Goodbye Open til SCB issue is sorted

They actually got the balancing pretty good currently. It's the result of almost a year of balancing work. Why go through all that trouble of rebalancing everything, just to cter to an obviously very small vocal minority and with the best possible end result of leaving as many or probably even more players disappointed? Personally I really don't want to wait for another half a year until they got whatever kind of new mechanics right again.

Very small minority? I have a large group of friends at uni that all love scfi, out of them 6 play elite. All but one of them would rather SCBs were removed, the last one doesn't care, he's in it for exploration. If anything those in support are the small and vocal minority.

Good balancing? HAVE YOU SEEN HOW MISSILE PERFORM!

As I have repeated many times before, balancing can't occur until we stop SCBs from overshadowing the majority of modules.

There was a year of good balancing, lots of it. Then they added SCBs. Things were balanced before they added SCBs. If anything their removal will restore balance more than break it. Sure the top level of ships will take a hit but the medium and low tiers will become a lot more interesting and varied.
 
Last edited:
Very small minority? I have a large group of friends at uni that all love scfi, out of them 6 play elite. All but one of them would rather SCBs were removed, the last one doesn't care, he's in it for exploration. If anything those in support are the small and vocal minority.

Oh really? 6 friends, and 5 of them want SCBs removed? I guess under these circumstances FD has no other choice but bow down to that overwhelming majority of their playerbase :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Morbad, are you actually arguing for a reason or are you using this as a chance to brag, I honestly can't tell.

I'm arguing because someone has to stand against this endless tirade of ill conceived fixes and largely baseless complaints centered around a mostly non-existent problem.

Even when someone comes up with something that might actually be problematic, chances are that they completely misattribute the source.

What is your single most important reason for defending SCBs?

There is no viable replacement for them and without them shields become mostly pointless on any ship larger than an FDL.

Looks to me like he's got a case of internet badass. :rolleyes:

He's all "no really guys SCBs are useless, I'm so pro I don't even notice people using them", but then mentions if they got nerfed he'd have to take them out of his loadout. So if they're so useless, why is he boating them?

That other guy is the same way, "Oh SCBs are useless, I can destroy an SCB boat in one pass", and yet if SCBs got nerfed he claims he'd have to entirely change his playstyle to only picking on ships smaller then him. And how is that different from only picking on ships that have fewer SCBs than him? And again, if they're so useless why did he stuff his own hull with them?

I never began to imply SCBs were useless, nor has anyone else. You've grossly misinterpreted/misrepresented the statements you are referring to.

Just because I don't view SCBs as an insurmountable obstacle doesn't mean I cannot put them to good use.

Your statements make me think you lack either the reading comprehension ability or sufficient experience with the equipment in question to have formed a well-reasoned opinion on the topic.

Armor needs to do more for its weight and price, especially when it comes to modules. As for the power plant personally, I don't feel adding another layer of rng would make things better.

Armor penetration/module damage already has an RNG element.

Armor also helps a lot already in stealth setups as you can prevent any but purely manual targeting of sub systems...which means you will often run out of hull, even on armored, reinforced, ships, before critical subsystems are at risk, unless you are very unlucky.

The Anaconda does have huge thrusters and a relatively exposed PP, but most ships aren't so vulnerable, and an Anaconda that keeps it's nose toward the highest threat opponent is pretty safe as well...except from railguns.

You are right indeed. Armor needs to reduce damage to modules by the same % as it does for hull and Hull Reinforcement should function as overhealth that must be destroyed before internal modules can be hit with anything other than a railgun.

But I find that unlikely to happen till SCBs are gone or restricted. The shield meta overshadows hull and armor too much.

Implementing such hull/armor changes simultaneously with an SCB nerf would result in shields and subsystem targeting disappearing from most combat entirely. You'd lose far more depth and variety than you'd gain.

If anything those in support are the small and vocal minority.

Almost certainly not the case.

Good balancing? HAVE YOU SEEN HOW MISSILE PERFORM!

The exception that proves the rule.

Things were balanced before they added SCBs. If anything their removal will restore balance more than break it. Sure the top level of ships will take a hit but the medium and low tiers will become a lot more interesting and varied.

Before SCBs the largest combat vessel was the Viper and the only ship larger than the Cobra was the Anaconda (oops, forgot the Type-9...not that it matters for this argument)...which only did well because it wasn't fighting anything better than Vipers and because wings didn't exist yet.

The small and medium ships are already pretty varied.

SCBs didn't create the problems you've mentioned. The introduction of the Python, Asp, Clipper, Vulture, FDL, along with Frontier's desire to make combat viable and appealing for those piloting these ships did. Wings further reinforced this. The game's combat has evolved beyond small fighter vs. small fighter action and many CMDR's piloting abilities have evolved beyond aircraft style dogfights. Motivations for combat have evolved as well. Pulling SCBs won't bring back the experience you seem to be longing for.

I loved Beta 1 (the last version before the changes that started to make SCBs an integral part of ED), I could have played Beta 1 forever, but Beta 1 is not coming back.
 
Last edited:
Looks to me like he's got a case of internet badass. :rolleyes:

He's all "no really guys SCBs are useless, I'm so pro I don't even notice people using them", but then mentions if they got nerfed he'd have to take them out of his loadout. So if they're so useless, why is he boating them?

That other guy is the same way, "Oh SCBs are useless, I can destroy an SCB boat in one pass", and yet if SCBs got nerfed he claims he'd have to entirely change his playstyle to only picking on ships smaller then him. And how is that different from only picking on ships that have fewer SCBs than him? And again, if they're so useless why did he stuff his own hull with them? :rolleyes:

Having flown in hundreds of combat scenarios with Morbad I can tell you for fact that he is a genuine badass pilot and never brags or overstates his own skill.

Everything he says is based on facts and experience not internet .
 
Having flown in hundreds of combat scenarios with Morbad I can tell you for fact that he is a genuine badass pilot and never brags or overstates his own skill.

Everything he says is based on facts and experience not internet .

Thanks for the confirmation that he is in fact the 1% as far as this game is concerned.
 
I reckon removing SCB is not a good solution at all. It has it uses even for non-combatants.

Probably just increase the heat cost on it will solve the problem - make it cost so much heat that you either have to choose to use weapon, or boost, or use SCB, but not all 3 or even 2 at the same time.
 
I reckon removing SCB is not a good solution at all. It has it uses even for non-combatants.

Probably just increase the heat cost on it will solve the problem - make it cost so much heat that you either have to choose to use weapon, or boost, or use SCB, but not all 3 or even 2 at the same time.

You could still run multi cannons. For heat to be a factor you'd need to make the SCB heat cost throw you straight into critical which would be cool but I don't see it happening. I do like the idea of SCBs doing internal damage when used though.

We just want something to happen, anything, that stops them from being the mainstay of 80% of combat.
 
You could still run multi cannons. For heat to be a factor you'd need to make the SCB heat cost throw you straight into critical which would be cool but I don't see it happening. I do like the idea of SCBs doing internal damage when used though.

We just want something to happen, anything, that stops them from being the mainstay of 80% of combat.

Add alternative combat internals...
 
You could still run multi cannons.
Multi-cannons are a great combat weapon but they're a pretty poor PvP weapon. Throwing the heat up will not improve experience for combat ships in PvP, as PvP ships are built for endurance and staying power (which means little damage and lots of health).

The situation would be resolved if people would adjust their expectations accordingly when they take tanks into fights against other tanks.
 
Add alternative combat internals...

A good SCB triples the health pool of many ships. Imagine how big a speed/manuverability/damage/hull boost would be required to keep up with that.

For example, a 3A SCB gives 552 total shields, A 3D HRP (hull reinforcement package) gives 60 hp. Sure hull and shield take damage at different rates and there are a lot of multiplyers like armor or thermal weapons. But lets say HRPs would start being competitive at half as much health as the SCB. Or hell, a quater, lets be conservative.

So a balance 3D HRO would need to give at least 138 health. 1/4 of what a SCB would give. But it doesn't use power or require managment so fairs fair.

A stealth Dimondback Scout would have 630 health before armor. A fighter silent to radar with 2/3 of the health of a anaconda.

See what I mean, any internal module balanced with SCBs in their current state would break just as much.


Haha, rereading this I would totally enjoy that. A tiny flying brick. Can we implement this? I'll stop complaining about SCBs if they implement this.
 
Last edited:
I would like to add a trader's perspective to the line of reasoning brought forward mainly by Morbad and Bortas:

- As noted, SCBs greatly enhance combat survivability, especially for large ships which would otherwise not be used for combat. The same is valid for trading in hotspots (CG systems, PP contested systems, the Old Worlds etc.).
Of course a trader always has the opportunity to change routes away from the hotspots, but there may be reasons not to do this, namely enjoying CMDR interaction. Getting out of an encounter with a hostile CMDR alive is both more challenging and more enjoyable than a regular NPC interdiction, esp. with the current state of player-to-AI comms. Flying at the receiving end of the interdiction tether, I find SCBs a well balanced tool which gives me the opportunity to consciously fly a large ship in harm's way with a reasonable -but not guaranteed!- chance of survival/escape. At the same time the interdicting pirate/blockade patrol is offered a potentially more rewarding target.

- Some opponents of SCBs refer to a perception of more balanced combat without SCBs in the beta versions, but fail to mention that the beta did not include wings. With the introduction of wings, the potential firepower brought up by one party in an engagement has quadrupled. With a very limited in-game mechanism to incentivise convoys (5% trade bonus), in many cases traders continue to fly alone. A shield-only loadout is no longer sufficient if the trader is not willing to sacrifice a lot of cargo space for a large shield or form a trade wing, which is just not supported well enough in-game.


Just my 2c, though.
 
A good SCB triples the health pool of many ships. Imagine how big a speed/manuverability/damage/hull boost would be required to keep up with that.

For example, a 3A SCB gives 552 total shields, A 3D HRP (hull reinforcement package) gives 60 hp. Sure hull and shield take damage at different rates and there are a lot of multiplyers like armor or thermal weapons. But lets say HRPs would start being competitive at half as much health as the SCB. Or hell, a quater, lets be conservative.

So a balance 3D HRO would need to give at least 138 health. 1/4 of what a SCB would give. But it doesn't use power or require managment so fairs fair.

A stealth Dimondback Scout would have 630 health before armor. A fighter silent to radar with 2/3 of the health of a anaconda.

See what I mean, any internal module balanced with SCBs in their current state would break just as much.


Haha, rereading this I would totally enjoy that. A tiny flying brick. Can we implement this? I'll stop complaining about SCBs if they implement this.
This math is pretty irrelevant to reality. Just like how hull reinforcement packages are circumvented by punching out powerplants (going away soon), SCBs are circumvented by punching through the shields.
 
This math is pretty irrelevant to reality. Just like how hull reinforcement packages are circumvented by punching out powerplants (going away soon), SCBs are circumvented by punching through the shields.

Which as stated before requires a specialist loadout and a lot of skill.

So how do you intend the other 90% of us to do combat? Oh right the slogging matches.
 
Which as stated before requires a specialist loadout and a lot of skill.

So how do you intend the other 90% of us to do combat? Oh right the slogging matches.

There's a process most humans are capable of. It's called learning.

There seem to be two types of players.... one type adapts to the game and learns how to master it. The other type continually asks the developers for the game to be adapted to them and their inability to learn anything new.

Who do you beg to adapt reality to your needs in real life I wonder?
 
Last edited:
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: EUS
There's a process most humans are capable of. It's called learning.

There seem to be two types of players.... one type adapts to the game and learns how to master it. The other type continually asks the developers for the game to be adapted to them and their inability to learn anything new.

Who do you beg to adapt reality to your needs in real life I wonder?

Adapt is one thing...and we all do this Professor! Gooood Morning!
We are talking about bad mechanics and balancing here...there's no rant, so should you move on the discussion if you want to be constructive? thanks.

Wing fight with SCB spam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFa-0Y6DKMU

Without SCBs, this fight would have lasted for exactly 20 seconds. Maybe 15.

Because when 3 or 4 players hotdrop on a ship with no SCBs, that ship needs to jump ASAP.

So yea, get in a wing fight and then comment on SCBs.

Useless example... if you wanna trade, or fight pvp and magically SCB disapperars from game you have to THINK before go in some places, you have to REGROUP with other commanders and use safe routes...but no, you are the great heroes that go everywhere they want now....and fight everything, even alone...this is ridicolous.
Even in PVE you can go in a StrongSignalSource and kill 3 anaconda with a SCBanked Vulture.....COME ON!!!! a little Vulture should never go alone in one place like that.

I really hope FDevs remove SCBanks, and people start to feel again the galaxy a bit more dangerous than now...this game have so many balancing issues that sometimes i think what FDevs are doing.
 
Last edited:

Scudmungus

Banned
Dis a game. Nat rocket surgery. Wi nat writin a thesis here. Nat puttin dis on CV. Nat gonna be entertainin de pickney wid 'mazin stories of space fightin in years to come! :D

1) Game development driven by commercial sector. Time = money. Solutions takin time.

2) Fighting mechanics & SCB only had som time. Time to develop. Be tested.

3) Now Frontier gat som more time/money, gud time to review Fighting Mechanics.

Review. Learn. Modify. Test. Repeat - aal wid intent of makin betta gamin experinece fah aal.

Yuh neva know. Maybi dis showin dat SCB perfect an fightin mechanics nat needin an NEVA NEEDIN improvin! HA! Nat gonna be knowin till dem spendin time/money lookin..

Perfect gamin systems..

HA!

:D
 
Last edited:
Dis a game. Nat rocket surgery. Wi nat writin a thesis here. Nat puttin dis on CV. Nat gonna be entertainin de pickney wid 'mazin stories of space fightin in years to come! :D

1) Game development driven by commercial sector. Time = money. Solutions takin time.

2) Fighting mechanics & SCB only had som time. Time to develop. Be tested.

3) Now Frontier gat som more time/money, gud time to review Fighting Mechanics.

Review. Learn. Modify. Test. Repeat - aal wid intent of makin betta gamin experinece fah aal.

Yuh neva know. Maybi dis showin dat SCB perfect an fightin mechanics nat needin an NEVA NEEDIN improvin! HA! Nat gonna be knowin till dem spendin time/money lookin..

Perfect gamin systems..

HA!

:D

"
The abjection of a game . Nat rocket surgery . Wi labor Writing a thesis here . Putting labor dis on CV . Nat gonna be Entertainer de pickney wid the past , stories of space fightin in years to come !

1 ) Game development driven by commercial sector . Time = money . Solutions Connect the time .

2 ) Fighting mechanics & SCB only had soms time . Time to develop . Be tested .

3 ) Now Frontier GIS soms more time / money , gud time to review Fighting Mechanics .

Review . Learn . Modify . Test . Repeat - wid solve the intent of the machine betta gaming experinece fah AAL .

Yuh know Nevada . Maybe dis show dat SCB perfect an fightin mechanics powers Need an Needs to Improve Nevada ! HA ! Nat gonna know till dem Spender time / money lookin ...

Perfect for gaming systems ..

HA !"

I used Googletranslate (Uzbek to english gave the best match).. i think Scudmungus is saying the Frontier are going to fix SCB Potion chuffing and balance it properly.
 
When you make an MMO or MP game, player tactics inevitably, inevitably devolve to the exploit/cheese tactic/least-common denominator if combat isn't tightly tuned.


In 1997, I created a price system around a car-combat game called Interstate '76 and a pretty big guild (the AVA) formed around it. It was amazing how fast folks figured out the absolute best car for each price category. Everybody would end up building the same car, because everything else couldn't compare at the same price point.


That indicated that my price system was out of balance. My assumptions had been based on my limited MP play and (to be honest) lifting as much as I could from Car Wars. That was the wrong way to go about it.


Right now, the cheese build in ED is pulse lasers and SCB boating. If you're PVP'ing, you're building something that boats both of these; otherwise, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage.


But the problem isn't limited to PVP. Boat up a Vulture -- a deadly superheavy fighter, but still just a fighter -- with SCBs, and there's no reason to ever leave a HIRES or a low CZ, except for maybe player fatigue.


The shield health potion of SCBs is broken because it forces golden path builds.


Missiles are useless and broken. This in turn makes ECM and PD useless and broken.
Mines are useless and broken.


Reducing Death Star thermal port syndrome on Anacondas is not going to fix anything.


I don't know what assumptions FD is making about combat, but they're the wrong ones. It's clear that balance is broken because there's such as obvious cheese build, but they mention nothing in the 1.4 notes about fixing it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom