Someone who has a SSB at a high rank had to work to get there. They had to manage their ship and deal with the lack of space while ranking. The advantage they receive in late game is the reward for their hard work. If you added decks to fit your ship with ever module created that was your choice. The damage cap was changed to remove some of the advantages that the received by making ranking a factor. Now that some ships are receiving the benefits of their build you claim it is unfair and want to remove the advantage they worked hard to get. The game mechanics should not change because the advantage that was known from the start is being used well.

As for your argument about the ship size and it not making sense. All I have to say is that this is a game, there are going to be certain discrepancies between reality and what the game allows. Including, bases changing modules in the middle of a lock, ships disabled while guarding a planet and the enemy ship not seeing the planet, cargoes several times larger than the ship is (maybe that's where all the crew goes), and let's not forget the really in your face obvious one...alien races, space ships and 4M planets in a galaxy with no stars/black holes.

Also your idea of making ship size a factor of crew, would make having a larger crew make your ship weaker, meaning those who have 100K+ crew one of the easiest to kill because their damage cap would be the largest and even if I am only doing 1/10 of the damage cap it might be more damage than a person with small crew who only added helmsmen rather than scientists

Toast did hit a very good point but I'd like to see in black and white if this is the only issue. We can't rule out anything at this point because we're not programmers.

very well put mate. this is probly the heart of the problem, its not that they have an op advantage, its the fact it is the more that attack the worce the lag is getting, and were numbers should have no issue in killing the ship its next to impossible due to the lag that gives them a greated advantage.

I also posted in another topic a timer should be added to artifacts say 20-30 sec per use to counter mind the lag.

But i think you hit the true problem on the head, because its not truly a problem to kill them, its the game making it impossible to do so, and thats the reson the issue needs to be adressed!

your making my point for me... the ships should be difent. each with its own ability. as it stands now they have no diversity.

but you tell me were you can have a scout with 10k crew on it. it no longer a scout. all ships should have limits and requierments to have. those requierments should include all aspects of the game. cargo hull crew sheilds.

You mean this has been this way since the beginning of the game ? It wasn't known from the start ..
I've played pretty much from the beginning and don't remember anything like that.

We don't care about how much cargo space a ship has. All of us over rank 1k have a problem with the mechanics of the game when the hull, defense, attack and damage cap on both ships are completely out of proportion to favor the little guy and it doesn't even make sense that he be that strong especially to hold off three of the top legions in the game.
That's simply ridiculous.
Our ships couldn't fight that off and a little one can ? That's not even close to being in proportion on any level and I'm not talking about ranks.

This has been tolerated till now because we haven't cared much about it because it hasn't been an issue until one of these little things can hold off three legions guarding Exotica and the other ships can be taken out.
There has to be some common sense and balance here where there is none.

Damage cap ceilings have been adjusted.

Prior to this change, the maximum damage dealt to a ship in a single shot was (0.5 x # of ship decks)
Now, that ceiling is (0.5 x # of ship decks), OR (0.5 x (player rank + 19)), whichever is greater.

Most ships will not notice this change, as they typically apply at least 1 deck per rank.

To a certain extent limiting crew based on a ship size would make some sence. On smaller ships in the Navy, like Submarines, they use a system called Hot-Racking where 2 people share the same bed, 1 person is asleep while the other is on-duty. It works but i can't say anyone likes it. Game or not it's hard to say that 12 crew could share 4 beds in the same room on the same deck.

So....let's say there's 4 types of crew, Tactical Officers, Helmsmen, Engineers, and Scientists. Now let's say there's limited space for crew quaters aboard the ship and every crew member is entitled to thier own room. Also, let's go further out on a limb and say there's limited Cargo space per deck also.

Currently you can get 2 Tactical Officers, 2 Helmsmen, 2 Engineers, 3 Scientists and 5 Cargo per Rank point.

My Idea: Limit the amount of Rank Points that can be put into crew allowing a max of 10 Tactical, 10 Helm, 10 Engineers, 15 scientists and 25 Cargo Per deck. Basically limiting crew and cargo to 5 rank points each per deck. 45 crew per deck is generous for a cap in my opinion.

So a "Cruiser" with 250 decks would be limited to a max of 2500 Tactical, Helm and Engineers plus 3750 Scientists and 6250 Cargo. Once the "cap" is reached, the option to add more is Greyed-Out until your ship gets bigger.


In the case of a bigger ship, lets say a "Heavy Goliath" with 1200 Decks is simalarly limited to a max of 12k Tactical, Helm and Engineer plus 18k Scientists and 30k Cargo. So, as you can see, some people would never reach the cap so the change probably would only affect people over the cap already, Forcing minor increases in ship size.

This limits the overall long term advanage of SSB, it does force people to make there ship a little bigger. For people already over the cap, they don't lose what they have but they would have to put the points into something else or not use them at all. Also, like with planets or ship modules with a cap of max number allowed, change Artifacts like the Android Helmsmen and Scientists to not allow to be used if the person is over the cap on that crew type. Same with MSP and Terrasects, i don't see myself needing more than 85k cargo with the number of decks i already have.

This change would even out some PvP in the sence that you can't be a SSB forever, it probably wouldn't force people to increase the size of thier ships by much but you get the picture. Bottom line, i agree that a Crusier shouldn't be able to kill a Galaxy Destroyer simply because of the damage cap.

About the Cargo. Cargo is an artifact draw and can be bought with GP. Again it's a way for Dan to make money so this has to be counted out as well.
Besides it's not effecting game play so who cares.

I brought it because saying the crew is too big for the ship and ignoring the cargo is a double standard. If one is accepted the other should if one is rejected so should the other. Cargo generally not an issue for those with more than 20k ap because of all the MSPs.

As for cargo no effecting the game, I take it you have never had a SSB. Cargo is vital for a SSB, especially at lower ranks. It is the only way I would be able to do scan runs.

And you are proving my point in my first post, the advantage that they worked for, the very reason they struggled with cargo space, figured out the best possible combination of modules to place in the limited amount of space...all that work so that they could take less damage, and now that it is paying off you want to change it.

My point is that the argument of saying the crew size should dictate the ship size and thus damage cap should also apply to cargo space. While cargo space may not effect the game for others, the logic you are using for the argument would include changes needed to cargo:
A scout is too small for 10k crew therefore a scout is too small to have 20k cargo.
I didn't think you meant it should not count, I am saying the idea that the ship size should be dictated by the above logic is incomplete without the cargo segment.

I am also saying that the work those who built a SS at high ranks should reap the rewards for their work and even though it puts me at a large disadvantage it is a game mechanic I knew about and decided to ignore any way and must pay for it.

The argument for the change is either the above or just a bunch of people whining that they chose a less strategically favor build than someone else and are demanding a change be made to compensate.

both. little ships should not get the advantage of both power and damage caps. if you want the protection of a small ship, you can not have unlimited atkack on said ship! it should not take 30 galaxy destroyers to kill one scout.

I was answering his question. The deck equation was used from the beginning.

If I recall, wasn't the damage cap originally based on hull size? What was the compelling argument for changing that?

Not quite.



Darth actually is right. For the first 5 or so months it was based off of shield and hull.
i think the reason that it was changed darth was you were basically penalized for adding hull and shields.

Damage cap really needs to take hull strength into consideration as a third formula. For example, if it was 4% of hull strength, it would still take 25 capshots to burn through the hull, plus however many to clear the shields. That's still strong enough to maintain the irritation of fighting a SSB yet it makes it realistically possible to kill one (with difficulty) while they are online. No one should be indestructible.

What would be the point of adding hull? Once you hit that ceiling there is no added benefit. Brackets would become as useless as shipbots. Also realize that yes the SSB have this advantage, but there are a few "base ships" with 80k+ hulls even with the current damage cap it takes 25+ shots at max damage to kill them. SSB only speeds up the end result, that a ship becomes so thick that it takes hundreds of shots to kill them at their cap. You think that we could kill remric or mento while they are online? Mento has 110k hull last I heard. That's a min of 35 hits at 3150 damage, just for the hull.