Yet only if they aim for the same one dimensional play style which is crippling Open and denying the use of the other toys.
This game has more to offer than purely just Combat.
Last edited:
Goodbye Open til SCB issue is sorted
- Thread starter Achilles7
- Start date
Yet only if they aim for the same one dimensional play style which is crippling Open and denying the use of the other toys.
This game has more to offer than purely just Combat.
Sorry bud, this isn't about balance between players. This is about resonably paced gameplay and balance between modules. For example, would you really consider putting hull reinforcement packs instead of SCBs on your ship.
This thread is going around in circles so fast it is about to disappear up it's own gravity well!
But ask yourself the following 5 basic questions:
1. If FD deleted SCB's overnight, how would it change the way you play? - remember, no one has SBCs!
2. Are you convinced that without a hull full of SBCs you won't win the battles you are currently winning?
3. When you are engaged in a battle, are you more concerned about the Commander's ranking, how he has armed his ship, or how many SBC's he is carrying (and just hope you have one more)?
4. Do you expect to win every engagement you enter into, no matter who or what the opposition is, based solely on the fact you have sufficient SBCs to carry you through?
5. If you exhaust your SBC's do you immediately turn and run to the nearest station to re-arm?
I would be interested in your answers, as long as you answer them truthfully!!!!!
But ask yourself the following 5 basic questions:
1. If FD deleted SCB's overnight, how would it change the way you play? - remember, no one has SBCs!
2. Are you convinced that without a hull full of SBCs you won't win the battles you are currently winning?
3. When you are engaged in a battle, are you more concerned about the Commander's ranking, how he has armed his ship, or how many SBC's he is carrying (and just hope you have one more)?
4. Do you expect to win every engagement you enter into, no matter who or what the opposition is, based solely on the fact you have sufficient SBCs to carry you through?
5. If you exhaust your SBC's do you immediately turn and run to the nearest station to re-arm?
I would be interested in your answers, as long as you answer them truthfully!!!!!
Answers :
- I would avoid bringing ships like the python and anaconda in combat, too risky/costly. Stick with ships that only use 1-2 SCB right now (Vulture/FDL). (1 SCB proposal proposal is a straight python/conda nerf as it stands)
- With a python that is rather slow and a huge target, I would have to leave combat rather quickly.
- Depends on the ships involved. I expect that bringing down a conda/python will require concentrated/high bursts of damage.
- Nope. I play a lot with the diamond back and got no SCB nor shield in it.
- Depends on my rebuy and how easy targets my thrusters are
IMO, what is required is more combat fitting option for internals and less thruster vulnerability (maybe 50% effciency at zero, but too often dead thrusters = dead ship right now)
The problem is that being shields down is often a death sentence. If it was not the case, things would be different.
My feeling is that when it comes to balancing, people look to remove options instead of adding new ones. Nerfing by removing choice => 1-D gameplay.
So far the best proposal I saw is replacing SCB's by a mecanic similar to boosting with engine capacitor, but for shield recharge. Then just replace the SCB's by
sys capacitor boosters, so that you can 'recharge boost' several times in a row before reloading the capacitor with pips.
Scudmungus
Banned
Not bein one fah duelistic mentality but hey..
Two side to tred (an fah yuh, FREE bonus side):
Dat side: SCB be fine! Frontier addin somtin dat nat needin improvin. Neva needin improvin! Aal gud!
Dat oder side: SCB a ting. Maybe ting needin review? Ting might benefit fram review. Game might benefit!
Dem nat worth fussin over: Mi happy! Dis reason! Mi gat inability to impartially review game systems an refusin to recognize de advantage of ongoin review an refinment in game development!
Now, if dem wid heads in sand be citing development costs an allocation of resources? No worries. Can aal agree to disagree on priorities of development. To deny SCB system be benefitting fram review? To deny dat current fightin dominated by one module 'choice'? HA! Denial at best..
Nat much wi givin to gamers. Smart choices be one ting wi can give. Nat much smart choice in fightin setup an play atm. Skill? Truth. Smart tinkin? Needin som serious work. SCB a ting - an a ting dat needin review. A ting dat can be made betta. Game fightin improvin fram dis.
All mi wanting is review of SCB system an fighting system. Many tings could benefit. Frontier gat de time now. Gud ting to be gettin on wid.
To read som posts, mi tinking, ''Really? Dis de be-aal an end-aal of fightin in Elite? 10 years development plan, and dis is wat yuh settling fah?''
HA!
Like mi writin paper once. Den sayin, 'Naaaah dis ting nat needin review. Mi som kinda jedi. Ace tings aal de time!''
HA!
Two side to tred (an fah yuh, FREE bonus side):
Dat side: SCB be fine! Frontier addin somtin dat nat needin improvin. Neva needin improvin! Aal gud!
Dat oder side: SCB a ting. Maybe ting needin review? Ting might benefit fram review. Game might benefit!
Dem nat worth fussin over: Mi happy! Dis reason! Mi gat inability to impartially review game systems an refusin to recognize de advantage of ongoin review an refinment in game development!
Now, if dem wid heads in sand be citing development costs an allocation of resources? No worries. Can aal agree to disagree on priorities of development. To deny SCB system be benefitting fram review? To deny dat current fightin dominated by one module 'choice'? HA! Denial at best..
Nat much wi givin to gamers. Smart choices be one ting wi can give. Nat much smart choice in fightin setup an play atm. Skill? Truth. Smart tinkin? Needin som serious work. SCB a ting - an a ting dat needin review. A ting dat can be made betta. Game fightin improvin fram dis.
All mi wanting is review of SCB system an fighting system. Many tings could benefit. Frontier gat de time now. Gud ting to be gettin on wid.
To read som posts, mi tinking, ''Really? Dis de be-aal an end-aal of fightin in Elite? 10 years development plan, and dis is wat yuh settling fah?''
HA!
Like mi writin paper once. Den sayin, 'Naaaah dis ting nat needin review. Mi som kinda jedi. Ace tings aal de time!''
HA!
Last edited:
Not bein one fah duelistic mentality but hey..
Two side to tred (an fah yuh, FREE bonus side):
Dat side: SCB be fine! Frontier addin somtin dat nat needin improvin. Neva needin improvin! Aal gud!
Dat oder side: SCB a ting. Maybe ting needin review? Ting might benefit fram review. Game might benefit!
Dem nat worth fussin over: Mi happy! Dis reason! Mi gat inability to impartially review game systems an refusin to recognize de advantage of ongoin review an refinment in game development!
Now, if dem wid heads in sand be citing development costs an allocation of resources? No worries. Can aal agree to disagree on priorities of development. To deny SCB system be benefitting fram review? To deny dat current fightin dominated by one module 'choice'? HA! Denial at best..
Nat much wi givin to gamers. Smart choices be one ting wi can give. Nat much smart choice in fightin setup an play atm. Skill? Truth. Smart tinkin? Needin som serious work. SCB a ting - an a ting dat needin review. A ting dat can be made betta. Game fightin improvin fram dis.
Man, I'm French and you make my head hurts by writing like this... On a Sunday morning ! That's not very nice
Last edited:
Answer mk II :
1: a lot, in better and less frustrating.
2: i use just a SCB, and i win a lot...my gameplay is not based on SCB, so not my problem...but a problem for SCBankers here, they are the real issue.
3: a mix of two...but i avoid people who use full loads of SCB because i hate how they play.
4:i saw SCBankers do this a lot of times
5: i saw SCBankers do this a lot of times mkII ...lol.
So basicallt there is something wrong here.
If a ship sacrifices everything for defense as in the example given - like everything - life support A and turn it off to power another SCB everything, they deserve the title of immortal.
.
Were I to be attacked by such a ship, what would I do? Ignore it is what, as unless they want to ram me to death, they have exactly zero combat value. Why do you have a problem with this?
.
Do you also have a problem with T9 that travels shieldless for more cargo space?
Do you also mind an anaconda that D rates everything but the FSD for more jump range?
What about a viper that runs as light as possible for the maximum possible speed?
Then you shouldn't mind an anaconda that gives up everything to fit more SCBs.
Or an anaconda that gives up everything for more frag cannons, for that matter.
.
That supershieldful anaconda is still going to fall like a rock to two or three vultures.
.
I'm assuming this is about PvP.
.
1) I would not be able to recover from mistakes. If I let myself get pressured, it's time to leave the fight. This means I will never be able to recover from being taken by surprise, or from silent running.
.
2) No, quite the opposite. In a fight between two combat ships, the fight will become shorter, making skill less of a factor and luck/credits more of a factor. However, a PvP fit ship will have an even easier time against typical combat ships as escape will now be impossible. Typical combat ships will become virtually defenseless against PvP ships which will further increase the divide between people who want to fit for PvE and people who want to murder you.
.
3) If I approach someone I want to kill, I'm most concerned with their ability to use their thrusters, because one pass is all it'll take with or without SCBs. I'm not implying I'm skilled. Seriously, try a real PvP build. I'm not joking. One pass is all it takes.
.
4) No. I rarely use SCBs in the fights I win and they have little relevance to PvP fit ships. Combat ships will find that they will lose to other combat ships if they have less.
.
5) Yes. I abhor death. Not having SCBs means that I cannot take chances and fight game that outclasses me. Having SCBs means that I can take a risk, and if the odds don't immediately swing in my favor, have the protection I need to live long enough to get out. Without this fallback, my targets will be exclusively ships that are smaller and less able to defend themselves.
Last edited:
Does not matter how many scb i have. Shields go down i am running away.
I would have to fight more cautiously in my shielded ships, which would probably considerably extend many of the combats I chose to continue.
My stealth Clipper would probably become my main PvP vessel as it has similar or superior staying power to a shielded ship without SCBs and superior offensive firepower. Shield generators are quite power hungry, and having to move pips to SYS to keep them up longer deprives weapons of cooling.
A loaded question.
No. Without a hull full of SCBs, most of my opponents will be in serious trouble.
My prime concerns are: #1. My opponents name (If I've encountered them before, chances are I am familar with how they fight and how their abilities stack up to my own; if I haven't, then it's important to make mental note of such things for later reference). #2. How fast their ship is. #3. How many friends they have with them.
Farmhard rank is meaningless past Mostly Harmless. There are "Novice" CMDRs out there that will mop the floor with a large number of "Elites".
Loadout is important, and SCBs are part of that, but no loadout can make up for notably inferior pilot skill.
Another loaded question.
I expect to win the overwhelming majority of my engagements because I am at the controls of my ship while someone else is invariably at the controls of the ships I am fighting.
I usually run, if I need to run, before I exhaust my SCBs...often before I use any of them. No point in staying in a fight unless I am certain my objectives can be achieved, and if I find my ship depleted, it's prudent to top off, unless there are more pressing concerns. Rushing to and from battles with damaged ships, drained shields, and/or low ammo, is not wise. Whenever possible I strive to have a fresh vessel. It's not always possible, and I often have to make due with what's on hand, but this is necessity, not choice.
Without SCBs you would see far fewer large ships in open play, particularly anacondas. They are to vulnerable, especially if armor remained unchanged.
Looks to me like he's got a case of internet badass.
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?
removing the power plant insta-kill (low percentage chance anyway) will help that a bit, I think
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.
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.
Last edited:
Large ships nearly always travel in convoys or wings in this case with escorts, this is exactly how the game should be heading
If left unchanged otherwise, most big ships will become useless in combat, if SCBs were removed entirely. To prevent this, their base shield strength would have to be considerably increased. Either that, or they will mostly vanish from the PvP battlefields. Even in PvE most players would miss their SCBs, allowing them to stay in RES and CZ for while, badly.
The rework on the PP-instakill won't change much in this regard. Drives will be the new priority targets and since the big ships are too slow to evade being hit like small fighters, they are absolutely dependend on huge shield strength.
Also, without SCBs the distinction between trading ships and combat ships would vanish. Currently i.e. a trade Python is not suitable for combat, because it needs cargo space. A combat Python otoh is not suited for trading, because it needs SCBs. Pirate Pythons are somewhere in between with a more or less reasonable compromise between cargo space and combat durability. Without SCBs one fitting will be equally good/bad for everything.
Either way there would be a lot of balancing work to do if SCBs were removed and I bet even more players will be unsatisfied with the results, than now. Simply removing them from the game isn't going to work since it would break far more things, than it would fix.
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.
The rework on the PP-instakill won't change much in this regard. Drives will be the new priority targets and since the big ships are too slow to evade being hit like small fighters, they are absolutely dependend on huge shield strength.
Also, without SCBs the distinction between trading ships and combat ships would vanish. Currently i.e. a trade Python is not suitable for combat, because it needs cargo space. A combat Python otoh is not suited for trading, because it needs SCBs. Pirate Pythons are somewhere in between with a more or less reasonable compromise between cargo space and combat durability. Without SCBs one fitting will be equally good/bad for everything.
Either way there would be a lot of balancing work to do if SCBs were removed and I bet even more players will be unsatisfied with the results, than now. Simply removing them from the game isn't going to work since it would break far more things, than it would fix.
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.
Last edited: