How would it screw over an SSB? they have the option to add decks if they wished.


As i've said earlier my main problem with SSB's is the fact that even Defence mods aren't worth adding decks for now i get that ssb go without scan and cloak etc and that's fine but if anyone actually runs the numbers

This is my ship against 100k pvp att @4400 decks

You Deal: 866(491 to 1229) Damage.
You Take: NaN(NaN to NaN) Damage.
You die in: NaN(NaN to NaN) hits.
Your opponent dies in: 197(139 to 347) hits

Now i remove my defence mods - 3x velox and vara interface 1160 decks @3240

You Deal: 906(537 to 1203) Damage.
You Take: NaN(NaN to NaN) Damage.
You die in: NaN(NaN to NaN) hits.
Your opponent dies in: 188(142 to 317) hits.

So my gain for all those decks and upkeep is an extra 45 energy to kill me

not saying ssb need to go but there does need to be some more balancing.

[quote="umbongo"][/quote]

If it doesnt quote correctly this goes out to you UMBONGO:

Way around actually playing the game? Im a game where choices about how to proceed are offered, there is now 'way to play the game'. It is highly logical, depending on what you want to do in the game.
Spend less on adding to their ship? You want people to spend money on Ship Bots? Right... SSBs can spend just as much money as an MSB. Bigger ships already have advantages- Scanning for one. It is not a bane to all players, you just sound rather sore of butt that they are hard to disable when done well. Both SSBs and MSBs have pros and cons associated with them, neither is a sure fire way to beat the game.

----------Response: Yes it is a way around the game since the damage was changed before the current existing formula there was a different one which previous posters report having added many decks and now where are they at with that change they've been screwed over. To bad for them huh? You act like the only way to get planets is to scan them and that advantage trumps the ability they have in battles to require over 200 E to kill at the current cap ; which, by the way, was the only pro you've provided in your suggested advantages of a large ship. Can you honestly argue that having no defense or shields and still being able to absorb that many attacks is logical? It's not. I have 990 decks, 14,329 hull without buffs, and even with all my defense installed I can still be disd in 31 hits at my cap. And it looks like a multitude of players (not just me) are disagreeing with the current formula (which gives a crazy PvP edge to SSB) due to the 10 pages of posts regarding the topic besides those who own a small ship I think it's something that definitely should be reevaluated. And I never said anything about buying ship bots I'm at a loss where you coming from with that.

So Large ship builds have the advantage as they can put more hull and certainly def mods on.

----------Response: It doesn't matter how much hull or defense they have if you read other 30+ posts on here - try reading them all besides picking one to troll.

+1 This is definitely an issue that the SSBs obviously don't want fixed thus they want the thread to die with the idea of change to the current bogus cap.

Let us equip as many normal weapon, defense, hull, shield module we want. Yeah !

I don't see this as a bad thing, Heck lets expand it, unlimited ANYTHING you can get repeats of. Only issue I see is that peoples invisable planets will no longer be invisable (all that extra scan) but whatever, Think of a ship with say 20 Protein armories. or even joke builds like 1000 Auto cannons.... the options!

SSB's would be screwed over because they sacrificed for months or even years, not using modules that LSB's have been using to scan for more planets ... hit NPC's and bases more efficiently ... and stay off of other pilots' bt's due to cloaking.

as for the other idiotic comments about the previous change screwing people over ... the game was introduced in February 2010. after complaints, Dan changed the damage cap to its current form in July 2010, or 5 months later. it is now 40 months since the change ... anyone who had relied on the previous formula could reset or adjust with only 5 months worth of loss. changing the cap away from decks now would screw over people who have been planning and building with it in mind for up to 8x longer.

here's the quote from Dan introducing the change:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=913&p=6752&hilit=damage+cap#p6752



and the topic that month where he defended the changes and rejected the exact arguments being made in this topic over 3 years later:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1050&start=0&hilit=damage+cap


with previous discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31&p=142&hilit=damage+cap#p142

and

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1091&p=8310&hilit=damage+cap#p8310



by itself ... this led to the 'Scout of Mass Destruction', so Dan added the 2d part of the damage cap formula of (rank + 19)/2 so that as you rank up, your damage cap is FORCED to increase. tweak that formula if you like, but leave the deck one alone.

I always thought SSB's had a HUGE advantage and the game does not tell us to do so. It needs to go. A large, heavily armed and plated behemoth should crush those tiny ships easily. Why do we pay that huge upkeep for ? To be the fly squatting the elephant; while having the size and brute force of the latter. It makes no sense. Never did. Never will.

why is this, when the flys armor is just as tough as the elephants?
one thing there though that does fit is the fact that an elephant would have a difficult time even hitting a fly.

yes as time progress's and they get to higher levels ssbs gain advantages in pvp if and only of they are ever able to catch up from a horribly crippled early game.
it may not seem like much, but those extra guns and sensors early on can lead to a decent bit more arti planets, which then starts a snowball effect. nit only making the lsb stronger , but the ssb weaker as well when they get their planets stolen.

I +1 most of your post, but I disagree SSBs have a crippled early game. As an SSB I can NPC, PVP, Mission etc... Take your pick, they can do it. Arti prod isn't easy from scanning, but you can boost it other ways

I would say opposite of crippled. They have an advantage in every part of the game save scanning and hacking. Even then, they can install stuff to do those, they just don't for the most part.

Every part of the game is a bit of a stretch... Scan is obviously the biggest one, but there are many other areas we are hindered in

..such as?

Personally, I'm cool with SSBs. It's a strategy, and this is a strategy game, isn't it?

Hacking. Hacking sucks. A lot. I'm fairly easily crit-hacked, and critically failed 5-6 times within a week not so long ago as well.

SSBs also don't have as many planets on scan as larger ships do (due to being unable to fit all scanners on at lower ranks), so it's terrifying when we're crit-hacked/when we crit-fail.

My understanding is that the damage cap based on ship size was introduced to protect lower ranks who we're being bullied by higher ranks.

Sadly this has been taken advantage of by hugely high ranking ships having ridiculously small ships. I feel this is a serious abuse of what was intended as a measure to help bring balance between ships with huge rank differences

Personally I think the damage cap from ship size should not apply to ships of similar rank, or when hitting someone higher rank than you. It is ridiculous hitting a higher rank ship, having bigger attack than them, yet doing stupidly low damage, even when their defenses are low

It is time this abuse was fixed. Dan needs to fix this.

Similar and higher rank ships have no business having a low damage cap against ships within their rank range. It gives them an unfair advantage in battles, which should not be so in similar rank ranges,. It's their fault they build a weak ship, they should pay the price, not the person attacking them who has meticulously taken the time to build a strong ship.

People complain SSBs are too powerful, now you are saying we have weak ships... Make your minds up.

Nothing needs doing about this, unless you want a whole galaxy of people with the exact same ship build and style.

the only benefit ssbs have is they are harder to kill.
their npc hunting and even pvp killing is less effecient.
they cant do as much damage to bases.
its much harder for them to hack and they are more susceptible to hacks.
and most importantly, their attack is lower making it harder to steal planets, and they cant fit as much scan to find as many planets.
(this is most important as it leads to a difference in arti production, and that difference in arti means the lsb gets more prisoners and hence more attack creating a snowball effect of increasing arti production that most ssbs find hard to keep up with)

I completely agree with your post.

Please go reread all the previous posts in this thread. Or any of the other ones conveniently posted above that explain this issue.
Actually, not you specifically, but everyone who simply hits a smaller ship, complains, and doesn't understand whats going on.

Just for your info - I run a ship with 2049 decks. My upkeep is every bit as high as yours, as i keep, collect, and store all ship modules i am not currently using uninstalled. I built a strong ship, and meticulously built, crafted, researched and designed every bit of it. You should pay the price for building a ship did not do that.

Or you could be one of the multitude of people who fully understood the consequences of decks, and used them anyway because they prefer the playstyle, ease, and feeling that having every module installed at the same time gives them. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. I built something to take less damage, you built something to do more things. Do not complain that we both succeeded at the tasks our ships were built for.

Can't believe this thread is still going, but anyway... this line could just as easily be used as a counter-argument from SSBs regarding LSBs.

I have to disagree with this bit. Strong SSBs take a lot of time and careful planning - possibly more than MSBs/LSBs - to build, since the SSB's attack/hull/shield, even at low ranks, comes mainly from accumulated artifact production rather than researched modules. The ones that rank quickly usually are lacking in other areas (e.g. attack, hull), so I don't think they necessarily have an unfair advantage in battles.

As for rank range... I think you have to look more at the time played and total accumulated AP. Yes, I have an advantage over other ships in my range because of my deck size, but I've also been playing for about twice as long as most ships within my range. Give any ship a high enough AP production and a limit to their ranking, and they will have a strong ship. "Meticulously taking the time to build a strong ship" is not just limited to LSBs.