Stacking Shield boosters that take space and power in a ship and strengthen shields before they collapse - fine. Magic health poti... sorry... shield cell banks to do an instant recharge. Meh. I don't feel they ever had a place in the game. Nerf them to oblivion say I! (and while we're at it drop this 'small weapons intrinsically do less damage to big ships' nonsense - weapons should do fixed damage, modified by armour, angle of impact, penetration and what they hit internally, irrespective of size).
Nerf crowd about to ruin the game again
- Thread starter dc83
- Start date
I am not sure but it seems that SCBs are already hard to find in game. I have stopped playing, mostly, and when I do it is only solo due to all the ways griefers can get you killed (no need to list them). Its sad, I was so looking forward to ED being the great multi player game I craved. There is still a chance they can pull this off.. maybe.. maybe if they hired a game design manager that had more of a clue but since I am not involved in the day to day of the game development that is just a guess.
You talk of traders/misson runners with the same arrogant way as those who refer to non pvp'ers as carebears, as if PVP combat pilots are the only ones whoever do anything worth while. Using your own example Traders, mission runners, smugglers, bounty hunters, explorers and miners all test far more parts of the game than your narrow game play does.
I don't PVP myself as I got totally bored with it in Eve. I do combat with NPC's in both CZ's and other places I find them. I frequently take Bounty hunting missions as well as many other types. I smuggle a little now and again if a mission demands it I trade big time. I have carried out some mining but not since the drones were introduced. I have recently done quite a bit of exploring also. I reckon I test far more parts of the game than a player like yourself who seems to indicate that PVP combat is the lifeblood of ED. I have news for you, it isn't. In fact it is probably the smallest part.
As regards shield boosters and those saying they are a nonsensical type of magic boost pill. The idea of shields is that you produce an energy cover around the ship that can absorb some damage, a well known sci fi tool for space ships, and this is a sci fi game. Also diverting more power to shields or boosting them in some way is an accepted way of defence in sci fi.
So if you want real reality go fly a space shuttle game or an in planet aircraft simulation.
Last edited:
Can't argue with any of that. When you put it that way it really all does sound pretty nonsensical. That said I have never really even used SCB's but I do run Shield Boosters at least their penalties make up for their strengths.
I only carry one in my T7
This is absolutely correct. The "nerf" FD applied in 1.1, all four nerfs that is, did absolutely nothing to combat this.
SCBs should just be removed, shields should recharge way faster to compensate, and rebuilding shouldn't take minutes either.
I think SCB's should stay but like the power plant you can only fit one.
+1
The battle of who has the most SCBs fitted is ridiculous, it also allows ships to take on stronger NPCs than they are supposed to.
In no universe should an Eagle win a fight with an Elite Anaconda, but with the right set up and careful flying you can just blow its power plant and whiz off without a scratch.
It's a response to this thread by Hagglebeard. The Op is desperately trying to persuade FDev that SCBs are absolutely fine and dandy, and the complaining about them is just usual internet forum negativity. Why? He wants to head to SSSs alone with C-rated modules.
Bizarrely he has given them one of the best reasons I've seen to remove SCBs entirely - they make the game too easy, thus when the player has a full combat build on something like an anaconda SCBs make the endgame completely unthreatening - something SSSs and High-Intensity CZs were intended to address.
Off topic. I don't know whether I'm doing something right or wrong, but so far, since November, playing exclusively in open, I've only been interdicted once by a player wing[1], and never been killed by a player. Just staying away from CGs and keeping an eye on the news for trouble spots seems to work fine. It's a big galaxy out there.
.
[1] To be fair this interdiction was pointless, and going up against a player wing of a Fer-de-Lance and a Vulture in an Asp was also pointless - for some reason they let me go with 2% hull, so - I could have easily died, but...
.
<Edit> I'll qualify the above a bit. Aside from the fact that there was no reason for the interdiction, and it was 2 v 1 anyway, SCBs also figured into my reasoning to run. If it had been a 1-on-1 against the 'Lance, I would have stuck around for, what could have been an enjoyable fight, however - knowing the 'Lance was probably going to be running at least a couple of SCBs, compared to my one bank, discretion seemed the better part of valour. My point? If low-rank/trade/exploration ships stood more of a chance against 'PvP-build' high-end ships, maybe PvP (and interaction) in general would be encouraged? It wouldn't be such a one-sided affair?
Last edited:
Well said. Shield cells were the wrong remedy to the wrong problem. The fixed recharge rate of shields is the problem. It's a lazy implementation and a lazy solution.
True. Been playing almost every day since public release, been attacked by other people just 4 times, killed only once by a role-player pirate because I refused to give him cargo.
The whole "open is savage ground, full of blood-thirsty griefers everywhere" thing is a myth. Repeated to exhaustion, but still a myth. There's only a tiny fraction of PVP in this game, and most of it is intentional between players. More than half the players I encounter in Open are traders. And almost everyone I ever encoutered was actually extremely friendly.
Does it really make that much difference if you take out SCBs and increase shield recharge rates?
I struggle to understand the absolute certainty behind the logic of many of these nerf this buff that threads.
Everything you take from one bucket just ends up in another bucket and has consequences elsewhere.
All an SCB nerf would do from a PVP or AI pov is reduce the time it takes until the losing player decides it's time to leggit.
Is that how people judge the quality of combat? Is short combat better than long combat - or is it the other way around?
Not trying to be antagonistic - I'm trying to understand why one thing is so much better than another thing.
It's heartwarming to have a thread where so many of us who often disagree all seem to think the same way 
Exactly this, my worry is that FD will not swallow their pride and just admit that they were a bad idea. They need to sit down and have a serious think about how shields (and armour for that matter) work in the game before they get too much deeper into building game balance around the existing mechanics. If they keep designing ships with module slots and base stats on the premise that 'everybody' is stacking cells and boosters it will be that much harder to change later on.
- - - Updated - - -
It absolutely would make a difference because it would help hugely to remove the distinction between a 'pve' loadout and a pure pvp setup. What they should be aiming for is a balance whereby there is little to no difference in how to outfit between the two.
- it's not the length of combat that is the issue, it's the fact that unless you specifically fit for pvp, with stacked scb, you are gimped against other players. That should not be the case.
Exactly this, my worry is that FD will not swallow their pride and just admit that they were a bad idea. They need to sit down and have a serious think about how shields (and armour for that matter) work in the game before they get too much deeper into building game balance around the existing mechanics. If they keep designing ships with module slots and base stats on the premise that 'everybody' is stacking cells and boosters it will be that much harder to change later on.
- - - Updated - - -
It absolutely would make a difference because it would help hugely to remove the distinction between a 'pve' loadout and a pure pvp setup. What they should be aiming for is a balance whereby there is little to no difference in how to outfit between the two.
- it's not the length of combat that is the issue, it's the fact that unless you specifically fit for pvp, with stacked scb, you are gimped against other players. That should not be the case.
Last edited:
It's more to do with the purpose of each ship. I hope I explain this right;
A single Eagle, should not be able to take on an Elite Anaconda and win.
A Solo Vulture should not be able to clear a Strong Signal Source.
But with the right set up, with enough SCBs fitted, these things are not only possible but require a lot less skill / concentration.
Not to brag, but I can sit watching Netflix (on my 2nd monitor) while in a Hi-RES in a Viper - I don't even have to pay attention to my screen until I'm down to 1 SCB.
Then all I do is dock, reload, cash in my vouchers and out I go again.
Last edited:
Yup. Tie shield boosters into rate of recharge as well as strength, and 'hey presto!'. Did we really need the additional SCB implementation?
.
Oh and what happened to the Dev's ideas for different shield generators/booster set-ups for fore and aft on large ships. This would add to complexity of management for the bigger ships to slightly offset and mitigate the added firepower and shield/armour strengths (or at least give something for people to program another VA/keyboard macro for.
)It's heartwarming to have a thread where so many of us who often disagree all seem to think the same way
Exactly this, my worry is that FD will not swallow their pride and just admit that they were a bad idea. They need to sit down and have a serious think about how shields (and armour for that matter) work in the game before they get too much deeper into building game balance around the existing mechanics. If they keep designing ships with module slots and base stats on the premise that 'everybody' is stacking cells and boosters it will be that much harder to change later on.
- - - Updated - - -
It absolutely would make a difference because it would help hugely to remove the distinction between a 'pve' loadout and a pure pvp setup. What they should be aiming for is a balance whereby there is little to no difference in how to outfit between the two.
- it's not the length of combat that is the issue, it's the fact that unless you specifically fit for pvp, with stacked scb, you are gimped against other players. That should not be the case.
Okay - well that makes more sense I guess.
Though I still can't help thinking that might not be ideal from the PVPers pov with unintended consequences.
If players are currently able to stay in PVP combat longer or in some cases only feel they can participate because they have SCBs - and they are removed or nerfed.
Doesn't that just reduce the number of people making themselves available for PVP or worse yet increase the likelihood of combat logging as they hurtle towards the rebuy screen at a faster rate?
I'm not fussed either way - I enjoyed combat in alpha and I still enjoy it now.
Last edited:
Of course we won't to, since PvP is not allowed in PvE
i personally feel that stacking SCB's just leads to one dimensional game-play and load-outs which further restricts a player's options and forces PvP down one very specific path.
I also would have concerns that "if" SCB stacking has become quite prominent in PvE in CZ's and High Res Zones, effectively making it easier to farm kills for prolonged periods, then they should look at it.
Maybe reducing it to just one per ship might be a possible solution but I also liked the "babelfisch's" thoughts on it.
I don't use them personally as I like of idea of having to run every now and again, even sometimes dying and having to learn is a good thing but stacking SCB's would probably make the game immensely boring if I started doing it, at least for me.
There may also be concerns that the Shield strength & Armour on larger vessels may not be as good as they should be as a result. They should be more durable as a way to compensate for such things. You get what you pay for and the bigger ships should not just be fodder for a small fighter.
I also like this:
"It absolutely would make a difference because it would help hugely to remove the distinction between a 'pve' loadout and a pure pvp setup. What they should be aiming for is a balance whereby there is little to no difference in how to outfit between the two.
- it's not the length of combat that is the issue, it's the fact that unless you specifically fit for pvp, with stacked scb, you are gimped against other players. That should not be the case."
I feel this would attract more players to Open more than anything else.
As for any comments regarding "Combat Logging", they'll do it regardless so there is no reason to factor them into the discussion at all.
I also would have concerns that "if" SCB stacking has become quite prominent in PvE in CZ's and High Res Zones, effectively making it easier to farm kills for prolonged periods, then they should look at it.
Maybe reducing it to just one per ship might be a possible solution but I also liked the "babelfisch's" thoughts on it.
I don't use them personally as I like of idea of having to run every now and again, even sometimes dying and having to learn is a good thing but stacking SCB's would probably make the game immensely boring if I started doing it, at least for me.
There may also be concerns that the Shield strength & Armour on larger vessels may not be as good as they should be as a result. They should be more durable as a way to compensate for such things. You get what you pay for and the bigger ships should not just be fodder for a small fighter.
I also like this:
"It absolutely would make a difference because it would help hugely to remove the distinction between a 'pve' loadout and a pure pvp setup. What they should be aiming for is a balance whereby there is little to no difference in how to outfit between the two.
- it's not the length of combat that is the issue, it's the fact that unless you specifically fit for pvp, with stacked scb, you are gimped against other players. That should not be the case."
I feel this would attract more players to Open more than anything else.
As for any comments regarding "Combat Logging", they'll do it regardless so there is no reason to factor them into the discussion at all.
Last edited:
