Last edited:
Goodbye Open til SCB issue is sorted
- Thread starter Achilles7
- Start date
This is my whole point in this discussion! SCB's, the upcoming release of CQC, and the lack of monetary reward for PvP with the attrition of 'the heck with this junk I'm moving to a far better place'...are going to finally make PvP in the galaxy so bothersome and time consuming...it becomes totally pointless. Honestly, it was designed to be pointless from the start...and no one figured this out...and have pushed the game to where it is now.
I didn't mean to sound like I was addressing you specifically. I understood that you acknowledged the dynamic and was using your post as a foothold for my next point. However, I do not agree that SCBs limit people to a singular play style. SCBs to not force anyone to do anything. SCBs are a factor to consider when initiating combat. Similarly, cargo space is something to consider when initiating a trade run. You can give up SCBs and be that much less proficient at combat, and you can give up cargo racks and be that much less proficient at trading. If you don't bring enough SCBs, you lose the fight and need to flee. If you don't bring enough cargo racks, you lose profits and need to trade more. Cargo racks force players into singular roles as much as SCBs do.
Let me guess: is it the guy who started the fight by opening his cargo hatch and then using a shield cell in order to survive?
Last edited:
Well if to be proficient enough to take a chance at a fight I have to give up 3/4's of the optimum capacity that is not a choice to trade and PvP it is a choice between the two. SCB's do no allow a balanced idea of defense over profit. I give up 30% but could have a fun PvP encounter might be worth it...but to have to give up 5 cargo racks to remain competitive with middle range ships isn't something I would call a good way to have fun for a trader. The logic dictates run and jump...every time. This is the imbalance...I can make a Battle Cow...or I can build a trader...there is no middle ground to this, currently.
A lot of folks say there shouldn't be...and I can understand that idea...and this is how the game is currently working. And with the escape hatch we have in the game...it is becoming more and more obvious that players are using it and leaving the PvP players to their part of the galaxy...to the PvP players detriment...
I'm not sure how you figure that you need to give up 3/4ths capacity. I refuse to believe that you're so incompetent to need to resort to such a drastic sacrifice, so can you please explain to me how you've come to these figures?
A rated modules, chaff, and 20% less cargo/jump range should be more than enough for just about any pirating situation. If you're caught by someone who grossly outclasses you, then you kind of deserve to die and there's nothing wrong with this either.
It is a serious threat to a 200K credit Anaconda equipped for trade. So your saying a 200K credit war FDL should be outclassed or equal classed to an 800K credit PVP equipped Anaconda? Hmm there is a lot of talk about balance in this thread! Anyone see an imbalance there?
I would argue that the Anaconda classed warship just isn't in the game yet. I would say that the huge hard point choices are rather limited currently and that is affecting the balance more than anything else. Maybe some class 4 lasers could make all the difference. They could strip shields faster making the amount of SCB's less of an issue and bring things more into balance. Right now the advantage war ships have is larger hard point sizes for their class and better maneuverability but in the case of the FDL the huge hard point is all but useless PVP wise. Unless you downgrade to a large hard point. This nullifies the advantage that the war ship is supposed to have.
Well, I would be building this to be able to win, right?
http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=70Y,4yH4yH9qS,319Y9Y9Y8c9Y729s,7XQ0Bk0AA08c0727go7fE7fE7dg
What I would consider something usable to stop and shoot with....a quick shot at it anyway...basically, brings down my total tonnage to around 50% with only 4 boosters....and would be viable within a scrape with something smaller than an Asp, maybe a Python. Not real sure it would be that good...but you get the idea...the main tonnage for the T9 comes from it's biggest slot...which if I was going to be ballsy enough to turn on a Python or smaller...knowing it was a PvP player on the other side. I could go with a smaller shield and two boosters which would give me a higher shield than what is there currently..but I am not sure if there is the power there for that kind of choice....quickly noodling around doesn't appear I could fit more than one on there.
