If those ideas were so great and groundbreaking, I'm sure somebody would have taken notice. I'm sorry, but you're giving yourself a bit more credit than you're worth.
Last edited:
Nerf crowd about to ruin the game again
- Thread starter dc83
- Start date
You should try reading the forum sometime.
That's kinda like saying that someone who combat logs is equipped for escape, end of story. SCBs create one super-easy ship build for those who want to pew pew pew, and a nightmare for anyone else.
I am giving myself credit? I don't understand that.
People don't take notice just because an idea is good, especially not when threads like these are on the forum. I'm not quite sure that you should be so sure about that.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=171185
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=171227
Join the nerf train.
Small ships not in a wing need to destroy 500 million credit ship. Buff my eagle now.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=171227
Join the nerf train.
Small ships not in a wing need to destroy 500 million credit ship. Buff my eagle now.
Last edited:
Once again, SCB's were nerfed, and pretty hard, a few months ago. It solved nothing, because the problem isn't just SCB's being straight-up too strong.
Last edited:
As they are currently implemented SCBs have no drawbacks, fit as many as you can onto your ship and spam until you run out. Personally I think it's a bit OP. SCBs should be a module that can only be fitted once onto a ship and should have a penalty for using them, e.g a power surge through the ship that takes your weapons offline for a couple of seconds or you take heat damage or that depending on the size of your ship you get a % of shields back, the bigger the ship the less you get back.. using an SCB should be a calculated risk and not just an "IWin" button. So sorry OP, I disagree, they need to be balanced. Oh and btw, I am predominately a PvE player too.
I'm addressing the general you, not you in particular. Anyway, have fun.
One of the longest goodbyes I've seen on this forum.... I do hope you're off to read all the threads that include people talking about how broken SCBs are
If I'm being bombarded by stuff to react to, it stretches it out. I recommend you grow a backbone and stop being overly melodramatic.One of the longest goodbyes I've seen on this forum.... I do hope you're off to read all the threads that include people talking about how broken SCBs are
I'm not playing you for a fool, I was wondering which incident you were referring to given that I'm not psychic and you didn't clarify. If you think that people being displeased with the state of scb is 'making a mountain out of a molehill' I would suggest you do not understand the issue or have a very blinkered view on it.
I'm actually happy with SCBs as they are regarding usage but they should possibly reduce the number of modules you can put on to 1 or 2. They're already pretty useless on my Vulture and FDL only giving me 1 ring back per use if I'm lucky and generally only used in extreme circumstances (that includes bounty hunting in territory I'm hostile in... wings of 3-4 eagles can still melt your shields.)
I also have no problem with longer battles against players, makes the rare occurence they happen feel bigger and I don't think it's boring either to have a longer fight. If longer is boring then the activity is boring in itself surely? Unless the only entertaining part is the explosion bit right?
Anyway, the problem only affects certain ships with big powerplants like the Clipper, Asp, Python and Anaconda. SCBs can be life or death for a Lakon trader too so nerfing the effect each individual one does will just make it unfair for those ships.
Reduce the number of modules, fine, but for the love of all things good don't start nerfing the effect any more.
I also have no problem with longer battles against players, makes the rare occurence they happen feel bigger and I don't think it's boring either to have a longer fight. If longer is boring then the activity is boring in itself surely? Unless the only entertaining part is the explosion bit right?
Anyway, the problem only affects certain ships with big powerplants like the Clipper, Asp, Python and Anaconda. SCBs can be life or death for a Lakon trader too so nerfing the effect each individual one does will just make it unfair for those ships.
Reduce the number of modules, fine, but for the love of all things good don't start nerfing the effect any more.
I recommend you stop being insulting and aggressive.
People have tried politely to point out this is not a new topic and there is more than one example of why SCB need looking at.
But feel free to over react and behave like someone stole your lollipop.
Last time I seen someone react like this was on the Firefall forums, when the Devs said they were fixing the jump pad exploit.
Exactly the same reaction from some people.
I don't see how not having SCB's would make things unfair for traders. On the contrary: If traders get completely outclassed just because they don't mount SCB's, that would, I think, be very bad.
You say that fights with SCB's are much longer, and this isn't a problem, but what if one pilot mounts an SCB, and another mounts something else, such as a hull reinforcement package? I think if you consider that, it makes it much more prolematic to have SCB's greatly extend the time you can stay under fire without worry.
Doing anything to them in isolation would be a mistake. Any change to SCB needs to be part of a considered rebalance of how shields work in general. That way they can make changes without it being a death penalty for certain ships.
But that's the choice of the pilots to what they equip and what sacrifices they choose to make, after all the hull reinforcement package only effects weight whereas SCBs drastically effect power. Obviously not an issue for those ships that have a huge power plant that allow them to equip anything but for all the other ships it's a choice of decisions and sacrifices. For the trader they are trading cargo space for SCBs, I know a lot of traders like to go around unshielded (madness) but those that choose a shield and SCBs at the sacrifice of some space should be afforded more protection for those decisions. Your average Type 7 is outclassed by a bit of pocket lint so for me fitting SCBs and a decent shield is essential. To nerf them really does reduce the chance to run and survive against those that just want you dead.
Would it not be simpler to not be able to power your spare banks off. That way your limited by your power plant.
Combat craft will as now likely to use a single bank with compromise. Traders and multipurse that have power to spare are likely to run a second bank but at a comprimise.
If two banks make them fire alternately as with chaff. This would justify the obscene prices for top tier power plants.
Essentialy if you set for trading you will be using lower power draw weapons but have probably a couple of banks of scb to ensure escape from multiple interdictions or use python conda with high draw weapons on combat load which would limit amount of scb.
The problem now is having banks of unpowered scb available.
Combat craft will as now likely to use a single bank with compromise. Traders and multipurse that have power to spare are likely to run a second bank but at a comprimise.
If two banks make them fire alternately as with chaff. This would justify the obscene prices for top tier power plants.
Essentialy if you set for trading you will be using lower power draw weapons but have probably a couple of banks of scb to ensure escape from multiple interdictions or use python conda with high draw weapons on combat load which would limit amount of scb.
The problem now is having banks of unpowered scb available.
And if that is the case, I think there's a significant problem, only starting with the SCB's.
Why is it a problem? Kitting a Type 7 so it can tank some damage and stand a chance of surviving against at least the smaller craft should be an option.