That's the whole point of military technological development. Hence the crossbow, hence better armour, hence repeating rifles, hence gatling guns, hence fire and forget missiles. Etc.
Of course, but the thing with technological development is that soon after someone invents a uberweapon, effective countermeasures are also invented - bulletproof vests, chaffs/ECMs, etc. In this case there is really nothing to counter the SCBs with. If there, for example, was a huge anti-shield gun that would collapse a shield in a single shot, while having some equally huge tradeoffs (super-slow rate of fire, power consumption, weight, etc), then we could say that "hey, if you want to effectively fight SCB spammers - get the SuperAntiShieldGun and stop whining", and that would be perfectly fine.
ED is not a game of combat skills, it's a game of wits. In the event of someone choosing to forgo other modules in favour of cells, as you say, you can wear them down. If you're good enough. You not wanting to wear them down is another matter entirely, your feeling that a player so skilled as yourself being made to do that is somehow 'unfair' notwithstanding.
I would agree, if the tradeoffs of using multiple SCBs were significant. Currently, when an ASP fills all module slots with SCBs and gets 42 (!) shield charges, the only thing it loses is the cargo space, which is nothing, compared to the benefits - most players have a separate ship for trading anyway. Also, the point of my post was not that "I'm the best, but can't kill anyone because noobs spam SCBs", it was that SCBs are imbalanced. ED, no matter how cool, is a game, so it SHOULD have balance to be a GOOD game.
I see no reason why 'skill' as you define it should take precedent over wit (or patience) or indeed, having deep pockets to afford to fly in a heavily armoured and protected ship.
Like I said, ED is a game, and good games tend to be balanced. Imagine that SCBs are gone, for a moment. Would that mean that a medium-skilled player on a heavier bigger ship (for instance, a Python) would ALWAYS lose to a "madskilled" player on a smaller ship (say, a Cobra)? Of course not, because larger ships would still be better armed, armored, shielded, etc. However, the guy on the Cobra would get at least SOME slim chance of defeating a fatter Python, if he's a better pilot, and given some luck. The smaller ship would still lose most of the time, because the bigger one is superior, but the gap wouldn't be as huge as it is now. Some people think that there SHOULD be a huge gap - say, a Cobra shouldn't even be able to make a dent in a Anaconda or Python, but I think it's ridiculous - even in our days, a bigger-sized tank/plane/ship/whatever doesn't guarantee that its armor will be impenetrable to something smaller.
tl;dr;
In short, as I see it, the combat rating of a ship is currently very LINEAR: a bigger ship is always harder to kill with anything smaller than itself. I think that it should be NON-LINEAR: a bigger better equipped ship should offer better defense and firepower, BUT should still be somewhat vulnerable to SOME tactics/builds of smaller ships. If the situation is not changed, nobody will fly smaller ships end-game, simply because "if you can afford a Anaconda, there is no reason NOT to buy it", and that kind of mechanics suck.