Anyway...it just seems the trader that wants to protect themselves in anything other than an Anaconda has a hard time doing it...at a very large cost to their profits/run. It is just more profitable to run and jump...as well as takes less time...than it would be to turn and fight.
Last edited:
The FDL I am piloting here has a 32T cargo rack and a class four fuel scoop. It has SCBs, but only an A2 and a B1. It's also handicapped by a hold full of illicit cargo:
[video=youtube;kfU3YuyTUKI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfU3YuyTUKI[/video]
This Clipper I am piloting here has no SCBs and a D3 shield generator, which turns itself off, by design, when I deploy hardpoints:
[video=youtube;iHfCAK4Rg5A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHfCAK4Rg5A[/video]
I often use unconventional setups. I do not feel forced to choose an SCB heavy loadout. I often engage in PvP, and often prevail against my opponents, with a less than fully dedicated combat setup.
Of course, SCBs are often handy, and if I am looking for trouble, or know it will find me, I'm certainly going to run a pure combat setup for the extra edge it provides...as would any sensible pilot who actually expects to face non-trivial opposition.
There are countless examples from countless commanders that go against the SCB/PvP mantra many people are whining about, often to good effect. How many exceptions does a rule need before it's not a good rule?
By your prior statements, the sort of actions I regularly engage in are impossible. I find any statements with the implications of your prior ones that I have quoted to be total nonsense.
I vehemently disagree.
A wasteful setup, regardless of intent.
The T-9 is a bad example anyway. Even if you aren't carrying any cargo, and build a pure combat setup with one, it's going to be annihilated by any competent CMDR in anything better than a Viper, unless you jump away.
It's a huge target, isn't that durable, and it moves like frozen molasses...no matter how many SCBs it has.
Turning to fight while carrying a significant quantity of cargo is exactly the opposite of protecting yourself. A Clipper and Python can often fight somewhat competently, even while carrying significant cargo, but if you are interested in trading, your should just be running and jumping away. Combat is risky and time consuming, even for an Anaconda trader.
There is little incentive to stay and duke it out, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. With even remote parity of pilot ability, combat setups should prevail over non-combat setups.
Removing SCBs would do very little to change this, not that it's something that needs to be changed. If I come at you with the exact same Python you have, but I have no cargo, and you have 260 tons of cargo, you are at a huge disadvantage be cause my ship is going to move a lot better. The mass differential is a huge asset/handicap in and of itself.
Last edited:
I posted about my idea on how to fix this in another SCB thread. If you think about it, the SCB blasts a huge amount of energy to recharge the shields so fast, and that has to generate a lot of heat. Seeing as this all has to go through the generator itself because it projects the shields. That would superheat the generator, and if the SCB was used too much, the generator would probably overload from all the power going through it, therefore disabling/destroying the generator itself. Spam the SCB too much and the shield goes boom, and may melt a hole in your hull. The ships heat systems would siphon off a decent amount of heat, which can be ejected with heat sinks, but a significant amount of heat remains in the generator. That would eventually dissipate, but that would take a while. Since every SCB sends that heat through the generator, players would have to watch their shield generator heat to stop it from overloading, blowing up, and damaging your ship significantly, or blowing it up. This would take 3-5 cells to cause an overload, so players could spam them to an extent if they are in a real pinch. The heat would also depend on the size of the SCB. A larger one sends more power through, making more heat and regenerating a larger amount of shields, while a smaller one would take more cells to overload the generator, but they send a smaller amount of energy for the shields.
This would prevent severe SCB spamming, because if you do, the shield generator will explode, possibly taking the whole ship with it. This would require a new HUD section that shows the shield heat levels, and showing how much more heat the next cell would add.
If you encounter another SCB spammer with this idea in-game, he would have nuked his generator, and quite possibly killed himself in the process.
This would prevent severe SCB spamming, because if you do, the shield generator will explode, possibly taking the whole ship with it. This would require a new HUD section that shows the shield heat levels, and showing how much more heat the next cell would add.
If you encounter another SCB spammer with this idea in-game, he would have nuked his generator, and quite possibly killed himself in the process.
Last edited:
It seems to me that the big problem with SCB's is that you can carry huge amounts of them without any penalty.
Accordingly, why not just categorise them as hardpoint items instead of internals. It would ensure that players have to balance SCB's with weapons, which restores balance to the game as every SCB you take reduces your firepower. It would mean that they are still useful for traders/explorers and create an interesting additional factor for combat builds.
Seems like the simplest and easiest solution.
Accordingly, why not just categorise them as hardpoint items instead of internals. It would ensure that players have to balance SCB's with weapons, which restores balance to the game as every SCB you take reduces your firepower. It would mean that they are still useful for traders/explorers and create an interesting additional factor for combat builds.
Seems like the simplest and easiest solution.
But there are penalties. They use a lot of energy when powered, produce a lot of heat when used, and until powered up, which can be distracting in the middle of combat, are a lot of dead weight.
They are generally better than nothing, if you anticipate being attacked, and want to keep your shields up, but there are trade-offs.
This is both illogical (why would you stick supplemental power for your shields further from a shield generator in a weapon hardpoint?) and not conducive FD's designs for SCBs, which go beyond trading.
They don't make much sense as anything other than internal modules.
Winning != killing, especially for a trader. Winning == selling your trade goods for profit. Escaping a pirate is winning the encounter. That's all you need out of your trader. Personally I don't feel T9s should be fielded without escort because of how vulnerable they are. But hey, that's just me, someone who doesn't like going to the insurance screen and is willing to do something about it.
As I've brought up in the other SCB thread, the main problem with SCBs is the sheer scale of the benefit they give you.
A fully loaded Anaconda can get over 8000 (I think it was actually just shy of 9000) shield HP out of SCBs, on a ship that has a standard shield roughly in the 500-700 range. IIRC, it worked out to having to kill that Anaconda 14 times over.
If you need 14 times the durability of an Anaconda you don't need SCBs, you need a capital ship.
A fully loaded Anaconda can get over 8000 (I think it was actually just shy of 9000) shield HP out of SCBs, on a ship that has a standard shield roughly in the 500-700 range. IIRC, it worked out to having to kill that Anaconda 14 times over.
If you need 14 times the durability of an Anaconda you don't need SCBs, you need a capital ship.
and yet players in anacondas have been killed fully loaded with scb
my lord more shield cell banks does not mean more life I AM SORRY BUT SCB's ARE USELESS IF OUT DAMAGE THE RECHARGE RATE! TAKE I HAVE already shown this in my last post drop his shields and no more banking! in the python video my self and my pal 4x rammed him and he lost his shield before he could recharge them! MY LORD he prolly had over 30x shield banks but guess what the fight was over faster than you could say SCB! INSTEAD BIT-IN about the op scb's work around them??? they have weakness its called high burst damage. Work an enemy player to 2 rings then burst them poof there goes his shields Why? Because takes like 3-5 seconds to activate the banks burst him and ram him and bye bye miss python shields we drove our clippers into the shields but the shields was DRY!
TAKE NOTE I HAVE GIVEN THE VIDEO OF THIS GLORIOUS FEAT! Some reason I cannot set the time soooo jump to 2:54 We line up our attacks
[video=youtube_share;Mv2ipNQhg8Y]https://youtu.be/Mv2ipNQhg8Y?t=174[/video]
TAKE NOTE I HAVE GIVEN THE VIDEO OF THIS GLORIOUS FEAT! Some reason I cannot set the time soooo jump to 2:54 We line up our attacks
[video=youtube_share;Mv2ipNQhg8Y]https://youtu.be/Mv2ipNQhg8Y?t=174[/video]
Last edited: