Goodbye Open til SCB issue is sorted

[B1ll Adama]

So how many Vultures should it take to kill an Anaconda? My opinion: One (don't be silly), Two (if they're very lucky), Three (if they're organised), Four (probably), Five (definately).

Taking away the skill of the pilot, how does the game mechanics make that ratio happen? SCBs is one of the ways.

Agree with you in terms of numbers here.. i just dont believe that i should have to load an Anaconda with SCB to make the numbers you call out work. The Anaconda (just using this as example but applies to Python etc) should be able to take on 2 or 3 Vultures even if its not loaded to the hilt with health potions. What i would like to see would be that the A8 PP kicking out 38MJ would charge the A7 shield properly i.e. at a higher rate than the Vulture PP charges the Vulture shield... this way the Anaconda would be more 'robust' as it should be for the 500mCR spent on it. If ship X costs 25 times the amount of ship Y then ship X should have a pretty big advantage in terms of strength / resistance to POP'ing?

Then factor in the improvement that could be made if Armour protected modules so that both Armour and Hull had to be depleted somewhat before modules could be catastrophically taken out... again this makes the bigger ships more robust.

Honestly i dont know if limiting the SCB to one per ship would fix things. Really dislike SCB in their current form though, i dont play games where there are Potions and Power Ups just because they feel silly to me... maybe i am too old but loading up on Potions just isnt my thing.

SCB in my view, stop me PVP with any player.. as I dont load my ship specifically for PVP so have no potions to chug.

 

[Firestarter]

Really dislike SCB in their current form though, i dont play games where there are Potions and Power Ups just because they feel silly to me... maybe i am too old but loading up on Potions just isnt my thing..

The only thing I see wrong with SCBs is that they consume a lot of power (surely its just a rechargeble bettery and once it's charged it should onlt take a trickle to keep it charged) and secondly if it's a battery why can't it be directed anywhere - engines, weapons, etc?

Didn't Scotty once say, 'All I've got left is the batteries, I can give you a couple of shots but nothing else..'

 

[woodhouse]

I do agree gimballed needs to be able to be switched to fixed mode though. You can just unlock from target but then you lose the HUD of his health and stuff. Not sure if chaff needs to be limited if such a toggle was implemented though. They're spaming chaff?>Just switch to fixed.

Agreed. I made 2 proposals, one of which would probably be sufficient.

 

[B1ll Adama]

The only thing I see wrong with SCBs is that they consume a lot of power (surely its just a rechargeble bettery and once it's charged it should onlt take a trickle to keep it charged) and secondly if it's a battery why can't it be directed anywhere - engines, weapons, etc?

Didn't Scotty once say, 'All I've got left is the batteries, I can give you a couple of shots but nothing else..'

Scotty was a wise man and i wont argue with how he ran his deck

You are right, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with SCB.. i just dont like them Just believe that they create such a large delta between ships that are designed for PVP and those that aren't that they take away from the game. PVP as an option comes down to 'did i leave dock set up for this encounter and loaded with health potions' and if the answer if yes then i stand a chance, if not then ill lose the chugging game and once shields drop i am de-a-a-a-ad. There should be choices for setup and of course weapon loadout, shield size, PP capability, boosters should all come into it. SCB to me though are the deciding factor, if i have Potions then i fight... if i dont then i get outa there.

Pigheaded maybe, i dont want more than one in a ship

 

[YinYin]

I do agree gimballed needs to be able to be switched to fixed mode though. You can just unlock from target but then you lose the HUD of his health and stuff. Not sure if chaff needs to be limited if such a toggle was implemented though. They're spaming chaff?>Just switch to fixed. But then I use all fixed all the time so I'm kinda biased.

Pretty off topic already, but I'm sure this is intended and a great trade off.
If you have need for fixed but are running gimballed then you have to trade in your lock on and scanner info.
If you know you are running into hybrid stealth or chaffing opponents you are simply better fitted with fixed weapons in the first place.

 

[ROSS-128]

I now agree with your point on chaff. Your argument was solid.

I also agree that SCBs are the only thing that make big ships viable but I strongly feel it is the wrong fix. Better armor systems that allow for MUCH longer survival after shields went down and a component for a faster base recharge rate would be a better fix, as per ross's post below.

