The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[Rauminen]

The initial price is supposed to define the capacity that the ship can possibly fill.

No.

It doesn't. (And it really shouldn't.)
You're telling me that if I have 150m I can access the full capacity (combat or otherwise) of either an FDL, a Python, or an Anaconda that they can possibly fill, because I have the money to buy either of those ships.

?

It serves the purpose of gating that level of gameplay until the player has invested that amount of time.

Yes, but it doesn't stop at ship price. It continues well beyond that. And yes, you could possibly view credits as time spent in game - eg. a sort of measurement of game experience. I know it's flawed for so many reasons, but it is a type of measurement.

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.

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.

Ok. Please tell me what IS your definition of balance then, that is so close to FD's.

From this I can only deduct that you think that "balance" = if original ship cost is roughly the same, these ships should be equal in combat. If one of them called a combat ship, it should own the other one regardless of any other factors or equipment. Is this right?

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.

I don't know man. I feel that it promotes tactics and cooperation. It makes you go for combat builds (instead of just choosing FDL and owning everything) - as in anchor/tank, damage dealer, hunter-killer, etc. Without SCBs there's only one ship (and build) choice for PvP. Maybe 2. You'll still need an anchor, more than ever.

 

[xXCheeChowXx]

Look...getting rid of SCB's is going to make everyone one want to nerf boost next because people will just be running from combat ships...If you are in a big slow ship you should have some protection from someone interdicting you because this game isn't just about combat.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

No.

It doesn't. (And it really shouldn't.)
You're telling me that if I have 150m I can access the full capacity (combat or otherwise) of either an FDL, a Python, or an Anaconda that they can possibly fill, because I have the money to buy either of those ships.

?




Yes, but it doesn't stop at ship price. It continues well beyond that. And yes, you could possibly view credits as time spent in game - eg. a sort of measurement of game experience. I know it's flawed for so many reasons, but it is a type of measurement.








Ok. Please tell me what IS your definition of balance then, that is so close to FD's.

From this I can only deduct that you think that "balance" = if original ship cost is roughly the same, these ships should be equal in combat. If one of them called a combat ship, it should own the other one regardless of any other factors or equipment. Is this right?





I don't know man. I feel that it promotes tactics and cooperation. It makes you go for combat builds (instead of just choosing FDL and owning everything) - as in anchor/tank, damage dealer, hunter-killer, etc. Without SCBs there's only one ship (and build) choice for PvP. Maybe 2. You'll still need an anchor, more than ever.

It does stop at ship price because once you can afford the hull you have entered an entirely new tier of income. You can earn significantly more than previously, so the price of the new modules is irrelevant. The upgrades were never intended to happen all at once, otherwise ships would come fully outfitted. Buying your module upgrades is the only linear progression this game has because your progression is with that ship.

No, not without any regard to module "quality". Quantity and Quality are supposed to be their own balancing factors. Ships like the Python get the quantity. Ships like the FDL are supposed to get the quality. Should a basic FDL have an advantage over a fully kitten Python? No, because it statistically inferior in every regard at that point. Should a basic FDL have full advantage over a basic Python? Yes, because at that point they are both at the same level of progression, and one is a combat ship while the other is a multi-role ship. This is Frontier's intention and it is how the rest of the game is balanced, all you need to do is look to see it. The Asp doesn't have a chance in hell against a Vulture when equally kitten and flown. One is a combat ship, one is a multi-role ship. I don't use my Asp for combat because my Vulture is better in every regard. In the same vein, guess why I don't use my Vulture for Exploration?

Edit: List of ships that I currently own.

Sidey
Hauler
Adder
Eagle
Imp. Eagle
Viper
Cobra
Imp. Courier
Diamondback Scout
Diamondback Explorer
Asp Explorer
Vulture
Federal Dropship
Imp. Clipper
Federal Assault Ship
Federal Gunship
Fer De Lance
Python

Ships that I don't need because other ships fill their role as well or better while costing the same or less:


Fer De Lance
Federal Gunship

 

[Rauminen]

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.

Nope. I'm trying to wrap my head around this, and I can't. There's nothing that says these two ships are supposed to be comparable at that level. You agree that these "Tiers" you have set up in your head are based on credits. The initial price of the ship to be exact.

But if you want to set up any kind of tiers based on credits which
- limit accessibility to certain functionality
- define "time spent in-game" (roughly)
- following your own logic
These tiers should be defined by price of the whole build, not price of the ship.

Let me try to go from a different perspective... (I'm running out of ideas now)
If you for a moment ignore the labels for "combat" or "multi-role". What are you left with?
2 ships: one with more speed / manouverability, for less than half price of the other one with more power/internals at a price of agility.
You can say the very same things about a Vulture versus an Anaconda. Yes they are at different "tiers". So as the FDL and the Python.

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.

Yes, and, for a moment try to compare the cost of the FULL BUILDS mentioned, instead of the price of the ship..... whoa... what? It all make sense now? Right. It does doesn't it. It's like the number of credits spent in total matter more than labels that you stick on ships.

It's like creativity in defining your own builds and choosing the optimal configurations (ship + internals) matters more than just picking 3 labels. For me it does anyway.

 

[Rauminen]

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.

Right. So you're saying you want to play a game where all ships are roughly the same size (at least price and equipment wise) and have roughly the same chance of damaging each other. You also want to use them mainly against other players, and you don't want more than one SCB to be present at any time. Even if it's a sidewinder. Oops getting ahead of myself there. So you want people to fight each other in small, nippy ships, not just in the big ones.

If only there was a way to do all that right now...........................

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Nope. I'm trying to wrap my head around this, and I can't. There's nothing that says these two ships are supposed to be comparable at that level. You agree that these "Tiers" you have set up in your head are based on credits. The initial price of the ship to be exact.

But if you want to set up any kind of tiers based on credits which
- limit accessibility to certain functionality
- define "time spent in-game" (roughly)
- following your own logic
These tiers should be defined by price of the whole build, not price of the ship.

Let me try to go from a different perspective... (I'm running out of ideas now)
If you for a moment ignore the labels for "combat" or "multi-role". What are you left with?
2 ships: one with more speed / manouverability, for less than half price of the other one with more power/internals at a price of agility.
You can say the very same things about a Vulture versus an Anaconda. Yes they are at different "tiers". So as the FDL and the Python.





Yes, and, for a moment try to compare the cost of the FULL BUILDS mentioned, instead of the price of the ship..... whoa... what? It all make sense now? Right. It does doesn't it. It's like the number of credits spent in total matter more than labels that you stick on ships.

It's like creativity in defining your own builds and choosing the optimal configurations (ship + internals) matters more than just picking 3 labels. For me it does anyway.

No. It doesn't.

Full. Price. Means. Nothing. It is part of the problem.

Eagle and Adder are the same price. Eagle beats the adder, no questions asked.

Viper costs LESS than the Cobra and yet it is the superior combat ship, both bare and kitted out.

Asp and Vulture are the same price. Vulture is the hands down winner. Guess what? They're the same price kitted out too.

FAS and Clipper are the same price. Bare and kitted out. FAS walks all over the Clipper.

Gunship may have a different purpose when planetary landings come, but that's to be seen and until then you must assume the worst. As it is it's own downgrade, the FAS, is superior.

FDL and Python are the same price bare, but for some reason the Python bucks the trend and costs twice as much kitted out and the FDL is being overshadowed by the FAS.

Can you figure out which one of these things does not belong?

 

[Lobstris]

Right. So you're saying you want to play a game where all ships are roughly the same size (at least price and equipment wise) and have roughly the same chance of damaging each other. You also want to use them mainly against other players, and you don't want more than one SCB to be present at any time. Even if it's a sidewinder. Oops getting ahead of myself there. So you want people to fight each other in small, nippy ships, not just in the big ones.

If only there was a way to do all that right now...........................

Love the sarcasm. Well done. Did I say I wanted all of the ships the same size? No. Did I say they should all have equal chances against each other? No. Did I say I wanted to use them against other player? No. All I was saying was that I'd like to see variety and specialisation of ships, and regarding combat, there shouldn't be one 'go to' build - which at present seems to be 'big ship stacked with SCBs'. In my previous example the FFE Eagle could damage the Anaconda, but if the Anaconda brought it's forward weapon (probably a 20MW laser+) to bare the Eagle was toast. Nimble fighter = hard to hit, but if hit... ...and I think you'll find that the FFE Anaconda was still worth 25 Eagles.
.
Things should have counters to prevent one thing being dominant (the whole 'rock, paper, scissors' design argument) - e.g. big ships = big weapons, low manoeuvrability, small ships = small weapons, high manoeuvrability, jack-of-all trades = trade-offs, lasers = reflective/ablative hull armour, kinetic = shields/heavy armour, missiles = shields/ECM/point defence, turrets & gimbals = speed/chaff/stealth etc. etc. but what's the counter to just stacking SCBs at present? How about some form of EMP/suppression field that monkeys with shield recharge rates? Surely just building ships that stack one-of-a-kind 'somethings' isn't good for the game?
.
Another way of 'balancing' may be through customisation and module tweaking in the forthcoming loot system.
.
Oh, and there are things in CQC I'd like to see in the main game - the structures and line-of-sight stuff for a start.

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

No. It doesn't.

Full. Price. Means. Nothing. It is part of the problem.

Eagle and Adder are the same price. Eagle beats the adder, no questions asked.

Viper costs LESS than the Cobra and yet it is the superior combat ship, both bare and kitted out.

Asp and Vulture are the same price. Vulture is the hands down winner. Guess what? They're the same price kitted out too.

FAS and Clipper are the same price. Bare and kitted out. FAS walks all over the Clipper.

Gunship may have a different purpose when planetary landings come, but that's to be seen and until then you must assume the worst. As it is it's own downgrade, the FAS, is superior.

FDL and Python are the same price bare, but for some reason the Python bucks the trend and costs twice as much kitted out and the FDL is being overshadowed by the FAS.

Can you figure out which one of these things does not belong?

The FdL falls into the same category as the Clipper and FAS, though it's actually a class below (5 rather than 6). A Python is a Class 7 which puts it in it's own class. Mass lock values pretty much confirm that, though the real determining factor is the quantity and class of module slots.

Ironically enough, all three ships are relatively balanced against each other.

Like the Anaconda, the Python is off in it's own little world at the moment. The Corvette, Cutter and possibly the Keelback might bridge that gap or make it irrelevant altogether. The Courier was SUPPOSED to be within the Python's Class (indeed, it's better than a Python in every way in Elite 2/3) but they decided to make it a small ship instead.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

The FdL falls into the same category as the Clipper and FAS, though it's actually a class below (5 rather than 6). A Python is a Class 7 which puts it in it's own class. Mass lock values pretty much confirm that, though the real determining factor is the quantity and class of module slots.

Ironically enough, all three ships are relatively balanced against each other.

Like the Anaconda, the Python is off in it's own little world at the moment. The Corvette, Cutter and possibly the Keelback might bridge that gap or make it irrelevant altogether. The Courier was SUPPOSED to be within the Python's Class (indeed, it's better than a Python in every way in Elite 2/3) but they decided to make it a small ship instead.

For the umpteenth time The FDL's internals are the problem, not the excuse for there being no problem.

Ship classes are defined by hull cost, which typically defines internal slot values. As I pointed out, the FDL is completely screwed up in this regard.

 

[Kastor]

And then what happens when FD adds an other usefull combat internal X ? same nerf rivers of tears for module X ?

Yes, because FD SHOULDN'T add any combat internals except the shield gen itself. Hull reinforcements are fine as their effect is small but all other combat items should be weapon and utility mounts. Then multi roles wouldn't be op.

 

[Rauminen]

It does stop at ship price because once you can afford the hull you have entered an entirely new tier of income. You can earn significantly more than previously, so the price of the new modules is irrelevant. The upgrades were never intended to happen all at once, otherwise ships would come fully outfitted. Buying your module upgrades is the only linear progression this game has because your progression is with that ship.

Is your Python fully A-graded? What was the ship you had before the Python? I guess it was not FDL then.

OR - is it that you consider trading as the only way to acquire credits in this game (and thus "entering an entirely new level of income")? Because if you were trading in an FDL and switched to a basic Python with only cargo racks then yes you're right.

If you did anything else... not so much.

If I'm making 5-6 mil / hour in a RES or CZ in my Vulture, I WILL NOT suddenly make 15 mil/hr in a stock python. (which would be required just to equip it to be a decent fighter in 10 hours - which was the time spent on getting the 60 mil-ish for the stock ship - and that's just the SAME amount of time, not FASTER as you said.)

I will instead die horribly in a stock python. And you can only make about the same amount by trading in a stock python (5-6 mil/hr). Assuming you good at Sir Robin-ing.

Therefore.

The price of the modules is very much relevant. You just have to have a big enough ship, and module prices, compared to earning potential in game to notice it. You can not ignore equipment cost.

No, not without any regard to module "quality". Quantity and Quality are supposed to be their own balancing factors. Ships like the Python get the quantity. Ships like the FDL are supposed to get the quality. Should a basic FDL have an advantage over a fully kitten Python? No, because it statistically inferior in every regard at that point. Should a basic FDL have full advantage over a basic Python? Yes, because at that point they are both at the same level of progression, and one is a combat ship while the other is a multi-role ship. This is Frontier's intention and it is how the rest of the game is balanced, all you need to do is look to see it. The Asp doesn't have a chance in hell against a Vulture when equally kitten and flown. One is a combat ship, one is a multi-role ship. I don't use my Asp for combat because my Vulture is better in every regard. In the same vein, guess why I don't use my Vulture for Exploration?

Yes and Quantity and Quality are their own balancing factors. Completely right.

However Quality is the class of the slot. Which defines the class of the module that fits in it. Which defines the price of the module. Which in turn adds up to be the cost of the full build.

Try topping a maxed out FDL with a Python that is set up with using exactly the same amount of credits. See what happens. That's the real test. And I'm pretty sure the stock FDL owns the stock Python btw, easily.

Level of progression in this game is measured by credits. You can earn the same amount of credits in the maxed out FDL as a) in a maxed out python which costs twice or more b) in a well equipped trading python that costs the same.

Edit: List of ships that I currently own.

Sidey
Hauler
Adder
Eagle
Imp. Eagle
Viper
Cobra
Imp. Courier
Diamondback Scout
Diamondback Explorer
Asp Explorer
Vulture
Federal Dropship
Imp. Clipper
Federal Assault Ship
Federal Gunship
Fer De Lance
Python

Ships that I don't need because other ships fill their role as well or better while costing the same or less:


Fer De Lance
Federal Gunship

Right. A-grade that python and/or get a conda and try to A-grade that - or just coriolis.io, you'll see what I mean. Max credit/hr stops increasing once you reach FDL combat-wise. Which pretty much equals to (or surprasses) trading in a Conda if you use your bonuses right. Which is the very top of the earning potential currently (Sothis "gold rush" aside)

I have Sidewinder, Eagle, DBX, Asp, FAS, Python, Anaconda, Anaconda

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because FD SHOULDN'T add any combat internals except the shield gen itself. Hull reinforcements are fine as their effect is small but all other combat items should be weapon and utility mounts. Then multi roles wouldn't be op.

How about playing CQC and leaving the main game untouched? You'll get the experience you want without them having to make any changes and I can do what I like too. win-win?

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Is your Python fully A-graded? What was the ship you had before the Python? I guess it was not FDL then.

OR - is it that you consider trading as the only way to acquire credits in this game (and thus "entering an entirely new level of income")? Because if you were trading in an FDL and switched to a basic Python with only cargo racks then yes you're right.

If you did anything else... not so much.

If I'm making 5-6 mil / hour in a RES or CZ in my Vulture, I WILL NOT suddenly make 15 mil/hr in a stock python. (which would be required just to equip it to be a decent fighter in 10 hours - which was the time spent on getting the 60 mil-ish for the stock ship - and that's just the SAME amount of time, not FASTER as you said.)

I will instead die horribly in a stock python. And you can only make about the same amount by trading in a stock python (5-6 mil/hr). Assuming you good at Sir Robin-ing.

Therefore.

The price of the modules is very much relevant. You just have to have a big enough ship, and module prices, compared to earning potential in game to notice it. You can not ignore equipment cost.




Yes and Quantity and Quality are their own balancing factors. Completely right.

However Quality is the class of the slot. Which defines the class of the module that fits in it. Which defines the price of the module. Which in turn adds up to be the cost of the full build.

Try topping a maxed out FDL with a Python that is set up with using exactly the same amount of credits. See what happens. That's the real test. And I'm pretty sure the stock FDL owns the stock Python btw, easily.

Level of progression in this game is measured by credits. You can earn the same amount of credits in the maxed out FDL as a) in a maxed out python which costs twice or more b) in a well equipped trading python that costs the same.




Right. A-grade that python and/or get a conda and try to A-grade that - or just coriolis.io, you'll see what I mean. Max credit/hr stops increasing once you reach FDL combat-wise. Which pretty much equals to (or surprasses) trading in a Conda if you use your bonuses right. Which is the very top of the earning potential currently (Sothis "gold rush" aside)

I have Sidewinder, Eagle, DBX, Asp, FAS, Python, Anaconda, Anaconda

- - - Updated - - -



How about playing CQC and leaving the main game untouched? You'll get the experience you want without them having to make any changes and I can do what I like too. win-win?

Well this is cute. I give you a list of 18 ships that only has one dedicated trader - The Hauler - and you assume that I prefer to trade to make credits. Not only that, but apparently this is the reason I think the FDL should be superior in combat to the Python.

Because there is no content in the game above what you can do in a Python. No increased income is a result of there being nothing for an Anaconda to do, not because the Anaconda isn't capable of making more money. Please try to separate cause and effect, this seems to be a trend in your judgements.

 

[Rauminen]

No. It doesn't.

Full. Price. Means. Nothing. It is part of the problem.

Eagle and Adder are the same price. Eagle beats the adder, no questions asked.

Viper costs LESS than the Cobra and yet it is the superior combat ship, both bare and kitted out.

Asp and Vulture are the same price. Vulture is the hands down winner. Guess what? They're the same price kitted out too.

FAS and Clipper are the same price. Bare and kitted out. FAS walks all over the Clipper.

Gunship may have a different purpose when planetary landings come, but that's to be seen and until then you must assume the worst. As it is it's own downgrade, the FAS, is superior.

FDL and Python are the same price bare, but for some reason the Python bucks the trend and costs twice as much kitted out and the FDL is being overshadowed by the FAS.

Can you figure out which one of these things does not belong?

OK, right, so ships should follow a pattern in combat effectiveness for some reason, which is not related at all to price unless it's the same price. And then the one labelled "combat" should be superior. Unless it's the gunship. Or the FDL related to FAS. I get it now. Nice rules.

There. Are. No. Categories. There are no tiers. You might perceive it as such, but that's fake.

Open your mind and get it out of the smothering grip of having to categorize everything. Every ship is it's own category. And there are Builds. You can compare a ship to a different ship, with a certain build.

That's why we talk about "stock" or "maxed" or "A-graded" ships, not just ships. Because builds matter. They matter a lot. But a build contains ship+equipment. Which in turn means full price.

And to answer the question, it's the FAS, because it's better than the FDL. And the Gunship too, because it's useless.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

OK, right, so ships should follow a pattern in combat effectiveness for some reason, which is not related at all to price unless it's the same price. And then the one labelled "combat" should be superior. Unless it's the gunship. Or the FDL related to FAS. I get it now. Nice rules.

There. Are. No. Categories. There are no tiers. You might perceive it as such, but that's fake.

Open your mind and get it out of the smothering grip of having to categorize everything. Every ship is it's own category. And there are Builds. You can compare a ship to a different ship, with a certain build.

That's why we talk about "stock" or "maxed" or "A-graded" ships, not just ships. Because builds matter. They matter a lot. But a build contains ship+equipment. Which in turn means full price.

And to answer the question, it's the FAS, because it's better than the FDL. And the Gunship too, because it's useless.

It's not my perception, it's Frontier's, and they're the one that set the trend and the rules. All I'm doing is pointing them out to you. Don't like it? Tell Frontier they're wrong, and that they need to rebalance the other 29 ships in the game to fit your perception of where the Python and Fer De Lance belong in the pecking order.

 

[Rauminen]

Well this is cute. I give you a list of 18 ships that only has one dedicated trader - The Hauler - and you assume that I prefer to trade to make credits. Not only that, but apparently this is the reason I think the FDL should be superior in combat to the Python.

Sorry, I might have not been clear about this. No mate, I brought up the ridiculous trading example in response to

"It does stop at ship price because once you can afford the hull you have entered an entirely new tier of income...."

By which you clearly meant that you are willing to ignore the price of equipment when comparing how many hours you have to play for a certain ship build,
by which you meant the FDL and Python should be considered "same tier ships"
Which in turn means that FDL being in the category of "combat ship", assuming it's fully kitted for combat, it should own a fully combat-kitted Python, regardless if the python costing 2x more.


I'm merely trying to point out the flaws in this logic by the obvious ridiculousness of the example.

If you really really hell-bent on defining categories, the Python is it's own Multi-role category, which does not have a combat "tier" equivalent at the moment - trading-wise the T7 is a bit iffy... but I might take it as a "trading" category at the same tier. Same way the FDL doesn't have a trading one.... unless it's the Orca... duh. Looks great but not really good at it's role... yeah that fits

- - - Updated - - -

It's not my perception, it's Frontier's, and they're the one that set the trend and the rules. All I'm doing is pointing them out to you. Don't like it? Tell Frontier they're wrong, and that they need to rebalance the other 29 ships in the game to fit your perception of where the Python and Fer De Lance belong in the pecking order.

Do you have Source? I mean with an actual link to a post by an FD employee on this forum or a website.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Sorry, I might have not been clear about this. No mate, I brought up the ridiculous trading example in response to

"It does stop at ship price because once you can afford the hull you have entered an entirely new tier of income...."

By which you clearly meant that you are willing to ignore the price of equipment when comparing how many hours you have to play for a certain ship build,
by which you meant the FDL and Python should be considered "same tier ships"
Which in turn means that FDL being in the category of "combat ship", assuming it's fully kitted for combat, it should own a fully combat-kitted Python, regardless if the python costing 2x more.


I'm merely trying to point out the flaws in this logic by the obvious ridiculousness of the example.

If you really really hell-bent on defining categories, the Python is it's own Multi-role category, which does not have a combat "tier" equivalent at the moment - trading-wise the T7 is a bit iffy... but I might take it as a "trading" category at the same tier. Same way the FDL doesn't have a trading one.... unless it's the Orca... duh. Looks great but not really good at it's role... yeah that fits

- - - Updated - - -



Do you have Source? I mean with an actual link to a post by an FD employee on this forum or a website.

Refer to Newsletters 1-96.

 

[Kastor]

How about playing CQC and leaving the main game untouched? You'll get the experience you want without them having to make any changes and I can do what I like too. win-win?

Yes, 2 years ago I spent $200 and I brought elite dangerous, a game with billions of stars and complex player interactions so I could go slug it out in an arena that wouldn't be made for another year and a half. I want to pirate and fight pirates, I want to win wars and be the last stand, I want to have a hand in seeing empires fall and I want to have fun.

1 and half years ago elite promised all of that, the dog fighting was being tuned in to perfection, the interdiction mechanic was on the horizon with hundreds of escort vs pirate, mercenary vs defender and empire vs empire battles in the future. Then they added SCBs and ruined the dogfight they had so carefully tuned. The pirates and the bounty hunters became invincible (provided they knew when to run) and many of the traders fled to open play.

Sandro told us it was a good mechanic to help traders survive. We told him is wasn't he didn't listen. 1 and half years later and our point has been proven ten fold. SCBs have only served to make traders more defenseless as even an escort can't kill the pirate quick enough to save the trader.

So let me guess, I should "git gud" as I watch all I hoped to defend and attack be destroyed or flee to solo in the face of overwhelming odds, all due to one badly designed mechanic?

This isn't about pvp or pve. Both of those interactions imply something far to simple to encapsulate this game. This game is full of interesting and complex interactions where even the predators would have to be on guard, but SCBs devolve this interaction into "who has the bigger fish".

 

[possessed]

Yes, 2 years ago I spent $200 and I brought elite dangerous, a game with billions of stars and complex player interactions so I could go slug it out in an arena that wouldn't be made for another year and a half. I want to pirate and fight pirates, I want to win wars and be the last stand, I want to have a hand in seeing empires fall and I want to have fun.

1 and half years ago elite promised all of that, the dog fighting was being tuned in to perfection, the interdiction mechanic was on the horizon with hundreds of escort vs pirate, mercenary vs defender and empire vs empire battles in the future. Then they added SCBs and ruined the dogfight they had so carefully tuned. The pirates and the bounty hunters became invincible (provided they knew when to run) and many of the traders fled to open play.

Sandro told us it was a good mechanic to help traders survive. We told him is wasn't he didn't listen. 1 and half years later and our point has been proven ten fold. SCBs have only served to make traders more defenseless as even an escort can't kill the pirate quick enough to save the trader.

So let me guess, I should "git gud" as I watch all I hoped to defend and attack be destroyed or flee to solo in the face of overwhelming odds, all due to one badly designed mechanic?

This isn't about pvp or pve. Both of those interactions imply something far to simple to encapsulate this game. This game is full of interesting and complex interactions where even the predators would have to be on guard, but SCBs devolve this interaction into "who has the bigger fish".

Plz...

do not be theatrical that much...

 

[Kastor]

Which in turn means that FDL being in the category of "combat ship", assuming it's fully kitted for combat, it should own a fully combat-kitted Python, regardless if the python costing 2x more.

So you want to balnced in terms of money eh. One of the linear progression guys. Time spent = power eh? So be it.

A D class python can beat that A-class FDL. Both have would have mass well below the thrust optimal so that won't make a huge difference, the FDL would have 392 aprox shield vs the Pythons 318 but that is made insignificant due to the pythons huge stack of D class SCBs. The python still has superior firepower, even if it does have to use more energy efficient lasers

The A-class FDL is more expensive and can't multirole.

 

[Kastor]

Plz...

do not be theatrical that much...

{gets out cape, windblower, glitter and skull prop}

Lets do this.