Conda as expensive trader would not have 8 weapon slots and class 8 powerplant/distributor. Trade conda costs 200M and gets doged by 100M FDL ezpz.
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
Conda as expensive trader would not have 8 weapon slots and class 8 powerplant/distributor. Trade conda costs 200M and gets doged by 100M FDL ezpz.
Trade Anaconda. Thanks for repeating what I just said.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes. All signs unequivocally and without hesitation point towards yes. Even CQC is a resounding failure at balance.
I understand what you're saying. I just can not see any practical way to... well let's just say this is all theoretical. As in it's in your head.
- Why does it bother you what people in big ships do in combat zones? Or anywhere else? Are you not flying one yourself? Why not?
- Stacking shield cells is the same as higher recharge rate. Assuming the recharge rate is high enough.
Little more on this.
Having shield cells:
- Promotes choice of ship.
- Choice of internal compartments.
- Choice of weapons and utilities (due to power management)
- You don't have to fly away and wait around even when victorious. (Based on other game mechanics though, FD likes us to wait around though... could it be with the X hours played stat? Just remember the frackety blast shield)
Having high recharge rate
- makes every ship stronger equally
- makes power / internal compartment management dull (and /or non-existent in some high-power cases)
- You'll still have to wait around.
I think my opinion that it's much better to have them is clear from this. But I stated it just in case. Also I think it is actually very well thought-through if you factor in all the things that you need to be aware of when you actually use them. It makes for a more complex, more enjoyable gameplay, with dilemmas and choices.
------
Elite Dangerous is not a mainly PvP game.
------
Balancing different sized ships against each other PvP combat-wise is NOT important in the main game.
-----
I like your idea of using rail guns I will start using in my load outs, but I hope FD would fix it to prevent stacking that's all. By the way, I could fly my Python like an eagle all gotta do turn FAoff, do be fool in thinking I'm a Complete noob.
Err... Yes, it is a PvP game. You'll notice that it is completely unrestricted and open to any variety of PvP.
Disregarding that, balancing ships against each other in PvP is crucially important, because the AI/PvE is a direct attempt to copy of the players and their behavior. To balance PvE, you HAVE to balance PvP, and vice versa. They are inseparable.
Last edited:
Yeah well. If they flee that's a win then. Not really satisfying at all, but that's how it goes 99% of the time.
Please remember, the only difference between high-waking when the count of SCBs are low or the shields are low (or gone) is the length of the battle.
Imagine if there were no SCBs at all. Then the only deciding factor would be the size of the shield generator and the number of Shield Boosters. Same stuff. Then you could go for nerfing the shield boosters, because the Anaconda now can have 8 without having to care for power management as there are no SCBs to suck on that. Equals to stronger weapons.
Python vs FDL you say? Python still wins because hull reinforcements. BAM!
----------------------
Also please remember that this is ALL THEORETICAL.
I've been in this game since the original Beta.
Do you know how many times I had 1on1 PvP? ONCE. Because we agreed to do it.
Otherwise "PvP" is always 1v4 or 4v1. It's already decided without any kind of equipment. Sometimes, when you get really really lucky, it's 4v4. Then it's tactics. Not equipment.
Well. Builds have roles. And let's face it. The FDL is crap compared to the Python. This, to some extent shows on the price tag as well (not the ship's price, the full build's price)
Yes. This was in my head as well, just couldn't say it so nicely. Thanks.
Sounds like you hang out in all the wrong parts of town if you've only had a single 1v1.
Also if you've played since the Beta, you should remember what the game was like before SCB's. You know, back when Pilot skill was the determining factor and an Ace Viper pilot could run off a bad Anaconda Pilot? There was quite a bit of satisfaction in that.
Last thing you want to do in a Python is stack hull reinforcements and fight a shielded FDL that's going to stay out of your line of fire 100% of the time because you're too heavy to turn.
The FDL only needs two things to completely overshadow the Python in combat. The first is a slight- and I mean slight - buff to the internals. The second is for SCB's to be balanced.
Oh, and as has been mentioned time and time again, the fitting cost of a ship is not relevant to it's position in the food chain. The fact that the Python costs twice as much to fit as the FDL even though the hulls cost the same is proof evident that both of them are not properly balanced.
There are no restrictions on PvP, just choices to avoid it COMPLETELY from the get go. I don't want to start up that argument, there are threads almost as big as the Unknown Artifact one about the modes.
Also there are a multitude of ways to completely avoid PvP even when playing only in Open. Also, most of the time you don't even have to specifically work for it - as the "map" is so big, you won't meet anyone (unless there's an event or at a place of some significance)
As a comparison, I'm sure you're familiar with ... well.... any other multiplayer PvP game really, where there's no chance for you to do either of the above.
-------------------
You'll note that I said balancing _different sized_ ships. You do have a point there though assuming our understanding of "balancing" is the same.
OK, let's clarify balancing with maths. Because that's how it is.
Say, you have two builds: ship A worth 100m and ship B worth 100m. Do you want them each to win a battle roughly 50% of the time assuming pilot skill is roughly equal, right?
That's balanced.
From what you say I assume you want your 120m FDL to win 100% of the time against a 300m Python, because the FDL is a "combat ship" and it's initial price is close to the Python's. Is this right? If so, that's not balance.
- - - Updated - - -
I really don't understand your definition of balance.
There are 2 ships. They are of different size (ok, they're both medium, but still)
What you should be comparing here is the cost of the build (ship + fittings). The initial price is just part of the sum, not definitive.
Please clarify.
The initial price is supposed to define the capacity that the ship can possibly fill. It serves the purpose of gating that level of gameplay until the player has invested that amount of time.
That being said, I think you should review on what Frontier thinks ship balance should be, which is eerily close to mine the majority of the time. A Viper owns the field up to everything non-fighter oriented up to an Asp. The Vulture dominates every non-combat ship up to a Python. The FAS is a direct upgrade to the Vulture and without the broken SCB's would dominate a Python. The FDL and the Gunship are currently broken.
Frontier's definition of how to balance the food chain of combat effectiveness in Elite: Dangerous has and always will be Fighter > Multirole > Trader. They have stated so in numerous newsletters going further back than I care to dig through and when they are not screwing up, this is the philosophy they have followed with impunity.
Edit: This works, because combat effectiveness is not the only determining factor of balance.
Last edited:
Sooo, your opinion of balance is to have the FDL be the best ship ? That explains the SCB's on utilities then...
IMO, the FDL is indeed a bit underpowered, mainly the jump range should be a bit better, and the choices for the class 4 should be more usefull.
It could do with an additional class 4 internal to be honest. But that is about it.
A combat python costs nearly double the FDL, so if the FDL is better than a combat python, then python fitted for combat should be cheaper than it actualy is.
The python is not a lot better than the FDL for combat (even less so for 4v4 PvP), yet it is more costly to counter balance its versatility*
*potential versatility, i.e. It can be fitted to do anything, but not at the same time.
PvP is most often 4v1 or 4v4. In 4v1 you just have to flee. 4v4 is more dependant on tactics.
If you have a laggard tanky python, it might end up less usefull than a clipper or FDL that can shift arround.
IMO, the FDL is indeed a bit underpowered, mainly the jump range should be a bit better, and the choices for the class 4 should be more usefull.
It could do with an additional class 4 internal to be honest. But that is about it.
A combat python costs nearly double the FDL, so if the FDL is better than a combat python, then python fitted for combat should be cheaper than it actualy is.
The python is not a lot better than the FDL for combat (even less so for 4v4 PvP), yet it is more costly to counter balance its versatility*
*potential versatility, i.e. It can be fitted to do anything, but not at the same time.
PvP is most often 4v1 or 4v4. In 4v1 you just have to flee. 4v4 is more dependant on tactics.
If you have a laggard tanky python, it might end up less usefull than a clipper or FDL that can shift arround.
Last edited:
No, it's not to have the FDL as the best ship. It's to make the FDL a "good" combat ship for it's tier.
Please for the love of god stop using the strawman that the Python costs more to fit. That is EXACTLY WHY it is unbalanced. You can't cite the source of the problem as a reason that the problem doesn't exist.
Not entirely, it still requires more skill to fly some ships with SCB's than it does to ignore them. The problem is that SCB's completely screw up balance and are not beneficial to the gameplay.
Not at all, people acknowledge that open pvp with SCBs still requires skill. However it throws off ship roles, makes pvp combat dull, and limits diversity in pvp.
Sounds like you hang out in all the wrong parts of town if you've only had a single 1v1.
Also if you've played since the Beta, you should remember what the game was like before SCB's. You know, back when Pilot skill was the determining factor and an Ace Viper pilot could run off a bad Anaconda Pilot? There was quite a bit of satisfaction in that.
yeah, I kinda was - by choice of course. Which kinda ties in to my point earlier about ED being a PvP game only if you really really go out of your way to make it so.Yup, I do remember - and I understand the satisfaction part. I just disagree that a single Viper should be a viable counter to a combat Anaconda. But let's face it, even back then the build of the conda would have had to be really really bad to allow for the Viper to get it's coat off.
In fact I was not using scbs at all for a long time, because when they came in there was a bug that showed them having only 1 ammo
it wasn't after I saw all these threads about it when I decided to try them I don't understand why the FDL should ever overshadow a combat fitted Python in combat (assuming comparable pilot skills). It's the same argument as the Viper vs Conda, but not as extreme.
You seem to have only one reason, the FDL being "combat ship" and the Python is a "multirole".
But in fact these designations have no meaning at all. They are just 2 ships with different layouts.
Which in turn allow for different builds. More slots/power in one, at a price of the speed & maneuverability of the other.
When we talk about builds (not just ships), price is a natural base for comparison. And in fact in this case it does help measuring the combat effectiveness of the builds (again, assuming same pilot skills).
If in this case a 120m build could dominate a 300m build, balance would be off in my opinion.
Limits diversity in the game in general. PvE players are just as fond of stacking SCB's and doing nothing beyond that. It's part of what led to grinding bounties in RES's so popular. An SCB loaded Python can stay out in the field for hours cleaning house.
As I just told, I think the FDL is a bit underpowered for its cost. But not hugely so,
and definitly not a reason to ham the SCB's with a blunt force nerf.
And yes, if it costs more, it should be better overall, counting multi-role as a plus, and paying for it. A bit. Not +70%M more. more like 20% for multi-role.
Plus, as some have pointed out, the FDL has better speed and better agility (esp. FAOFF). It seems you just 'forget' about these and just focus on shield strength.
I don't get you're "Tier" thing. Its not because FDL and Python have the same hull cost that they have the same "Tier". But whatever.
and definitly not a reason to ham the SCB's with a blunt force nerf.
And yes, if it costs more, it should be better overall, counting multi-role as a plus, and paying for it. A bit. Not +70%M more. more like 20% for multi-role.
Plus, as some have pointed out, the FDL has better speed and better agility (esp. FAOFF). It seems you just 'forget' about these and just focus on shield strength.
I don't get you're "Tier" thing. Its not because FDL and Python have the same hull cost that they have the same "Tier". But whatever.
Yup, I do remember - and I understand the satisfaction part. I just disagree that a single Viper should be a viable counter to a combat Anaconda. But let's face it, even back then the build of the conda would have had to be really really bad to allow for the Viper to get it's coat off.
In fact I was not using scbs at all for a long time, because when they came in there was a bug that showed them having only 1 ammo
I don't understand why the FDL should ever overshadow a combat fitted Python in combat (assuming comparable pilot skills). It's the same argument as the Viper vs Conda, but not as extreme.
You seem to have only one reason, the FDL being "combat ship" and the Python is a "multirole".
But in fact these designations have no meaning at all. They are just 2 ships with different layouts.
Which in turn allow for different builds. More slots/power in one, at a price of the speed & maneuverability of the other.
When we talk about builds (not just ships), price is a natural base for comparison. And in fact in this case it does help measuring the combat effectiveness of the builds (again, assuming same pilot skills).
If in this case a 120m build could dominate a 300m build, balance would be off in my opinion.
Because the Python is a Multi-role ship, not a combat ship. It's fit doesn't matter, it's still not a specialized platform.
You can turn the Python into a Pirate, a Trader, A Combat ship, an Explorer, A Salvager, A Miner, Etc... You can do anything you want with it. That versatility, as part of it's balance, is supposed to come at the cost of how effective it is in any of those roles. It should never equal a T9 as a trader, assuming we had an Explorer of equivalent size it should never equal that ship, and it should not under any circumstances be on an equal footing with the FDL.
You will never make an FDL into an optimal trader, explorer, Pirate ship (go ahead and try to fit it out to have all of the requisite scanners, limpet controllers, an interdictor, etc... It's hilarious to see how much you have to give up) a Salvager, Miner, or anything other than a combat ship. It has only one use. It should do that one thing very well, if it does not, it is not correctly balanced.
Simple. I'd rather some (but not necessarily all) big ships were more vulnerable, and also more specialised across the board. It would give smaller ships more utility - make fighters fighters, traders traders and combat heavy hitters, exactly that, but more 'glass cannon-y'. As I say - I'd also rebalance prices to counter changes. See the previous Elite games - the Eagle was the same price as E: D, but the Anaconda was 100x cheaper. One was a fighter, one was a 'trader' (or at least a big empty box), but the Eagle had a real chance of damaging the Anaconda (assuming it wasn't full of shield banks...
)..
Limiting SCB's to one per ship, but allowing the class/size of the module more to determine the charge in each bank, and the number of banks, could be another way to go.
.
Yes, this is all in my head, but I'd just rather avoid a game where everyone is just in a Python/Federal Whatever/FdL/Anaconda. I want variety - people in small, nippy, hard to hit fighters AND big bruisers. It will be interesting if Frontier can make the 'carrier' gameplay work - why bother carrying a fighter in your ship if it's useless, and leaves your trader vulnerable while you command it? At present, with ubiquitous SCBs, that's all I can see happening.
.
Oh, and FWIW, I'm flying a Python with one A3 SCB.
- - - Updated - - -
Exactly.
Last edited:
See the previous Elite games - the Eagle was the same price as E: D, but the Anaconda was 100x cheaper. One was a fighter, one was a 'trader' (or at least a big empty box), but the Eagle had a real chance of damaging the Anaconda (assuming it wasn't full of shield banks...
That is the crux of the problem, isn't it ? The fact that the lack of gameplay depth was "fixed" by making the game grindy, and therefore having insane ship/module price scaling.