It depends on the degree, doesn't it? If two smaller combat ships together can take down a Python/Anaconda in 20 seconds, that's obviously bad. But if 3 or 4 smaller combat ships together can take down a Python/Anaconda in ~1 minute, I'd have absolutely no problem with that.
Bigger (or better, rather) ships should, rightly, give you a massive advantage in 1v1, a big advantage in 1v2, and a decreasing advantage thereafter. It shouldn't mean you're invulnerable, even to smaller ships.
The faster, more agile, ships can multiply their offensive capabilities much better than the slower and less agile ones.
Right now, big ships aren't invulnerable to wings...unless handled very wisely by the wing as a whole, they are
already a liability. If they lose their largest advantage...the ability to absorb huge amounts of damage...they lose any utility that would justify the rebuy cost they would be far more likely to face.
You are completely missing the fact that 1v1 doesn't translate into 2v2, which doesn't translate into 3v3, and so on.
In wing combat people don't break off into separate duels, unless they are complete morons. They try to concentrate fire on ships to remove them, and their firepower, as quickly as possible, before moving on to the next target.
Ships that will dominate mine in 1v1 combat, will often lose
badly in a 4v4.
I posted a video of a 2v2, FDLs vs. Pyton, earlier. 1v1, my FDL would have been driven off by either of those Python. In 2v2, we drove them off, in 3v3, it would have been even more in the FDLs favor, and in 4v4, the Python would have been at serious risk of seeing their ships destroyed, one at a time, before even a high wake was possible (at least for the first one). Even in 2v2, we forced them to burn SCBs at triple to quadruple the rate at which we were using them. With more FDLs, they would have faced shield collapse through SCB activation.
Speed and maneuverability are force multipliers. Groups of fast, agile, ships are more than the sum of their parts.
SCBs are linear, they are a larger pool of damage one can absorb, but they won't make your Anaconda fast enough to stay in range of an FDL, they won't let you turn faster to counter wolf pack tactics where whatever ship you seem to be targeting fights defensively, while all the others become more aggressive. They will give you a shot at survival, and maybe, if you are good, and your opponents less so, the time you need to leverage the advantages your ship does have.
I'd rather they tweaked the damage/shield stats rather than allowed multiple SCBs.
Which would exacerbate the issues SCBs were intended to mitigate.
The problem with multiple SCBs is that it becomes a game of escalation (as others have pointed out). I don't have an SCB, you have 1, you win. I add an SCB, you add two, you win. I max out on SCBs, you have a ship that lets you add 1 more, you win. I buy the same ship, max out on SCBs, then we might have a fair contest. But it's forcing us to discard all the other possible modules / configurations / ships which removes variety from the game and makes it all a bit bland.
I'd rather we had the same "fair contest" where we both have 1 SCB (and lots of other modules) than where we're both maxed out with them and little else.
What other possible modules/combinations? There are exactly two supplemental internal modules that can augment combat capability...SCBs and hull reinforcement. Weight allowing, you are going to take one or the other, and as many as weight and power permit, if you are building a craft meant for combat as it's overriding goal.
"Fair contest" is an illusion. There is always something stacking the odds one way or another...if there weren't battles would be decided by coin toss.
If you want to have 1v1 duels against big ships and think it's in the spirit of "fair contest" to limit the loadout of the larger vessel, no one is stopping you.
