Goodbye Open til SCB issue is sorted

[Darrett]

In ours. The tendency has been toward faster maneuverable ships instead of heavy boats of mass destuction for long, destroyer class was literally an anti-heavy ship weapon and is nowaday so efficient that almost no heavy capital ships are built other than carriers, dreadnought almost doesn't exist since long, and the last battleships in the world where decomissioned in 1990. Same goes for intermediate heavy like cruiser and battlecruiser. Frigates and Destroyer own the sea now.

This is beyond a simple SCB fix though. They need to change a lot of the fundamentals of combat to make this work.

I've been a fan of increasing the ability of small ships to disable large ones for a long time, because the vertical progression model just leads to everyone using relatively few ships (Anacondas everywhere) once money becomes no object. SCBs aren't going to make this happen though, and just reducing the survivability of the larger ships through a simple SCB limitation is going to mean that people won't use those ships in open.

The simple answer would end badly in my view. They need to take a pass over the entire combat model.

 

[Muetdhiver]

Having a mechanic akin to boost that would dump the sys capacitor to shield would work.

Then replace SCB's by sys capacitor boosters, i.e. increase how much MJ the sys capacitor can hold.
Add similar capacitors boosters for weapons and engine.

Now you have interesting fitting option and 'SCB's' that require some power managment.
(i.e. want to use it a lot, need pips into sys, like for weapons and engine boost).

Call it crazy, but one could even think over other sys => shield boost uses, like a temporary ramming shield (akin to I-War2),
a tracking shield (temporary shield that only covers part of your ship and 'tracks' your target, blocking incoming fire from the target) or other such ideas.

 

[andyraptor]

6 days down the line

has the Op kept is promise and gone ?

 

[EdzUp]

One adjustment that would suit all these issues and make it more meaningful for players is simply your Elite rating is increased by how much DAMAGE you inflicted on the other ships so with SCB's the shield damage would be counted so mass SCB's would put your Elite rating up if you killed them this would make the fight actually mean something rather than a shield power pill popping competition.

i suggested the ol 'Elite' extra energy unit so it could be used to fast recharge your levels this would mean that everything would get a boost but the SCB diehards seem hell bent on having a edge where SCB's only overpower the game, surely a Anny with stacked SCB's that has a high maneuverability anyways should be able to fight its way out of a combat situation rather than popping SCB's like no tomorrow. Its a mechanic that is not really required if the pilot is competent enough to actually avoid being blasted and chooses their kills rather than relies on SCB's to bail them out all the time, as an example I never have used em and the only death I have had is hitting the station wall due to sticky key glitch.

- - - Updated - - -

What would everyone think of a single module that would dump all the energy of the SYS capacitor into the shields with one button press similar to what boost does for ENG? Get rid of the shield cell banks all together. The power distributor would scale well with the size of the ship and its shields.

Or does that make too much sense?

Having a mechanic akin to boost that would dump the sys capacitor to shield would work.

Then replace SCB's by sys capacitor boosters, i.e. increase how much MJ the sys capacitor can hold.
Add similar capacitors boosters for weapons and engine.

Now you have interesting fitting option and 'SCB's' that require some power managment.
(i.e. want to use it a lot, need pips into sys, like for weapons and engine boost).

Call it crazy, but one could even think over other sys => shield boost uses, like a temporary ramming shield (akin to I-War2),
a tracking shield (temporary shield that only covers part of your ship and 'tracks' your target, blocking incoming fire from the target) or other such ideas.

Or make it so the boost button can be used to boost things other than engines as well for example boosting shields maybe there could be a boost pip that selects what you want boosted.

 

[B1ll Adama]

Loads of good suggestions here... for my part i think:

1) limit SCB to one per ship
2) fix the shield charge rate so powerplant / distrib / shield size matters i.e. a 500mCR ship can charge its shields at a higher rate than a Freewinder (so big ships shields actually charge in <20 minutes)
3) Fix modules 'n' armour i.e. armour actually protects a ship's modules
4) Fix damage model i.e. so that modules are more easily damaged, critical ones are better protected but weapons / life support break more often (i want to limp back into dock with sparks and malfunctions and half thrusters working.. but still be able to not go POP and still be able to boost and high wake out of there)

The above 4 items are my dreams, if they were to happen i think we would be back to where we were when battles involved taking damage and ducking out to get shields a bit stronger and generally just more fun.

Dont want to have to make a sig with potions but i really want to at the moment!!

 

[deathmagnet]

Basically, with PvP, who wins? the best pilot or the ship with the most internal compartments?..the game mechanic is truly awful in this respect, but, as I said..roll on 1.4.

Killing Clippers isn't that hard for my Diamondback Scout. If you can't kill those scummy "SCB spammers" then you are not trying hard enough or need more practice. No ship is indestructible. Yes. The expensive ones are harder to kill, AS THEY SHOULD BE. If you don't like it and want to be able to kill players in a matter of seconds then go pick up the latest copy of Call of Duty. That or wait til CQC. Then you can have your space FPS bliss and leave the ED Universe alone. So if your leaving Open because of SCB's, well, I can't say I am gonna miss you. Maybe open wasn't meant for you.

A large portion of the community likes SCB's the way they are. So instead of asking FD to change the game to please you and upset others, you could start a private group for all like minded players. Like Mobius did. That community didn't like open so they started a private group were everyone agreed to play by a certain set of rules.I mean really, for months now this has been a subject that pops up on the forums at a frequency of about 2-3 threads a month, yet no one of this very vocal anti-SCB community has thought to start a private group!? No reprogramming of the game mechanics required. No removing of content, which is one thing i never understood, add more content to stop people from equipping SCB's, don't remove them. For a game lacking content, why remove any of it? ADD MORE! Ammo cartridges, weapon boosts, improved tracking modules that make chaff less effective against gimballed and turreted. Those are just a few ideas that would give CMDR's something OTHER than SCB's to equip for their combat ships.

Really, I just wish people would get over this subject. CMDR's like SCB's, FD like SCB's, they have already nerfed them twice at the Anti-SCB's whining.....I so wish that Frontier Forums had a down vote option so these threads could be down voted to oblivion. Enough already, you hate SCB's, we get it. Go cry me a river.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Really, I just wish people would get over this subject. CMDR's like SCB's, FD like SCB's, they have already nerfed them twice at the Anti-SCB's whining.....I so wish that Frontier Forums had a down vote option so these threads could be down voted to oblivion. Enough already, you hate SCB's, we get it. Go cry me a river.

Very good point!. I actually am in the camp of they would be better if we could not stack them, but I totally respect your view. and I think you make an excellent point.

In the spirit of compromise I would be more than happy to shut up about the SCBs so long as everyone else shuts up about the 3 modes, switching and no official guild support

 

[deathmagnet]

Very good point!. I actually am in the camp of they would be better if we could not stack them, but I totally respect your view. and I think you make an excellent point.

In the spirit of compromise I would be more than happy to shut up about the SCBs so long as everyone else shuts up about the 3 modes, switching and no official guild support

I am fine with the 3 modes. I have came to terms with that about 1 week after release. I haven't dwelled on it for the last 9 months. Instead I have chosen to enjoy the game for the last 9 months.

Edit:

Switching? Talking about between modes? Fine with that to. Like I said. Have come to terms with it.

No official guild support?

I think the guilds are stronger without it. It makes people have to really work at it if they want it, which causes more investment, which turns into stronger, closer communities. I have played games that offer full blown in game guild support and you end up with thousands of guilds to search though, 70% of them being defunct, another 20% being sister groups, and 10% being actual groups where only half of those actually matter in the game (completely arbitrary numbers but it illustrates my point). Full blown in game guild support is a waste and drag on resources.

 

[Maelkhor]

This is beyond a simple SCB fix though. They need to change a lot of the fundamentals of combat to make this work.

Indeed, and also I never said it should be the same in ED, it would be boring as hell, nowaday missiles and torpedoes does so much damage that aircraft dogfight/warship fights ends on the first clean hit...

Balancing big vs small ship is a global gameplay choice, I loved the design choice in EVE for large turret to have issue tracking fast moving small target, although still reaping them in case of hit , this made sense to me, but I don't even know if it could suit the gameplay of ED. And it is not the subject here.

 

[Bortas]

Really, I just wish people would get over this subject. CMDR's like SCB's, FD like SCB's, they have already nerfed them twice at the Anti-SCB's whining.....I so wish that Frontier Forums had a down vote option so these threads could be down voted to oblivion. Enough already, you hate SCB's, we get it. Go cry me a river.

Would give you more rep if I could. The problem is, these threads are full of players who don't know what they are talking about, patting each other on the shoulder, while the players who know better are tired of explaining why the formers' suggestions won't work over and over again.

 

[deathmagnet]

Would give you more rep if I could. The problem is, these threads are full of players who don't know what they are talking about, patting each other on the shoulder, while the players who know better are tired of explaining why the formers' suggestions won't work over and over again.

All too true.

 

[Tenshi]

Said it before and will say it again. Limit SCB's to one per ship only. Like shield generators. This would stop alot of the arguing and also keep a viable utility in the game.

I only run with 1 SCB in my ships not had a reason to equip more than one either. I have been up against other commanders and won some fights and lost some fights. This was before the SCB were balanced by adding power usage to them. It is all down to how you fly your ships not how many SCB's you carry.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Would give you more rep if I could. The problem is, these threads are full of players who don't know what they are talking about, patting each other on the shoulder, while the players who know better are tired of explaining why the formers' suggestions won't work over and over again.

All too true.

ok fair point but in which case (and sorry if i have missed it) but can you explain why either limiting ships to 1 SCB module wont work? (bear in mind the game launched without ANY and some might say the game was better for it - I certainly had no issues without them through all of beta.)

I am not saying you are wrong, would just like to know why.

also... what are your reasons for the - imo interesting suggestion - of having the SCB a rechargeable commodity which takes power from our sys banks?

disagreeing is fine, but at least for the sake of interest explain why rather than just accuse people of not knowing how to play the game and talking rubbish

 

[Morbad]

ok fair point but in which case (and sorry if i have missed it) but can you explain why either limiting ships to 1 SCB module wont work?

I already explained this.

SCBs were introduced largely to encourage people to take a wider variety of ships into dangerous combat situations. Limiting SCBs to one per ship would result in the larger ships--namely Python, Anaconda, and most Clippers--being too fragile relative to their expense to bring into these scenarios.

Most of the small combat focuse ships wouldn't much by limiting SCBs modules to one; everything up to and including Vulture would stay mostly the same, the FDL would see a moderate hit to staying power, and anything bigger would become a complete sitting duck...utterly unable to hold up in wing vs. wing combat...even with support.

1v1 the Python and Anaconda would still be powerful, but their size and lack of speed make them extremely vulnerable to swarm tactics and defeat in detail without the ability to absorb massive amounts of data.

I have major trouble taking on a competent battle Python in my FDL 1v1. In a 2v2 scenarior, I have the edge, in large wings that edge grows...and that is with the current mantra of fitting as many SCBs as they can. One SCB per ship would make almost any wing of four Python fold like a wet paper bag against two competent FDLs or Vultures...thus these larger ships would disappear from combat...outside of certain unconventional builds.

 

[B1ll Adama]

I already explained this.

SCBs were introduced largely to encourage people to take a wider variety of ships into dangerous combat situations. Limiting SCBs to one per ship would result in the larger ships--namely Python, Anaconda, and most Clippers--being too fragile relative to their expense to bring into these scenarios.

Most of the small combat focuse ships wouldn't much by limiting SCBs modules to one; everything up to and including Vulture would stay mostly the same, the FDL would see a moderate hit to staying power, and anything bigger would become a complete sitting duck...utterly unable to hold up in wing vs. wing combat...even with support.

1v1 the Python and Anaconda would still be powerful, but their size and lack of speed make them extremely vulnerable to swarm tactics and defeat in detail without the ability to absorb massive amounts of data.

I have major trouble taking on a competent battle Python in my FDL 1v1. In a 2v2 scenarior, I have the edge, in large wings that edge grows...and that is with the current mantra of fitting as many SCBs as they can. One SCB per ship would make almost any wing of four Python fold like a wet paper bag against two competent FDLs or Vultures...thus these larger ships would disappear from combat...outside of certain unconventional builds.

