I'll clarify why I posted, there are an increasing number of high rank (1k+) ships that are effectively invincible while online, even to a coordinated attack by several players at once. This renders 'contested' planets pointless, with just one of these ships actively guarding the planet won't ever be lost. It will also eventually reduce PvP to necessitate having to wait until the player goes offline, inconveniencing badge runs but ruining legion wars.

The damage ratio, as a general principle, is a great (and intuitive) one, as is the SS build that makes full use of it, without the damage ratio ships would be homogenised. The earlier suggestion was made to help resolve the high rank 'invincibility' while affecting low rank SSBs as little as possible.

It's not a flaw in the game mechanics, it's part of the game design and therefore not "glitching".

There it is I finaly found it some one actually called the game design glitchy.... get a grip kids stop complaining just because you spent all your rank points to increae decks because you joined a legion and saw a HeavyStarDestroyer and suddenly wished to be just like them and without thinking you started clicking those precious points away. Or maybe you had 4x myralai plasma lance and 4 octafari deflectors in your cargo and said to yourself "the more moduls I get on my ship the better it is and I dont rly know how to do maths so deck efficiency doesnt rly bothers me!
I personaly am SSB and auto-rank-er so you are saying I am totaly manipulating the game and glitching it ? So should I stop playing because I am making it harder for the rest of the spoiled kids in the game ? Seriously stop crying and deal with it. It is already explained small ships are harder to hit there fore they take less damage or maybe you want to make the game more realistic and see a message "your mega ulta powerfull weapons MISSED the ship because it is very small it would kill it in an instant but its hard to hit"

I didnt call the game design glitchy. I said there was a flaw in the formula. Making a ship to manipulate that flaw is glitching.

I can agree that a small ship is harder to hit, nothing wrong with that, i dont care how much damage i am doing to you. I have a problem with how much damage you are doing to me. My 7k defense should not be nullified because you are small. Your minimal weapons/attack should affect you, not me.

Defense in this game is not defense as it is in other games you are trying to compare it to.
Defense= maneuverability.
bigger ships need bigger engines to go the same speed.

It's only glitching if it's actually a flaw; of course, it's not a flaw, you just don't like it.

Your 7k defense isn't "nullified", they do damage to you based on your defense, your damage cap, and their attack. Their damage cap doesn't affect how much damage they do to you.

So you pretty much called the game glitchy solely because you made a poor judgement of increasing your decks before increasing your rank? And there isnt a flaw in the formula it works perfectly. This is for all those who hope that SSB will become useless and weak after rank500 keep on hoping! You surely dont believe SSB users scraped their modules or dont research weapons and def modules so eventually we will become bigger on decks and install the same modules as you the only difference will be that you will have 5k tactical officers and we will have 15k and you will take tons of DMG from early on and so on and on and on. ...... now some 1 will say something else about the game being glitchy I personally was amazed by the whole concept about building your ship the way you want when I started the game and I still think the choice every new player face (SSB,MSB,BSB) is absolutelly brilliant!!! I adopted a strategy which was well known so you cant convince me that you started the game and just dashed into it without researching or looking for the different oppinions and started spending points right away on decks and such without a single minute spent in planning your next move if so ..... You already lost Sir!

You joined these forums in March 2013. While your comment may be true about some players, it is not true about all of them. I've been playing the game since Jun 2010. In that time, I've seen the damage cap change at least twice. It is a false generalize that everyone without a SSB 'jumped in without planning'.

Back in 2010 and 2011 people didn't know, level 500 was a high level, 5 digit hull was a lot and not necessarily the norm. I'm not saying that there weren't people who didn't see the long term benefit, there were, but the vast majority of players did not know about it and those that did were very tight lipped about it.

There is nothing wrong with reevaluating how things are done in a game every year or so. With power-creep, game nuisances, player nuisances, changing dynamics, etc, things should be looked at. Things that made sense in 2010 or 2011 might not make sense in 2013.

I would rather a weapon that has a chance to do % total hull. I think little fluffy has a post somewhere about this suggestion.

Make your damage cap whatever, it just stalls the inevitable where a ship is gonna have a few hundred thousand hull and a damage cap of 10000 won't mean much.

Couldn't agree with this more.



I suggested a weapon and a ctl recipe

I eally love how all the SSBs are hung up on the fact that I have a bigger ship. I DO NOT CARE THAT MY SHIP IS BIG, I love that my ship is big, I can put whatever I want on it at any time, or keep whatever I want on it at any time. I do not care that you have a small ship, good job! I have a problem with my 7k attack doing LESS damage than your 1k attack.

How about this....damage cap is 5% of your total cargo? no sense in a ship with 100 decks having a 10k cargo hold...that sounds like a tanker to me, should be pretty easy to dispatch with a warship...

so you dont care you have a bigger ship and others have small but you have a problem with the small ships having a benifit. yeah...
and cargo should in no effect pvp.

Your attack is doing no less than theirs.
Their defense is just doing way more.

Your attack is doing no less than theirs.
Their defense is just doing way more.[/quote]

is it really their DEFENSE in form of ship modules and Helmsmen or it is mainly due currently existing damage cap?
If we can agree, that it is mainly damage cap... then it is quite simple.

is it really their DEFENSE in form of ship modules and Helmsmen or it is mainly due currently existing damage cap?
If we can agree, that it is mainly damage cap... then it is quite simple.[/quote]
The damage cap means that point for point their defense is more effective.

Why would cargo not come into play? You have a small ship, you have a small cargo hold. the millennium falcon isn't transporting hundreds of thousands of tons of cargo from port to port, but it is fast and that what it gave up to do it. whereas a standard star destroyer could hold what? 2 platoons of storm troopers, couple squads of T.I.E. fighters, all the vehicles to make a land based attack, and of course food for all its crew.

But here now you are saying you should every benefit in the game because of how you made your ship. What exactly is a drawback of a small ship? You spend all your RP on engineers and such, so it cant be NPCing or missions. You "excel" at PvP. Your cargo hold can be the same size as mine so swapping out mods is no problem. Im guessing you guys still get up to 500 decks and that covers the highest tier of scanning modules, so its not planets. Maybe I am just looking at it wrong though.

Do you have any idea how much time is doesn't switching modules?
That by itself its a major drawback.
And 500 decks is no where near what it takes to fit max scan.
Unless they have amazing artifact production ssbs are generally weak.
Point for point modules give more attack def and energy than crew.
You also cannot get hull and shield, or even scan and cloak..
From the start ssbs are way behind.
Can't fit much scan to find planets, and even when they do they lack the space for cannons to take them.
Because they can't take planets as well their productions fall beind.
That makes it even harder to keep up.
The low energy means they can't play as much and they rank slower.
Ssbs take the hard road, and eventually it can pay off.
If msb/lsb players play right they can jump so far ahead in the beginning that ssbs will find it hard to catch up.

just to be sure, how many of SSB tends to autorank? just thinking, how long it does take to be rank 1000+ and SSB.

spasiba!

Um disagree with the most of the posts on that page
1st about how long I play and you play (refering to someone who said he plays since whatever and I from yesterday and also to the last post) I have been playing GL for 3 months now. I am a ssb with 550 decks, autoranking at the moment, have pretty decent attack on npc that is 9-10k (because I simply dont see any point in pvp-ing apart from getting my dom can mkIII which I have) so I cap most of the npc (the ones that I dont are flamehawks and stryll assa) I am rank 470(3 months play) and have lets say pretty decent for the time played APH
2nd I agree with the guy who said why should SSB be re-looked ? So it can fit your style of play? You like a BIG ship? Well my friend guess who likes what (me like SSB Hellooooooooo) And SSB would be absolutelly pointless if it wasnt for the dmg cap
3rd I will explain how ssb is helping me: Since I have been playing only that short amount of time I cant get enough ship-bots so quick because I rank 5-10 times a day( and I dont want to hear any suggestions from slow rankers how at rank 750 everyone will disable me because I havent been disable since rank 90 where I stopped pvp-ing) so by taking advantage of the SSB allows me to spend my points in Engi/Tacs so if you remove the ssb I guarantee that many ppl will just quit game and I think we all agree on that one "more players = better multi-player game" and we all want a nice multi-player game dont we now?
4th Specifically to the guy who said that all ssb have low nrg SO WRONG quite the opposite the have more NRG because they dont dump points in decks again I will give comparison to my ship and say I have 6k nrg with a ~470 rank ship and I spend 5 points on engineers every rank.

Thank you sincerely yours Bosko a.k.a. Boss!!!

Anyone who states there aren't any drawbacks to ssbs or msb obviously have no experience with the build or know anyone who does,

Drawbacks include:

1. Having to rearrange ship every time you want to do a task, want to pvp switch build, want to take a planet switch build, want to mission switch build, want to hit a heavy base for a length period switch build, want to scan switch all of build,
2. once ssbs or msbs get to higher ranks they pretty much can't hack people and are very very susceptible to others hacking them, consider that BSBs can have max cloak and scan on their ship at once, now a msb can not have anywhere near both max cloak and scan on their ship at the same time.
3. ssbs struggle at early-mid ranks as everyone else can have more on their ship while they have to rely on a limited amount of modules while rearranging to fit a purpose.
4. without a very strong artifact production they will have small hull and shields and relatively lower attack to everyone else.

These are just some of the drawbacks, it always looks greener on the other side. Stop complaining about how others have planned their ship builds rather than the easy add decks. ssbs and msbs have earnt their benefit.