As for PDTs I always make my arguments based on the assumption that truly glaring holes in the balance will get fixed eventually. I feel that missiles are one such hole and assume (possibly incorrectly) that FD will eventually realize they made a horrible mistake and give them back at least part of their power. (then again SCBs have proven FD tries it's best to ignore it's mistakes)



NICE. I like that you did maths. Not sure about the exact numbers (can't annies hit 1000 in raw shield hp?) but the point made remains sound.
And yes steadier regen utility would be a much less gamebreaking way of making big ships more viable. (along with hull armor actually helping the powerplant and hull reinforcement packs being on top of all internal modules).

+1

Yes, an Anaconda with a full complement of shield boosters can hit a little over 1500 and that is included in the over-10,000 figure. The A7 shield generator is only providing 595 of that, the rest is boosters and SCBs.

 

[BimblesDidums]

Well, this isn't a rant, I have every confidence in Frontier realising that they have made a huge mistake with multiple SCBs and putting it right!
I was in open, playing the game as a multipurpose, bounty hunter, smuggler, assassin (chaff and SCB depleted slightly from previous cmdr who attacked me while I was dealing with an AI Python in a RES while doing a multiple pirate mission, not credit farming!).
Just doin my thang, in supercruise looking for WSS, when I scanned two cmdrs in a wing-enemy Empire in Fed territory, so throttled down (love a good fight with equal ships!), allowed them to interdict me..submitted, only the deadly Courier appeared and so began my tail of woe! Firstly, I hit my deploy landing gear instead of hardpoints, not a good start..so I can't even boost to turn..doh! Anyway, down to 1 ring on my shields before SCB gets me back up and running, now I'm ready for the dogfight. we start duelling and it's clear that I'm in the more agile ship..I'm getting on him first in every turn, he's got more chaff than the entire USAF, but no probs..just turned off targetting..got his shields down to 1 ring again and again and again, I'm now out of everything with a few hundred rounds of multi-cannon ammo left. How many SCBs has the Courier got? He gives up the dogfight tactic (good strategy..I'm not blaming the cmdr at all!) then starts reversing pummelling my shields, I catch him he boosts away rinse and repeat. Now he has 2 rings as I watch his shields regenerate for the 15th time and I'm down to critical..running out of ammo, I run. Leaving with a bad taste in my mouth, given that we both know who should have won that duel!
How can you play in open normally? without loadout set up for PvP ie I've got KWS, limpet drone, heat sink, cargo racks, so one SCB and 2 chaff launchers along with the fact that other missions use up some of your defences..it makes the whole experience pretty depressing!

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.

Its a strategy that works.

 

[torc]

it seems that some people here don't want to understand:

We are not discussing the actual gameplay,we are not moaning because you loose against ship with more SCB than yours, and we don't want to force people to play the way we want.

We are talking about suggestion to MODIFY the actual gameplay...i know pretty well how to outfit my Python, and i use SCB as many other players here...all of us do that in ACTUAL gameplay conditions...i don't think people here needs polite and arrogant suggestions from other players like: ''You have to use SCB or you'll die....this is your problem'' crap.

WE ARE ALL AWARE ABOUT THIS ,PROFESSORS!

for people who didn't understand the topic, We push for CHANGE the actual gameplay conditions, since the mechanics used with SCB, and why not, chaffs are too much unbalanced, forcing people to adapt very very similiar loadouts and forcing people to use many boosters and SCB as possible.

I'd like to see, as example, reworked missiles returning in loadouts, making choices for a turret or countermeasure against one more shield booster,

i'd like to see people having place in his ship for a kill warrant scanner and a FSDinterdictor and even a basic discovery scanner, not sacrifice all this space in ship just for one more SCB, or you must DIE!!! ,

I'd like to see the multicannons re used and making them more useful, not only a loadout full of lasers just for destroy shields because all the dogfight is based on this,

I'd like people forced to learn how really manage the power pips not as it is now with full weapons and a ridicolous amount of SCB,

I'd like to see the Hull reinforcement packages really useful but really heavy and no more than one per ship too,

I'D LIKE TO SEE THE RETURN OF THE DOGHFIGHT BASED ON SKILLS, NOT BASED ON THE AMOUNT OS SCBANKS.

my 2 cents

 

[ROSS-128]

Yeah, I always find it silly when someone argues "if one piece of equipment is overwhelmingly powerful, that just means you should be using it too."

Come on. By that logic it would be perfectly fine to give us the Death Star's primary laser or a Wave Motion Gun. You would just have to use one too, and make sure you shoot first because either one of those is going to clear your screen in one shot.

 

[YinYin]

Uhm ...

You seem to have missed out the shield less examples in this thread tearing down scb builds?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

. Elite is supposed to be about pilots skill not how much armour and SCB's you can stick on a ship

To play devil's advocate I actually thought Elite was mostly about co-operative MP play where PvP was generally rare, so therefore you would probably not balance an entire game based around that 1 mechanic

That being said I do agree that SCBs are a bit of an i win button and personally would like to see them limited to 1 per ship, and better yet, only 1 use (but possibly with it recharging over time afterwards)

I personally feel this would improve the game in all modes and not just for those looking to PvP. As it stands personally I just tend not to use them... but that is easy for me as i do not PvP

 

[Firestarter]

It's only in PvP the game balance and tactical mechanics are really tested. So if it's right for PvP then it will be right for the rest of the game.

I do feel however that the argument over SCBs vs some other way to buff big ships is a bit petty though. It's just somantics. The design is a bit like magic potions but it does work.

 

[YinYin]

The great thing is these magic potions can fail
And you have to switch your potion rack once one is empty.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Someone can summarize what major SCB issues are?

 

[Heater]

Someone can summarize what major SCB issues are?

In a nut shell,
People (mostly in the PvP environment) feel that is is unfair, as the fight boils down to who has the most SCB's. and that is is gaming the game, as it's not the way "they"want to play the game.

 

[Crash1099]

Someone can summarize what major SCB issues are?

It is a PVP thing. Forums are starting to remind me of BF4.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

It's only in PvP the game balance and tactical mechanics are really tested. So if it's right for PvP then it will be right for the rest of the game.

I do feel however that the argument over SCBs vs some other way to buff big ships is a bit petty though. It's just somantics. The design is a bit like magic potions but it does work.

Actually, this is incorrect as both sides of the argument can still be made.
Currently "Solo" does not suffer from NPC's using multiple SCB's.
If that ever happened it would effectively force every player to adopt similar one dimensional game play and make the game solely about Combat and this game has far more to offer than that.
It also would deny its tag line as in "Blaze your own trail"...multirole ships would cease to exist beyond SCB stacked entities and the game would lose much of it's variety which is why a lot of players do their thing in Solo and why PvP seems to be losing players.
The simpler solution would be to reduce the stacking, bring the SC Banks and even Boosters (which are less of an issue) to the point where they can get a player out of a situation yet not make the game solely revolve around one specific "stacked" module. The same can be said for other things that can be stacked as well.
You have what you have and make the best of it but anything the funnels the game into who has the most of anything is not good balance.

The balance in this game really does need a lot of work.

 

[Darrett]

Someone can summarize what major SCB issues are?

SCBs allow you to rapidly regenerate shields after a wait time of 5 seconds. They have a limited number of charges per module, and individual modules can either be used simultaneously (for a bigger regeneration pool) or individually (by turning modules on and off in the right panel).

They require internal compartments, and use a significant amount of power, as well as generating heat when used.

The main issue is that ships with a large number of internal compartment space (Large multipurpose ships, like the Anaconda/Python) also have a great deal of power to spare, and so become more durable than any other ship in the game. As this means that they can last in combat better, it makes them capable of being more effective at combat than dedicated combat ships.

On the surface of it, I have no issue with SCBs, as they solve an issue for trading vessels. I think a better solution would be to take a look at armor values and hull points; destroying a Type 9 should be extremely difficult.

Part of it is because I have a specific vision of how ship roles should function; Trader vessels are difficult to outright destroy, but can be crippled and pirated more easily than other large ships (lower shield values, high hull values) unless defended by escorts. Combat ships are heavily armed and shielded, but tend to have limited internal module space and jump range. Multipurpose vessels are a mixture of these two; higher shield values than a trader, decreased storage space.

The key is to make sure that the dedicated roles aren't eclipsed by the multipurpose at those roles. As it stands, it certainly seems like the Python and Anaconda in particular can be better combat vessels than combat ships, and better traders than trading ships. There just isn't currently enough of a sacrifice for the flexibility of those ships.

 

[B1ll Adama]

SCB are the reason I don't PVP... My ships are set up for missions and trading and NPC.

If I were to equip for PVP then I would have to load up on po...SCB and therefore would not be able to do my current varied play style.

Fix the shield charging, hull reinforcement, armour covers modules then SCB would not be needed. I could go back to my original play style where every once in a while I could PVP, play and take hull damage and still stand a chance with a more generalised specified ship aka not carrying nothing but shield potions.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Well, this isn't a rant

Famous last words.

SCB's need to be removed from the game.