa nice planets..and so on. To boot people with no scan avility find dysons and inactive 20-22x planets. I don;t for a second buy the defense that small deck ships 'suffer' from having to shift items time to time...oh no....I have to spend a moment to max my gains, while still being small and not taking more damage.--then go back to my turtle build. PLEASE.

LArge ships benefit from taking more damage all the time, while being portrayed as benefitting from using those decks. Using them to get bent over, sure. I cannot more plainly state that LSB has next to no benefits over smaller ships. I hit some silly people for as much as over 5k damage. Do they gain an advantage there or me? Guessing a few more defense or hull won't save them.

If i said it once I've said it a million times....put your butt in a little PT boat...I'll hop in a battleship...let's see who wins! At least make it semi realistic here!! I raise cattle...i know BS when i see it...this SSB stuff is BS!!! Don't punish those of us who worked so hard building a big bad ship cause others chose to stay a tiny little dingy.

Damn straight! Hate your comm messages but I'll agree with you on this one

How often do people attack someone outside of their range in this game? Very rarely. It will usually only occur if there is a war or if a low rank steals a planet that a larger legion owns.



I already explained this in my previous post, but let me explain it for you again. Ship modules account for a very small % of your overall attack and defense. This is well known to any long-term GL player. The main driver for high attack and defense in this game is artifact production. With that said, every player in this game can get high SS if they play the game correctly.

By the way, do you really want to argue about energy spent PVPing? Try being a LSB attempting to take down a SSB. Goya brought the rank 1025 guy up. I can only hit that ship for roughly 100-250 dmg per hit. Guess how much energy I'd have to spend to disable him? It probably takes him less energy to disable me even though I'm willing to bet his attack and defense are a lot lower than mine. That's a joke and proves how much of a major advantage SSBs have in this game.



I'm confused. You start off by telling me ship modules don't matter, but then you argue they make a huge difference. As I explained before, outside of starting this game as a new player, the ship modules barely make a dent in your overall SS. Artifact production is the primary driver for attack and defense. Every player in this game can achieve high artifact production. Since that is the case, there is no advantage for LSBs here as you claim.



Did Dan really intend for people to have god-like ships that you can't damage? I'm betting Dan's intentions were to prevent high ranks from easily killing low ranks; however, people have learned to use this code to their advantage to make their ships almost untouchable. That's unfair and a joke. If you have higher attack and defense than someone, you should have the advantage.



This has already proven to be an invalid claim. SSBs can easily swap modules for scan runs and therefore can match a LSB's scan power during scan runs.



Yet I still can only hit the SSBs for 100-400 damage per hit most of the time. Still a major advantage for them.



If you really can't afford credits, which I find that hard to believe at rank 750, you can always ask legionmates for help. Odds are if you made it to 750, you are probably in at least a semi-active legion. Credits are not a major factor, but if you really want to go that route and scream from the highest mountain that it is an issue, keep in mind LSBs go through it as well. I explained before how there are modules I routinely uninstall. I did it even at lower ranks.

And I bet that SSB's don't get this sort of thing, either: Upkeep: 49.7B

Credits mean little - you take (or make) a couple of good mining planets and you are set for credits. Non-issue.

problem with Dammage cap, isnt realy a SSB / LSB thing
sure SSB ships have an advantages when it comes to PvP

but , 99% of the dammage I take in PvP comes from T-Plasma Gemini Cannons

I'm running a huge ship - 7101 Decks = 3550 dammage cap...
Rank 1815 = 919 dammage cap if I had gone SSB instead
...... T-Plasma Gemini Cannon blasts your ship for an additional 68.323.5 damage!

in less then 1 year, that is going to be 100.000+ dam pr hit from T-Plasma Gemini Cannon

1.000.000 / 3550 = 281 hits to kill if you can hit the cap
vs
1.000.000 / 919 = 1088 hits if I had gone SSB

the thing is, my cap isnt going to increase until I hit rank 7.000 and I'll keep adding more and more hull

I proberly get 50+ Durtanium Brackets pr day = 500 * 1.05 * 1.05 * 1.05 = +578+ hull / pr day or +200K+ hull pr year with my present AP production
and you can proberly find players out theire that add 500K hull pr year...

a fixed dammage cap of 500 to 3000 dammage pr hit vs unlimited hull is what is realy wrong with PvP
soner or later all ships will have 2 mill+ (hull + shield) and you will need 500+ hits to get and pvp kills at all even if you are targeting huge ships


also theire is basickly no gain in PvP
once I have done the last raids to max my CK69 Assault Sentry, the only PvP I plane to do is 3 raids pr day for my
Cuniculus II, Lepus Adjutant ability (Allows you to raid a successfully-raided base once again (3 Yellow Badges / 500 Energy))

Let's look at that another way using those numbers (ignoring extra hits for recharging shields):
281 hits = 1405 energy for the disable
1088 hits = 5440 energy for the disable

But there's also another factor - time... Assuming a generous 2 attacks per second (which my connection is incapable of most of the time):
281 hits = 2 minutes 21 seconds (rounded up)
1088 hits = 9 minutes 4 seconds

That's nearly 10 minutes of sitting there clicking like mad for a red and yellow badge... There is no fun in that.

you are missing the point WarmasterGoya...

if I get my artifact production up to 300K ap/hour and and have 2 years to suck up brackets from that
you could easily be looking at 1000+ attacks kill even a huge ship like mine

as you sayed..



that is the way all ships are slowly moving.... SSB ships just get theire faster then huge ships
time = more and more hull, but even if you build a huge ship, theire isnt realy any point in getting more then 8.000 decks = 4.000 dammage cap, as theire in no ship modules left to install at that point

and you already have quite a few ships out theire that take 1000+ hits to kill

take Senatorhung Rank 1118 SSB Lazuli Fixer
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=43211

you are looking at 858.701 pure hull vs a 568 dammage cap = 1160 hits to kill (without shield or shield regain)
and you can find a few that already have 1 mil hull.....

Couldn't agree more with this. Sure a small ship beat the Death Star in Star Wars but that's because the Death Star didn't get any hits back on that small ship. If it were the case in this game where you DO get return hits, that small ship would be blasted into oblivion. It's honestly gotten to the place of what's the point of increasing attack if all you ever do is hit the cap anyway?

you know, small x-wing fighters killed the Death Star becourse george lucas and the writher wanted it that way...
looks good on film, but put enougth pulser lasers and heat seaking missiles on a space station like that and they proberly wouldnt have a chance to get anywere near it before getting blasted out of space


the dammage cap is pure game mecanics, that tryes to balance combat
sure it's broken and cant handle the AP production some players now have - but it doesnt have to be realistic in any way as long as long as it have the effect Dan wants it to have on combat

so much fail. dunno why i even try ... at least DarkMar has some sense.


they may account for a small % of YOUR overall attack and MY overall attack, but i have spent 2 years as a SSB soaking up arti production in order to get my current 32k tac officers. that is the time required for a SSB to become competitive in attack power. note, competitive, not superpowered.


a SSB attacks random battle tab ship B. takes x energy to drop ship B. a LSB attacks ship B. LSB has more attack than SSB. LSB will spend less energy to drop ship B. Q.E.D.


no, i never said ship modules don't matter. i have agreed with those that have stated that they should matter MORE. nerfing SSB does NOT make ship modules more relevant due to runaway arti production. until the SSB has acquired enough androids and prisoners from their AP production, LSBs are guaranteed the advantage for hundreds of ranks and years worth of playtime.


no, you should not.


no, you have not proven anything. until rank 2144, there is not a single SSB that can install every single scan module to maximize scan. hence a LSB with more decks is guaranteed to have more scan.



the damage that YOU take is based on your damage cap and the combination of the opposing ship's attack and your defense.

the damage cap formula for PvP is:

* Damage per shot = damagecap * tanh[ attack*(random(0.6 to 1.666)) / (defense*5) ]
* Damage per shot = damagecap * tanh[ attack/defense * (random(0.12 to 0.32)) ]

so pulling numbers out of a hat:

- if a SSB1 has 10k attack versus your 30k defense .. they do x damage.

- if a LSB1 has 10k attack versus your 30k defense .. well lookee there .. THEY DO X DAMAGE !!!

so your ship has the same toughness, regardless of whether it is a SSB or a LSB attacking you. you take the same damage from each ship and each ship, SSB and LSB, takes the same number of hits to drop you.

getting hung up on the fact that you are doing less absolute damage than the SSB is doing to you is asinine. i get that you don't like that the SSB does more damage to you than you do to the SSB. that is the whole POINT of the SSB, to be tougher than other ships in PvP. now, how much time will it take for the SSB1's attack to equal the LSB1's attack ? years of rescued prisoners and androids. and all through those years, the LSB has the advantage over the SSB in ALL areas of the game except when the SSB is defending in PvP.

"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."

instead of nerfing SSB, focus on the arti overweight. some of the proposed solutions along this line:

- modules that require crew sacrifice to use
- modules that bypass crew values for attack / defense
- massive modules that SSBs will not be able to easily accomodate
- %mods in subsequent research tier - perhaps requiring androids
- more ways to threaten crews
- offensive cannons that provide a % attack ala geminis
- tactical bypass for hull mods

more slogging

who says ssb1 takes more e to kill a ship than lsb1? IT all comes down to your attack versus their cap. If ssb and lsb have same attack, then e spent is equal. Saying ssb takes more e to kill someone is assinine. Everyone can calc attack values, its the silly way defense and cap are handled that creates all the #$&*@.

I also don't follow the plain statement you rebutt that more power shouldn't be, well, more powerful in battle?

WTF? Why bother building power in attack and defense then? Isn't that what strength means...ability to do more than less strength?? Works that way at the gym. Works that way with machines and tools. Works that way in pretty much everything. I think you take more personal affront because of your playstyle.

Which is prolly fair since seems like everyone not reasonably low in decks seems hellbent to let everyone know how unhappy it makes them. I think,and its my opinion, that so much of what is discussed here is opinion and emotive feelings about things. Too much gets taken out of context and too much is not fact based. In the end it prolly doesn't mattter, but i think people still want a modicum of reality to accompany their fantasy.

This game growingly has moved into fantasy magic rather than space adventure. Damage cap is certainly magical .

the SSB will never have the same attack as the LSB unless they have pulled artis for years. hence the advantage to LSB.

what the eff? I totally disagree. Could not disagree more. Are there not many examples of people who have played under 2 years with over 100k unbuffed attack? I have played almost 5 and just passed that recently. There are people with insane AP who have played shorter time than you.

So you're saying attack modules can cover up the extra 200-400 attack PER day those people add? No freaking way. There is a hard limit on modules, there is no cap on crew.

i can pretty much guarantee that there are zero SSBs under rank 1000 with over 100k unbuffed attack. i am at rank 1118 with 35k unbuffed attack. Maelstrom is the only one who comes to mind who will make it and even then he has quite a few more months to get there.

i am saying that until the arti pulls of the SSB come into fruition, the LSB will always be able to fit more attack mods on than the SSB, hence will always have more attack.