I think if armour packs would give the same amount of armour as SCBs give shield energy, we'll see SCBs being used far less. I don't know if someone already suggested it or not, didn't read the whole thread.
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
For some ships, for others it easily puts them over the weight threshold that gimps their maneuverability. Also, repair bills are a big deal for some people, especially those who buy ships they can barely afford. Given the choice between being slightly less tanky but taking no hull damage most of the time and taking hull damage every fight they'll take the former every time.
Armour packs don't use energy, have better resistance against lasers and are not in need for activation. I myself would mix armour packs with SCBs if lets say a class 5 armour pack would gibe 740 armour (like the class A5 SCB gives shield energy).
Last edited:
I believe Sandro also mentioned another adjustment they were considering which was to increase the "warm up" time of modules when you turn them back on, can't remember where the post was though.
I like that idea, not only will it adjust SCB stacking tactics but will have knock on effects; such as making it harder for people to run from combat (if they are turning off FSD for more power), which I know will make some people happy, and will generally lead to more thought in power setting.
While I don't buy the "limiting them to 1 per ship will make all loadouts the same and boring" argument, as currently everyone runs the same loadout of ALL THE SCBS, I think the intention has merit and I'd like to see more viable options for internal such as Weapon cell banks, boost cell banks, ammo storage, extra weapon coolout systems, BUFFED hull reinforcement packages. At the very least all the options will mean it takes more time before some bright spark (/lifeless cretin) finds out the optimum build and ruins the fun as everyone uses that.
Basically I'm not opposed to SCBs, but currently there is no reason to do anything but max shields and SCBs it seems.
I like that idea, not only will it adjust SCB stacking tactics but will have knock on effects; such as making it harder for people to run from combat (if they are turning off FSD for more power), which I know will make some people happy, and will generally lead to more thought in power setting.
While I don't buy the "limiting them to 1 per ship will make all loadouts the same and boring" argument, as currently everyone runs the same loadout of ALL THE SCBS, I think the intention has merit and I'd like to see more viable options for internal such as Weapon cell banks, boost cell banks, ammo storage, extra weapon coolout systems, BUFFED hull reinforcement packages. At the very least all the options will mean it takes more time before some bright spark (/lifeless cretin) finds out the optimum build and ruins the fun as everyone uses that.
Basically I'm not opposed to SCBs, but currently there is no reason to do anything but max shields and SCBs it seems.
Last edited:
That was the most incredibly boring fight I've ever seen...
The Python had more of them so he started winning then the FDL ran away when he ran out. Just about sums up PvP with big ships.
And then what happens when FD adds an other usefull combat internal X ? same nerf rivers of tears for module X ?
Last edited:
Yeah, introducing an entirely new meta mechanic to balance one module. That seems reasonable.
Just fix SCB's and stop making sweeping changes to the game that have knock-on effects to everything else that doesn't need to be changed. This is why I keep telling people to make a choice between SCB's or their ships, because it's coming down to that. Either SCB's get fixed or Frontier is going to start doing some really stupid crap to try and work around them while looking at the data they scrape from player activity.
None of this will have the desired effect, I'm afraid to say.
Heat doesn't mean anything because even without heat sinks, the amount of damage caused by heat compared to having your shields drop is minimal
Damaging the genny is another minimal impact change. They're not going to do this to an extent that someone could burn out their generator if they pop 8 SCB's, so it's essentially meaningless.
Warm-up time will just put a huge gap between skilled players and "okay" players. Skilled players won't be affected at all by the warm-up time, they'll just juggle their systems to accommodate on the fly. "Okay" players will be devastated by it. If a balance change only affects a part of the community instead of affecting everyone, then it isn't balanced.
Last edited:
How about they don't add another useful combat internal... It is terrible for game mechanics as they are currently due to all around ships having more internals. Internals should be about utility instead of survivability or all out combat ability.
How about instead of adding combat internals, they keep them on the utility mounts like everything else?
Do we reduce the costs of the python and anaconda by half then ? Because if they get restricted to trade and exploration, that the value they would have.
And no one in his sane mind would use a "combat" fitted anaconda with a 35M rebuy for PvP after such nerf. So only solo, which then makes even more ships half useless.
And no one in his sane mind would use a "combat" fitted anaconda with a 35M rebuy for PvP after such nerf. So only solo, which then makes even more ships half useless.
Load the dinghy with high-explosives and you might have a chance - well at least against a frigate or a destroyer.
I'd rather the analogy was 'could I really sink this guided missile destroyer with my ancient Mig-21 with dumb iron bombs' - with the answer being 'yes' with a lot of luck, good tactics (e.g. coming in below radar), or swarming (unfortunately difficult to do in E: D due to wings and p2p). .
Anyway I really hate this argument: 'my ship costs more than a whole load of other ships and therefore should be able to destroy them with impunity 'cus I'm higher level 'n' stuff!' No - that just means that we're playing a 'gamey' MMO, that the costs of the ships are borked (is an Anaconda 'really' worth thousands of smaller ships?) and the overall game balance is wrong (allowing the stacking of shield cells is an abomination - if a big ship's shields go down in a combat zone, it should RUN! - though I'd accept the shield recharge rates should be a lot higher across the board).
Ok, dude. What. Are. You. Flying. ?.
How you do it is you set your ship up so you can dish out some extra damage at the point when you see the effect of them activating the SCB. You have several seconds to crush the shields before the SCB kicks in. You just have to make sure you have enough energy in WEP or ammo (not in reloading state) to do so. That's it. Really, that's all.
If you just keep your finger on the trigger constantly shooting at the other guy, he will know exactly how much damage you can do in given amount of time so he can prepare & time their SCBs. Surprise him. Get in some shots with a railgun or two. Or a C4 PAC.
If you're already flying anything decent, these ideas should be coming to you naturally, over time & experience.
Are you trying to get a Python in an Eagle or something? If so, it's not the SCBs. Believe me.
Last edited:
When the Federal Corvette and Imperial Cutter arrive, no one's going to use them anyway. The days of the "combat Conda" are quickly coming to an end I'm afraid. Doubly so if the two can mass lock one since it'll definitely be slower.
The problem is that the game is so dominated by shields that SCB's are the only game in town.
If heavy armore was to totally bounce shots, things would be more interesting. And if having shields down was not game over in large slow ships, things would also be more intersting.
Also, if you ship cost half a billion credit (for combat), I would expect it to be better in some ways than the 100M one. If it is not, then both should be the same price isn't it ?
Also, conda/corevette/cutter can be balanced via resistance/speed/agility/firepower so that none is better than the other, just different.
If heavy armore was to totally bounce shots, things would be more interesting. And if having shields down was not game over in large slow ships, things would also be more intersting.
Also, if you ship cost half a billion credit (for combat), I would expect it to be better in some ways than the 100M one. If it is not, then both should be the same price isn't it ?
Also, conda/corevette/cutter can be balanced via resistance/speed/agility/firepower so that none is better than the other, just different.
Last edited:
Sure, if he's a complete noob to PvP.
If he's not, he'll have already checked your loadout from the sub-targets panel and know if you're sand-bagging leading to them using their SCB's accordingly, to keep you from Alphaing their shields. If you have too much of an advantage and they're popping too many pills compared to you, they'll just high-wake out.
- - - Updated - - -
No, because ships have roles, and if your cheap fighter completely dogs an expensive trader, that's working as intended.
When a middle-class multi-role dogs the most expensive fighter in the game, something is wrong.
As others have pointed out, there are ways to defeat deep tanks. One of them is Wings. Get community, get friends, get powerful.
Instead of removing incentives to advance a player's position in the game by purchasing advantages, learn to counter those advantages when you need to.
In thirty years of Elite development, you think the designers have totally ignored balance and counter balance as if it doesn't exist?
Rather, if they even bother to read these threads (which must be a hair pulling and frustrating experience to them sometimes) what they want to say might be:
"They just don't get what we've done. If this person only investigated the game a little more deeply and took off the blinders, it would be discovered the tools
are there to be learned and practiced."
There is a mechanism to follow your dreams in the game and for every measure, there is a counter-measure. Sometimes more than one, and the easiest and most obvious
is likely to be the least effective.
-Pv-
Instead of removing incentives to advance a player's position in the game by purchasing advantages, learn to counter those advantages when you need to.
In thirty years of Elite development, you think the designers have totally ignored balance and counter balance as if it doesn't exist?
Rather, if they even bother to read these threads (which must be a hair pulling and frustrating experience to them sometimes) what they want to say might be:
"They just don't get what we've done. If this person only investigated the game a little more deeply and took off the blinders, it would be discovered the tools
are there to be learned and practiced."
There is a mechanism to follow your dreams in the game and for every measure, there is a counter-measure. Sometimes more than one, and the easiest and most obvious
is likely to be the least effective.
-Pv-