Unless the Shield Charge Rate Mechanic is fixed, along with armour protecting modules and their associated damage (PP pop) model?

The Anaconda and Python should have amazing shield charge rates based on their available Power Plant and Distributer outputs?

 

[who?]

1v1 the Python and Anaconda would still be powerful, but their size and lack of speed make them extremely vulnerable to swarm tactics and defeat in detail without the ability to absorb massive amounts of data.

It depends on the degree, doesn't it? If two smaller combat ships together can take down a Python/Anaconda in 20 seconds, that's obviously bad. But if 3 or 4 smaller combat ships together can take down a Python/Anaconda in ~1 minute, I'd have absolutely no problem with that.

Bigger (or better, rather) ships should, rightly, give you a massive advantage in 1v1, a big advantage in 1v2, and a decreasing advantage thereafter. It shouldn't mean you're invulnerable, even to smaller ships.

I'd rather they tweaked the damage/shield stats rather than allowed multiple SCBs. The problem with multiple SCBs is that it becomes a game of escalation (as others have pointed out). I don't have an SCB, you have 1, you win. I add an SCB, you add two, you win. I max out on SCBs, you have a ship that lets you add 1 more, you win. I buy the same ship, max out on SCBs, then we might have a fair contest. But it's forcing us to discard all the other possible modules / configurations / ships which removes variety from the game and makes it all a bit bland.

I'd rather we had the same "fair contest" where we both have 1 SCB (and lots of other modules) than where we're both maxed out with them and little else.

 

[Morbad]

Unless the Shield Charge Rate Mechanic is fixed, along with armour protecting modules and their associated damage (PP pop) model?

The Anaconda and Python should have amazing shield charge rates based on their available Power Plant and Distributer outputs?

Maybe, but messing with recharge rates turns into a far more complicated, and still unnecessary, 'fix'.

The current system works pretty well. You don't have small ships carrying more than two, or at most three, SCB modules, and mobility is far more important with them. Large ships, which have far fewer ways to mitigate damage, can soak considerably more with larger numbers of SCB modules...if the pilot can equip and manage them competently.

To shift to a recharge rate paradigm, you would need to arbitrary adjust them for each ship, and them balance them against all other ships in many scenarios to have a situation better, in practice, than what we have right now.

You can't just look at shield and distributor modules, because this would exacerbate the relative fragility of large ships, not correct them. An FDL has a class 6 distributor, so does the Clipper. The Python is class 7 and the Anaconda class 8. Even if they recharged more than proportionally faster, faster even than the distributor could handle, the larger ships won't be able to leverage this, because they will be too slow to disengage and will never experience shield recharge in combat...unless you change that too, which would have fallout in other areas.

Basically, every fix I see posted is full of holes, and would need a half dozen major changes, which would each have unintended consequences to a dozen other things...it would be a nightmare to balance, and probably wouldn't be better than the status quo. Indeed, I strongly suspect that some of the people most vocal about changing the status quo would be most disappointed with the results of the very changes they are advocating.

 

[Maelkhor]

I already explained this.

Some good points, although it could also be read as "ship balance/price is totally off and we fixed it with monobuild potion, bigger ships can hold more potion, so issue is fixed".

Now is this solution fun in term of gameplay? I sincerelly ask.
I know peoples who spent spent time learning the relatives mechanics to master them and have the edge on pvp would be off if it was fixed, and this is the real main unspoken argument for most people who wants the statu-quo, but this is not an objective valid gameplay argument.

Currently ship prices obvioulsy doesn't increase accordingly to the ship real stats and utility relative to its role, they just feel like an artificial incentive to grind credits, just like prices in F2P games increase exponentially when you progress to keep you grinding. Maybe the first issue is here.


Although I don't quite understand this part :

I have major trouble taking on a competent battle Python in my FDL 1v1. In a 2v2 scenarior, I have the edge, in large wings that edge grows...and that is with the current mantra of fitting as many SCBs as they can. One SCB per ship would make almost any wing of four Python fold like a wet paper bag against two competent FDLs or Vultures...thus these larger ships would disappear from combat...outside of certain unconventional builds..

You say that without SCB, combat ship would be better in combat that heavy multipurpose? I don't see how it is an issue, it would even be coherent, for once

Your main argument is variety, I don't see were there is variety in the current meta heavily favoring multipurpose (more internal) with full SCB loadout. So when every CMDR will have quintillions in bank the game will only feature SCBs python and stealth scoot (before scbs python asks to nerf them, because a 100Billion ship should'nt be soft countered by a 4billion fit that require 10 times more skill)

Maybe ships balance is just flowed, or we don't understand it, FD just wanted everybody to grind up to python and thats it.

 

[CMDR Kantos Kan]

I already explained this.

SCBs were introduced largely to encourage people to take a wider variety of ships into dangerous combat situations. Limiting SCBs to one per ship would result in the larger ships--namely Python, Anaconda, and most Clippers--being too fragile relative to their expense to bring into these scenarios.

Most of the small combat focuse ships wouldn't much by limiting SCBs modules to one; everything up to and including Vulture would stay mostly the same, the FDL would see a moderate hit to staying power, and anything bigger would become a complete sitting duck...utterly unable to hold up in wing vs. wing combat...even with support.

1v1 the Python and Anaconda would still be powerful, but their size and lack of speed make them extremely vulnerable to swarm tactics and defeat in detail without the ability to absorb massive amounts of data.

I have major trouble taking on a competent battle Python in my FDL 1v1. In a 2v2 scenarior, I have the edge, in large wings that edge grows...and that is with the current mantra of fitting as many SCBs as they can. One SCB per ship would make almost any wing of four Python fold like a wet paper bag against two competent FDLs or Vultures...thus these larger ships would disappear from combat...outside of certain unconventional builds.

Well, I don't totally agree that limiting the SCBs would make the larger ships more vulnerable. Well, they would be more vulnerable but maybe that's desirable. For a multi-purpose ship, the way I use my Python, I only have room for 1 SCB anyway. But, my goal is not to engage in PvP or PvE, my goal is a little bit of everything so, in that regard, I accept that the Python might not hold as much cargo than a Type-9 or might not be able to hold its own against a Fer-de-Lance.

However, if you pick a Python exclusively for PvP and PvE, then I think that's where you're making a mistake. Limiting the SCB to one per ship would maybe force some people to use a fighter oriented ship if fighting is what people are looking for. At the same time, maybe it would address the complain that multi-purpose ships are better in fight than fight-oriented ship.

Having a wing of 4 Pythons would then become a mistake if it's PvP and PvE you're after. I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Darrett]

It depends on the degree, doesn't it? If two smaller combat ships together can take down a Python/Anaconda in 20 seconds, that's obviously bad. But if 3 or 4 smaller combat ships together can take down a Python/Anaconda in ~1 minute, I'd have absolutely no problem with that.

Bigger (or better, rather) ships should, rightly, give you a massive advantage in 1v1, a big advantage in 1v2, and a decreasing advantage thereafter. It shouldn't mean you're invulnerable, even to smaller ships.

I'd rather they tweaked the damage/shield stats rather than allowed multiple SCBs. The problem with multiple SCBs is that it becomes a game of escalation (as others have pointed out). I don't have an SCB, you have 1, you win. I add an SCB, you add two, you win. I max out on SCBs, you have a ship that lets you add 1 more, you win. I buy the same ship, max out on SCBs, then we might have a fair contest. But it's forcing us to discard all the other possible modules / configurations / ships which removes variety from the game and makes it all a bit bland.

I'd rather we had the same "fair contest" where we both have 1 SCB (and lots of other modules) than where we're both maxed out with them and little else.

I think hull values are the key here. A Type 9 or Anaconda should have ridiculous hull values, taking a great deal of effort to destroy outright, especially with small hardpoint weapons. I'd have no issue with a setup where small hardpoint weapons deal less damage than even the current model to the hull of the large ships, but module damage was left alone to encourage disabling over destruction. Considering the upcoming Powerplant change, we're in a good spot to make this happen.

That's the key. People want to be able to defeat a large ship in several small ships, but those in large ships shouldn't be looking at massive insurance bills every time they go out.

If they made some further modifications to how tracking works on large hardpoint weapons, the Vulture would be an excellent choice for hunting Pythons and Anacondas, but would have difficulty with more maneuverable ships.