No.... i am geniuenly asking what the attraction is? If ALL you want to do is PvE and disagree with the way PvP players play and are going to get mad when you meet said PvP'er why put yourself in a situation that is going to cause you heartache and grief. It doesn't make since to me.. If you like both PvE and PvP like me then I completely understand
SCBs boil my blood.
- Thread starter CMDR Hagglebeard
- Start date
No.... i am geniuenly asking what the attraction is? If ALL you want to do is PvE and disagree with the way PvP players play and are going to get mad when you meet said PvP'er why put yourself in a situation that is going to cause you heartache and grief. It doesn't make since to me.. If you like both PvE and PvP like me then I completely understand
Yes because i don't prey on weak ships.
I don't switch ships or loadouts for combat whether it's PvP or PvE.
Edit..not completly true. I will get rid of my fuel scoop for a cargo rack when running missions.
Last edited:
Then lets do non- combat as well. that includes cargo racks, auto field maintenance units, fuel tanks and refineries. We can all fly around in the exact same version of the exact same ships.
Fair enough - consider this. Maybe you like interacting with other players. And maybe you don't want to close yourself off to the possibility of something unexpected happening. You might be pure PvE, but if fate comes your way and you're forced into an encounter with a player, what do you do?
If you're the kind who says "screw it" and combat logs. Then, yes, get the hell out of Open and play Solo (wuss).
If you're the kind who would be open to such things but only on well defined terms (ie in CZs only). Then join a group like Mobius. Fair play to you.
If you're the kind who is happy to deal with the consequences of unrequested player attacks, because they punctuate your PvE life (in the old adage of submarine sailors - 99% boredom, 1% sheer terror) then it's still a reasonable thing to not feel like the deck is unbelievably stacked against you for the reasons I've gone over, and the gulf that is created between PvE and PvP style players.
Don't try to force the way you want them to play upon them.
Don't try to force the way you want them to play upon them. Accept that you chose to play in an environment that the strongest, best fitted and most well connected players are going to dominate those that are not. If being ganked by a group of 4 isn't your style then don't put yourself into a situation where that might happen. Because even though it is unfair, dishonorable or any other adjective you can add...they have the right to do that....they can play the way they enjoy the game. Their enjoyment does not = yours and that is the way it is as it should be.
Edit: because the reverse is also true. Your enjoyment does not = theirs.....
Last edited:
So, there are two problems.
1. It's too easy to kill a ship by targeting its power plant.
2. It's too easy to stack SCB's which led to a fix for point 1 yet at the expense of making PvP a battle solely driven by who has the most SCB's?
I suggested a possible fix might be Armour on this or the other thread but after reading a good bit, maybe the fix for it may be to not allow such drastic reduction on the damage of one "critical" system, a la the power plant which makes your ship go boom, boom.
I can understand that smart pilots will use their awareness to not open up their PP to attacks and I like that kinda thing, but is it too easy to still get value hitting it at angles where most players may think they are shielded by their hull?
I've seen vids about the same but I have no idea if that was ever addressed. Even so:
If ships were less vulnerable to sub-systems being attacked then maybe less players would resort to SCB stacking.
I think the main way to fix this has to address a few separate issues that currently exist in the game.
Targeting the PP is way to easy. Of all sub-systems, it should be the most protected and the hardest to destroy. I wouldn't buy a car that was likely to blow up by firing a spud gun up it's exhaust. So, maybe only making it vulnerable from one specific angle would force better piloting.
When they fix that, then maybe reduce the number of SCB's and Boosters to 1 may bring a clearer picture as to the general balance between ships.
I wouldn't even be against that if a players got their priorities wrong, say by setting their PP to 4 instead of 1. (1 being almost the same as the ships hull, 4 being much reduced and therefore kinda as easy as it is now), there could be a differential there. Same with cargo hatches and other things. That would be a risk / reward style of game-play I personally like.
Dunno about you Humans though.
Anyways, just thoughts.
1. It's too easy to kill a ship by targeting its power plant.
2. It's too easy to stack SCB's which led to a fix for point 1 yet at the expense of making PvP a battle solely driven by who has the most SCB's?
I suggested a possible fix might be Armour on this or the other thread but after reading a good bit, maybe the fix for it may be to not allow such drastic reduction on the damage of one "critical" system, a la the power plant which makes your ship go boom, boom.
I can understand that smart pilots will use their awareness to not open up their PP to attacks and I like that kinda thing, but is it too easy to still get value hitting it at angles where most players may think they are shielded by their hull?
I've seen vids about the same but I have no idea if that was ever addressed. Even so:
If ships were less vulnerable to sub-systems being attacked then maybe less players would resort to SCB stacking.
I think the main way to fix this has to address a few separate issues that currently exist in the game.
Targeting the PP is way to easy. Of all sub-systems, it should be the most protected and the hardest to destroy. I wouldn't buy a car that was likely to blow up by firing a spud gun up it's exhaust. So, maybe only making it vulnerable from one specific angle would force better piloting.
When they fix that, then maybe reduce the number of SCB's and Boosters to 1 may bring a clearer picture as to the general balance between ships.
I wouldn't even be against that if a players got their priorities wrong, say by setting their PP to 4 instead of 1. (1 being almost the same as the ships hull, 4 being much reduced and therefore kinda as easy as it is now), there could be a differential there. Same with cargo hatches and other things. That would be a risk / reward style of game-play I personally like.
Dunno about you Humans though.
Anyways, just thoughts.
Last edited:
It's funny how they always say that.
Back in Beta 1, it was the same thing with the speed decrease in FaOff.
Basically, what was happening was that with the Beta 1 patch, the devs decided that FaOff would be fully newtonian, so you kept your speed, even if you boosted. Vipers, at the time, had a boost speed of 500 m/s.
The end result was that anyone that wanted to have a chance in PvP would fit Quad-cannon Vipers and then skid around constantly at 500 m/s. most of the time, the Vipers missed because they were flying around at 500 m/s in FaOff, but it was pretty much impossible to retaliate if you flew another ship. If two of these Vipers met each other, they would end up fighting each other in a strange piroutte dance that could last many minutes, either ending with one player getting a series of lucky hits, or more likely, one party either running out of ammo or loosing shields and retreating.
Defenders of this kept arguing about how ''tactical'' and ''skillfull'' this type of gameplay was, and how ''We finally have something to 'reward' FaOff players''.
To the surprise of these people, some people were starting to discuss on the forum about how they felt this feature really didn't work very well. FaOff Vipers dominated the battlefield, the extremely low accuracy gameplay was pretty boring. Fighting in general just didn't feel as tight and balanced as in the Alpha and premium Beta.
A forum storm ensued. ''Having Vipers fly at the arbitrary maximum speed is way more realistic than having them slow down in space!'' they said. These ideas were terrible. It was just whining. FD will never listen to stupid whiners, right?
In Beta 2, FD removed this feature. Did the seas boil? Did all the ''pros'' leave the game? No, no one cared.
Then the Python was nerfed, which also was completely terrible and clearly caused by all the casual whiners who didn't understand that the Python totally was not OP, since it actually had slightly less cargo space than an Anaconda.
And the Python was nerfed. Did everyone stop using the Python because it now became a terrible and useless ship? No, the Python is still one of the most popular ships. It's even generally considered to be good purely for combat, not bad for what actually is just a combat-focused freighter.
Then the SCB's were nerfed (yes, this has already occured) but unlike in the previous cases this didn't fix the problem, because (if you ask me at least) the problem with the SCB's need to be fixed not by nerfing them, but by changing the way in which they operate.
Do you want to know what Elite would look like if FD didn't ''listen to whiners'' or ''pander to the masses''??
Here's the story of Elite:Competent.
While FD values its fans, they have decided to, from the very beginning, develop their own game, and not listen to the filthy casual pleb masses. Here are its features:
In Elite:Competent, piracy is done by camping a nav beacon where everyone drops out and killing everyone with cargo. When destroying a ship, most of their cargo spills out and you can collect it.
In Elite:Competent, you travel by waiting 15 seconds for a hyperspace countdown, and you can then go anywhere in a system, such as the little scripted zones and ''signal sources'' where you get random encounters.
In Elite:Competent, anything interesting that happens on the way to your destination happens by an inescapable random event interrupting your journey.
In Elite:Competent, you can use a Shield Cell to rapidly refill a damaged shield if you don't want to be destroyed today.
In Elite:Competent, you better use a Viper with 4 cannons if you want to have any chance in PvP against the ''pros''. Remember that you can always switch to solo when you want to grind your money.
In Elite:Competent, there are some ships that are better in every aspect than some other ships, but we didn't realize that, because we didn't listen to the whiny masses and all the ''pros'' loved that ship.
Weren't you just saying that you need SCBs in order to fight off 4-man ganks?
Ignoring of course that a 4-man gank squad probably has their own SCBs anyway.Really the problem people have with SCBs is not necessarily what they do per se, but the magnitude of the effect. 400 shield HP per charge is a little ridiculous when most ships' base shield strength is in roughly the 200-500 or 200-600 range. It makes each one essentially a whole extra shield generator. That essentially makes one SCB as strong as four or five shield boosters, putting aside for a moment the fact that they stack if you have both.
An effect of that magnitude is usually reserved for core components that all ships come with standard, like your thrusters' ability to boost.
You guys may like my purpose scb alternative implementation: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=164381
Last edited:
I would be lying if I were to say that I don't agree with some of the changes made.
My biggest issue is the "pandering".
I can't be bothered to make sure I have 5% of my total ship cost.. FIX IT FD!...
so they increased the loan amount
I STILL can't be bothered to make sure I have 5% of my total ship cost plus the increased loan amount...FIX IT FD!...
So they increased the loan amount based on rank...
I STILL STILL can't be bother to make sure I have 5% of my total ship cost plus the FURTHER increaded loan amount...FIX IT FD!!!....(luckily no fix has been announced yet)
So now it is...I want to play in open but as a PvE player and I want the PvP players to play the way I expect them to so change this and this and these items that all (every PvP ship I have faced uses them (accept the stealths) and hence my source of the word "all" ) the PvP'ers use to make me happy..and then when they do...they still won't be happy because the PvP'ers will adapt and find more ways to capitalize on the mechanics they have left.
- - - Updated - - -
Weren't you just saying that you need SCBs in order to fight off 4-man ganks?
Yes i did..I said don't get mad if some does it to you and you are in open
And you don't find it at all problematic that there is One Module to rule them all?
One Module to find them?
One Module to bring them and in darkness bind them?
No...because in general...shields themselves are the true module that rules them all and things have been introduced to support them. Don't nerf the current mechanics...fix module targeting and make hull plating and reinforcements mean something.
Last edited:
Not using them seems a poor tactic to me. It is a combat resource and if you choose not to use it, for whatever reason, then it's on you. Things shouldn't get nerffed just because people don't like something they are not using. If it is available to the whole,ingame, population it doesn't need a nerffing.....people just have to make a choice, use it or don't.
It degrades the game: It makes combat in general worse. It is a poor feature, just like infinite boost speed was a poor feature. It needs to be changed.
Exactly...
Edit:
Tonnes of people use chaff.. I don't get mad because it hurts my ability to use gimballed..I learned to use fixed.
I sacrifice not using chaff for 20% more shields and have to take it on the chin when facing gimballed weapons, I don't get mad because I don't want to use chaff. I don't get on the forums and ask them to get rid of chaff or nerf it, or prevent people using double or triple chaff. I just learn to deal with it.
You make game play choices and you will have to live with them.
- - - Updated - - -
Well if it's going to be mandatory to use, we might as well make it a new Core Module slot that every ship comes with when you buy it. Which means NPCs will have them and use them too.
I wish NPC's did use SCB's. I think it is stupid they don't.
Last edited:
People actually do that? You can just deselect your targets, and trade them using all their slots for chaff with you only having slightly weaker weapons than when they were fixed.
I don't think the circumstances are the similar enough to warrant a direct comparison.
And so we get back to the gulf that's created - if you're playing in open in a place where PvP might happen, you only have yourself to blame if you aren't loaded to the gills with SCBs. Want to do stuff other than fight players? Go somewhere where players aren't.
And, of course, that same argument could be used for any "I Win" button not matter how unbalanced so it's really rather pointless.
Look at the ramifications on overall player interaction rather than just the single encounter.
- - - Updated - - -
They do. They just don't have a dozen of them.