Goodbye Open til SCB issue is sorted

[Kastor]

Wanted to rep that last part, but it looks like I already repped you not that long ago
SCB's needs to be changed.
I love the feeling when I win a fight against 2-3 ships with 10-20% of shield left. Every fight that lasts too long are boring. Even Star Citizen, a game with a far more nervous gameplay, is actually having problems in Vanduul Swarm because IA are far too hard to hit and you can spend easily 20-30 minutes on a single ACE.

Elite is in a situation that is far worse than that when coming to PVP: It's not a problem of hitting your opponent (because you are hitting him), it's a problem about infinite health. Landing hits again and again just to see a SCB repleneshing your opponent's shields over and over again is, whathever you think, annoying.
If my opponent is so skilled that I can't even land a hit on him, it's fine; he's far more skilled than I am and I respect that. And if I manage not to be hit too often, then the fight would be long AND fun.

In Diablo II, PVP was often done with a simple rule: "no use of health potion"... Why ? Because otherwise fights would last way too long and be boring as hell.

SCBs are killing the fun the way they are implemented right now. We're in a situation where combat oriented ships cannot have a lot of them and where multi-role ships can tank AND give a massive falcon punch at the same time. The whole game as major balancing issues: weapons, prices, heat consumption, missions, rewards etc.
So, It's not really surprising that SCB's also have balancing issues.

Well said.

 

[ROSS-128]

Like I said earlier, it's apparent that everyone here agrees that SCBs are a crutch. Our only point of disagreement is whether they are a crutch for the player or the ship.

The pro-SCB side's sole argument is that the ships that make the heaviest use of SCBs are cripples without them, and that they are necessary for those ships to be viable. In other words, the SCBs are a crutch for those ships.

The anti-SCB side dismisses that claim, they argue those ships are entirely viable without SCBs. The only thing you need SCBs for is to either beat other SCBs, or to beat a more skilled/better equipped/more numerous opponent by abusing shield potions (which of course only works if the other side didn't simply bring more SCBs than you did). Thus, they argue that SCBs are a crutch for the player.

The thing is, either way, tossing in obvious crutch mechanics is no way to achieve a balanced game. SCBs would be much better for the game if the game and the players didn't lean so heavily on them. For the good of the game, they need to lose their crutch status.

If they're a crutch for crippled ships, then we need to fix those ships' legs so they don't need a crutch in the first place. If they're a crutch for players, we need to get them off the crutches and into physical therapy so their legs can heal.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Frag cannons require you to be closer than often feasible, especially against the reversing style of gameplay everyone is using. Rails are a great counter but to run enough of them you must handicap the rest of your ship, especially if your using a combat ship rather than multirole. PAs are a mix of both.

But sure, we can use those to beat SCBs or you could loadout with SCBs and Beam lasers yourself and slog it out. That's fine.

Now tell me how to use multicannons, pulse lasers, burst lasers, seeker missiles, dumbfire missiles, torpedoes, cannons or mines to beat SCBs. Or should we just remove all of those from the game.

Not to mention PDTs, Hull Packs, AFMs, Armor and ECMs.

So that's what... 12+ different types of module and equipment that your one module is making redundant. Granted many of them have their own issues but we can't see and fix the shadows those issues cast while they are all under the shadow of SCBs.

Heck, the only major module balancing we've seen since SCBs were introduced was missiles. Why? Because only missiles were op enough to be noticeable behind SCBs. There are so many issues with the combat as it stands, hundreds of tiny little things. Missiles and Armor not doing their job, turrets ignoring silent running, no real module attacks other than Powerplant and drives, AI in general, ECMs never seeing use, the powerplay weapons and on and on and on. But none of that has been looked at like shield cells have.

The one thing you are so fanatically defending is stopping almost all progress made towards a funner, more balanced combat.

Do you really love SCBs so much that you aren't interested in what will come after they are gone. How many interesting and new tactics could be developed to fill the void they will leave. So many things that are currently redundant suddenly seem useful again.

No, no, and no. You're basing your entire arguments as if you understand all the elements involved. You don't. A boosted slide to the yaw axis of your reversing enemy will cause them to roll over, exposing their entire delta profile to you, probably at very close range. Pythons are especially susceptible to this. If your ship isn't fast enough to do this, then this fight is probably not one you want to get in. This is a clear, definitive measurement of skill. One pilot loads up SCBs and thinks it's is going to work. Another pilot saves on the weight and completely destroys them.

Second, why do you feel that taking rails or PAs over something like a topped out shield generator is a handicap? I certainly don't view it that way, and that's probably why I've had shining success in areas you feel are broken.

Why do you feel that 12+modules are completely irrelevant to the game just because they don't punch through SCBs? This is ridiculous. This is like saying all ships with less than 5 hard points are completely irrelevant to the game just because they're not as effective in PvP. Or that every ship with less than X cargo space is completely irrelevant to the game just because they're not as effective while trading. Or that every ship with less than 20ly jump range is completely irrelevant to the game just because they're not as effective at exploring.

I am defending the game in its current state because I like the idea of personal progression as well as in game progression. I learned how to beat others. This (apparently) is a difficult thing for others to learn. This makes me feel better than others, and finding ways to feel better than others is a great way to push player identity. This is extremely powerful in a game like ED where it's easy to get lost among a crowd and feel insignificant.

A popular argument is to limit SCBs to one per ship. Why don't we also limit cargo racks and DS/DSS/fuel scoop to one per ship too?

 

[CMDR Kantos Kan]

No, no, and no. You're basing your entire arguments as if you understand all the elements involved. You don't. A boosted slide to the yaw axis of your reversing enemy will cause them to roll over, exposing their entire delta profile to you, probably at very close range. Pythons are especially susceptible to this. If your ship isn't fast enough to do this, then this fight is probably not one you want to get in. This is a clear, definitive measurement of skill. One pilot loads up SCBs and thinks it's is going to work. Another pilot saves on the weight and completely destroys them.

Second, why do you feel that taking rails or PAs over something like a topped out shield generator is a handicap? I certainly don't view it that way, and that's probably why I've had shining success in areas you feel are broken.

Why do you feel that 12+modules are completely irrelevant to the game just because they don't punch through SCBs? This is ridiculous. This is like saying all ships with less than 5 hard points are completely irrelevant to the game just because they're not as effective in PvP. Or that every ship with less than X cargo space is completely irrelevant to the game just because they're not as effective while trading. Or that every ship with less than 20ly jump range is completely irrelevant to the game just because they're not as effective at exploring.

I am defending the game in its current state because I like the idea of personal progression as well as in game progression. I learned how to beat others. This (apparently) is a difficult thing for others to learn. This makes me feel better than others, and finding ways to feel better than others is a great way to push player identity. This is extremely powerful in a game like ED where it's easy to get lost among a crowd and feel insignificant.

A popular argument is to limit SCBs to one per ship. Why don't we also limit cargo racks and DS/DSS/fuel scoop to one per ship too?

Cargo rack? You're joking, right? How are cargo racks ruining the game? Fuel scoop? I think you're already limited to one fuel scoop.

Perhaps you were too tired when you wrote your reply because it doesn't make much sense.

 

[Morbad]

Regarding the reverski again, it has one perfect and hopefully obvious counter...you reverse too.

If your opponent is making things more difficult for you than them by reversing fast enough that you have to move more pips to ENG to follow, you should not follow. You should immediately reverse yourself and force your opponent to close the distance. When they start moving toward you, you move toward them, until you are in the range you find ideal. If they start to exceed this range again, and one boost will not rapidly close the gap, you should again back off and force them to close.

Anyone who gets defeated by someone just flying backwards, more than once, is pretty hopeless and will remain so no matter how the game caters to their personal tastes regarding combat. If someone wants to fight, they have to stay close enough to do damage. If they don't want to fight and they have ship that is too fast to overtake, then there is nothing you can do to make them fight, so leave.

SCBs do not facilitate a reversing style of combat. I was doing this way more before SCBs than after. It allowed me to leverage the superior accuracy of the fixed weapons I preferred against incompetent opponents who insisted on trying to close a gap that was too large to cross rapidly without moving pips to ENG and thus sacrificing their defensive or offensive capabilities. The introduction of SCBs did not make this more viable, but the increasing awareness of counter tactics, along with my own skill progression that made for quicker victories without it, did make it less viable.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Cargo rack? You're joking, right? How are cargo racks ruining the game? Fuel scoop? I think you're already limited to one fuel scoop.

Perhaps you were too tired when you wrote your reply because it doesn't make much sense.

Maybe you were too tired when you read my reply because it's pretty straight forward.
Multiple cargo racks don't ruin trading any less than SCBs ruin combat.

 

[IAM GROOT]

Cargo rack? You're joking, right? How are cargo racks ruining the game? Fuel scoop? I think you're already limited to one fuel scoop.

Perhaps you were too tired when you wrote your reply because it doesn't make much sense.

I agree this was a bad example, multiple cargo racks do not effect combat, they are a way of utilizing a ships space to maximize trading profit.

SCBs in larger ships totally tilt combat, tactics are basically full reverse whilst firing pulse lasers at target whilst popping SCBs hence not being bothered about avoiding incoming fire.
The simple fact is if SCBs were scrapped, nerfed or limited to one per ship then a lot of Python, Conda pilots would have to learn a whole new fighting style, at the moment the roadmap is, trade, earn vast amounts of money buy the biggest ship, stack SCBs and Pulse lasers and invincibility is yours, this seems so very wrong to me. Now what you see is wings of 4 Pythons/Condas altering factions because they are unbeatable.
My solution seems simple, scrap SCBs for big ships or basically above class 5. Instead The Pythons, T9s, Anacondas Etc would have multiple shield generators for seperate shield areas correlating to hull mass. Eg an Anaconda would have 4 smaller shield generators instead of one big one, shields would be split up into Fore, Aft, Dorsal and Ventral, this way they are still tough to take down for single ships as the pilots would have to fly their ship to force shield damage onto other areas. There would probably be an allowance to use one SCB to recharge one area of shield that is failing. Pythons maybe would have 3 or 4 Shield areas, Clippers 3 etc.

Ships up to Cobra size 1SG, Cobra, Asp, Vulture 2SG etc
This would make combat way more challenging for all, as I said, pilots would manouever their ships to keep their strongest shields pointing at incoming fire. Power plants wouldn't allow multiple stacks of SCBs as the shield generators would eat up a sizeable chunk, the most you'd probably get is 1 SCB per generator.
This way it makes wings of smaller ships move about to concentrate fire on one area of shields when faced with Anacondas etc.
I thought FD were actually planning this in early concepts, the idea of a ship like the Anaconda having one shield generator is pretty unrealistic to be honest.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

SCBs in larger ships totally tilt combat, tactics are basically full reverse whilst firing pulse lasers at target whilst popping SCBs hence not being bothered about avoiding incoming fire.

Here's another example of someone with very shallow experience in the area trying to generalize a solution for a problem that only exists because players are taking the easiest approach as the only approach. Then complaining about it.

It does not take a lot of practice to use SCBs effectively in combat. It does take a lot of practice to overcome someone using SCBs effectively in combat. This is fine.

The fact that larger ships can fit more cargo racks to become more effective at trading is no different than larger ships fitting more SCBs to be more effective at basic combat.

As a side note, I believe the multiple shield generator thing you mention was in the DDF.

 

[IAM GROOT]

It also makes total sense to me that once you step up into a larger ship that it shouldn't be operated the same as a smaller one, there has to be trade offs. Anacondas Pythons and Type 9s should not be able to be operated where one shield protects all, of course having the correct number of crew to operate such systems needs to be implemented also. If FD were unable to implement this feature (crew NPC or PC) then IMO they should not have introduced the Anaconda, Python, t9, Clipper etc as player ships just yet, they should have been NPC only until crew was available.
This may be why the Corvette hasn't been introduced, wow can you imagine a ship that size operated by one pilot, it's ridiculous

 

[IAM GROOT]

Here's another example of someone with very shallow experience in the area trying to generalize a solution for a problem that only exists because players are taking the easiest approach as the only approach. Then complaining about it.

It does not take a lot of practice to use SCBs effectively in combat. It does take a lot of practice to overcome someone using SCBs effectively in combat. This is fine.

The fact that larger ships can fit more cargo racks to become more effective at trading is no different than larger ships fitting more SCBs to be more effective at basic combat.

As a side note, I believe the multiple shield generator thing you mention was in the DDF.

hardly shallow, I'm an Alpha backer, lots of experience. You're missing the point, using stacked SCBs isn't making ships more effective in combat, it's making them invincible!
It s not about needing more practice to overcome SCBs, it's virtually impossible.
I would like to see one of these experienced Conda/Python pilots sit in a fighter ship ( Viper/Vulture/ FDL) and take on an inexperienced player in a Conda/Python with multiple SCBs if the guy with less experience in the Anaconda/ Python wins, there's a problem.
Big ships have lots of internal space which is customizable, for profit increase install more cargo bays, they don't use power, SCBs do use power but not enough hence why they are being abused, in smaller ships its balanced but the large ships its not balanced.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

hardly shallow, I'm an Alpha backer, lots of experience. You're missing the point, using stacked SCBs isn't making ships more effective in combat, it's making them invincible!

An FDL fit for taking on an anaconda laden with SCBs will punch straight through that anaconda's shields, and it will take the FDL approximately 10 seconds to do so (entirely possible as illustrated by the video). You might have been around for a while but I wouldn't call you experienced, at least not in this area.

 

[Maxwellou]

Also, saying "The fact that larger ships can fit more cargo racks to become more effective at trading is no different than larger ships fitting more SCBs to be more effective at basic combat. " is not relevant for the simple fact that more cargo space does not affect the game of your opponent. More SCB does.

EDIT: I've been in a fight with a CMDR in an Anaconda last week in a CZ: trust me, it does not take 10 seconds, not with SCB's (I have 1 huge PA and 4 fixed Multicannons).

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Also, saying "The fact that larger ships can fit more cargo racks to become more effective at trading is no different than larger ships fitting more SCBs to be more effective at basic combat. " is not relevant for the simple fact that more cargo space does not affect the game of your opponent. More SCB does.

It does if I want to score as well as them in a CG, or if I'm running the same route as them.
.

EDIT: I've been in a fight with a CMDR in an Anaconda last week in a CZ: trust me, it does not take 10 seconds, not with SCB's (I have 1 huge PA and 4 fixed Multicannons).

Not with a loadout like that, it won't.

 

[Maxwellou]

It does if I want to score as well as them in a CG, or if I'm running the same route as them.
.

Not with a loadout like that, it won't.

1) Yup, But it won't kill them and prompting them with a loaning screen.
2) Fitting the FDL for just one type of ship (Anaconda in this matter) is the most stupid thing you can do, especially if you're going in a CZ.
Also, no. A good piloted Anaconda means they have multiple Shield boosters and pips to SYS. You're just saying words with a bunch of numbers out loud and try to make it a fact.
Oh, sure, If the Anaconda as Class E shield Generator, 0 pips to SYS, no SCB, no SB and if the FDL is fitted accordingly, then yes 10 seconds should be enough.
But we all know this situation almost never happens.

EDIT: all of this is said without anger

 

[ROSS-128]

It does if I want to score as well as them in a CG, or if I'm running the same route as them.
.

Not with a loadout like that, it won't.

Even if you were to equip the FDL with all beams (the highest shield-DPS weapons in the game, a class 3 beam even does more to shields than a C4 PA), you would only have 107.85 shield-DPS. A shield-specced Anaconda has 1547 (1856 for Prismatic) shield HP exposed and around 8800 in its SCBs. If you have infinite weapon energy, the fastest you can possibly drop the shield is 14.34 (17.2 for Prismatic) seconds (assuming no regeneration). Realistically of course, I doubt an FDL can fire a class 3 beam and four class 2 beams for 14 seconds straight without running out of weapon energy.

The only way to get that under 10 seconds would be to ram the Anaconda with enough force to do more than 468 (or 778) shield damage. To give an idea of how hard a ram that would have to be, a stock Anaconda has 370 shields, and an Anaconda with an A7 Prismatic generator has 714. An FDL would have 475 shields or 570 with prismatic, meaning if you ram the Anaconda hard enough to drop its shields within 10 seconds, you probably rammed it hard enough to break your own shields outright (especially since ramming damage is scaled with weight, in favor of the heavier ship). Now you're spending at least 10 seconds where your opponent has shields and you don't, while praying that an SCB doesn't erase all that effort.

And as long as he can cycle his SCBs faster than 17-ish seconds per, you'll have to go through all 10,300-ish health he's got there.

 

[Lheim]

Psycho Romeo's points boil down to:

1) You can use SCBs too, so it's fine!
2) I can beat a scb-stacking nub (with heavy caveats), so if you can't you're just a scrub (with heavy caveats).

Every god dang post he makes. Every one. Not a single original point.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

1) Yup, But it won't kill them and prompting them with a loaning screen.
2) Fitting the FDL for just one type of ship (Anaconda in this matter) is the most stupid thing you can do, especially if you're going in a CZ.
Also, no. A good piloted Anaconda means they have multiple Shield boosters and pips to SYS. You're just saying words with a bunch of numbers out loud and try to make it a fact.
Oh, sure, If the Anaconda as Class E shield Generator, 0 pips to SYS, no SCB, no SB and if the FDL is fitted accordingly, then yes 10 seconds should be enough.
But we all know this situation almost never happens.

EDIT: all of this is said without anger

Even if you were to equip the FDL with all beams (the highest shield-DPS weapons in the game, a class 3 beam even does more to shields than a C4 PA), you would only have 107.85 shield-DPS. A shield-specced Anaconda has 1547 (1856 for Prismatic) shield HP exposed and around 8800 in its SCBs. If you have infinite weapon energy, the fastest you can possibly drop the shield is 14.34 (17.2 for Prismatic) seconds (assuming no regeneration). Realistically of course, I doubt an FDL can fire a class 3 beam and four class 2 beams for 14 seconds straight without running out of weapon energy.

The only way to get that under 10 seconds would be to ram the Anaconda with enough force to do more than 468 (or 778) shield damage. To give an idea of how hard a ram that would have to be, a stock Anaconda has 370 shields, and an Anaconda with an A7 Prismatic generator has 714. An FDL would have 475 shields or 570 with prismatic, meaning if you ram the Anaconda hard enough to drop its shields within 10 seconds, you probably rammed it hard enough to break your own shields outright (especially since ramming damage is scaled with weight, in favor of the heavier ship). Now you're spending at least 10 seconds where your opponent has shields and you don't, while praying that an SCB doesn't erase all that effort.

And as long as he can cycle his SCBs faster than 17-ish seconds per, you'll have to go through all 10,300-ish health he's got there.

Yes, I took a walk (out of frustration with this subject) and it occurred to me that the heaviest ship that builds the heaviest way possible is going to be very hard to bring down. I'd even go so far as to label this ship as immortal.
.
However I have no issue with this. In this case, the unstoppable force does not best the unmovable object. This is fine. How relevant to our daily lives are the unstoppable force and the unmovable object if they can't be applied to anything but each other?
.
Fitting an FDL for just one type of ship (combat, large) is the best thing you can do if you want to PvP against that type of ship. Of course it would be terrible to bring to a CZ.
.
The way I see it:
Your average combat FDL does not beat your average combat anaconda due to SCBs.
Your PvP FDL beats your average combat anaconda despite SCBs.
Your PvP FDL is on relatively equal footing with your PvP anaconda despite SCBs.
Your super extreme weapon FDL does not beat your super extreme shield anaconda because of SCBs.
.
In a game where death has a somewhat significant price, this is fine.
.

Psycho Romeo's points boil down to:

1) You can use SCBs too, so it's fine!
2) I can beat a scb-stacking nub (with heavy caveats), so if you can't you're just a scrub (with heavy caveats).

Every god dang post he makes. Every one. Not a single original point.

I'd like you to read a little more into it. Every time someone says 'this ship is taking too long to kill omg scbs are wurst ever' I respond with 'of course it will when you're trying to throw toothpicks at it'.
.
I stack SCBs when I want to do day to day combat. I don't bring more than one or two to PvP as they are not worth their weight. I suggest anyone else who takes player combat seriously do the same.

 

[znôrt]

I'll self-quote from the other thread, because I don't think the other thread has enough visibility so far. I have been thinking about SCBs some more, and I have an idea for how they could be redesigned to address excessive SCB spamming and slow passive shield regeneration simultaneously, while still preserving the idea that a bigger ship can stack SCBs for greater effect than an smaller ship:

i'm ok with current scb, but i actually like your idea a lot! i like how it goes from potion quaffing to tactical energy storage and recovery management, which is applicable to any other uses of energy as well. brilliant

 

[Crescendo]

I'm against the grain, I suppose, on this but .. I like SCBs. I think they are a good game mechanic.. yes, I stack them (usually only two.. but I do have three on my Courier ['cuz what else was I going to put in that slot..]) but I do still have to un-power one of them to keep my energy below the limit. Any advantage that SCBs offer is mitigated by the fact that anyone else can have them as well.

 

[IAM GROOT]

At the risk of repeating myself I believe this is the fairest solution:
Anaconda - 4 Shield Generators Forward , Aft, Dorsal, Ventral Shields max 1SCB to boost any section of shielding
Lakon Type 9 - Same as above
Python - Same as above but a lesser class
Clipper - 2 Shield Generators max 1 SCB
Asp/Vulture/FDL - Same
Cobra Mk 4 - 2 Shield Generators, max 1 SCB lesser class than above maybe, specs unknown as yet
Cobra Mk 3/Viper/etc - 1 Shield Generator max 1 SCB pretty much as it is now.

Managing multiple shields is no less an issue than managing multiple SCBs but it is more realistic and makes for more balanced combat. A Python/Anaconda kitted out will still be tough to beat, even tougher to beat with a good experienced pilot but it will at least be beatable, currently you could put a noob in the pilots chair of a Conda/Python as long as they know how to manage their SCBs they'll never take damage let alone lose.
I know FD were planning this in the beginning, I hope it's still in the plan as the current system is not working