SCBs boil my blood.

[deathmagnet]

This is a great video that shows that skill out classes SCB's, shield boosters, heavy weapons, better ships.... everything! Don't ask the devs to change the game...change your game and get better.

[video=youtube;sVj52Hmek5o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVj52Hmek5o[/video]

 

[Defacto]

It's not spam shield cell banks or loose....

Double and triple chaff are effective tools

Full pips to engine in highly manuevarable ships to out turn your opponent is an effective tool

FA off is a great tool

Stealth ships are an awesome tool


SCB or die is false....

As I think we have concluded in the last pages of discussion, Shield Cells are in pretty much a state of dominance, where the entire balance of combat hangs on how Shield Cells are used by the combattants.
You gave us good video example yourself - the first one, where you survive 11 minutes of fighting without loosing your shield against a FDL, where your shields would ahve dropped at around 3 minutes without the usage of shield cells.
In the second one, where you easily could escape an attack by four well-equipped pirates in your Anaconda, because you spammed SCB's while hyperspacing.

Also, are you seriously claiming in the post above that good usage of FA Off confers an advantage similar to the one you get from spamming Shield cells?

This is a great video that shows that skill out classes SCB's, shield boosters, heavy weapons, better ships.... everything! Don't ask the devs to change the game...change your game and get better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVj52Hmek5o

None of the enemies he fought used SCB's. Skill triumphs, indeed. You are getting pretty good at proving my points.

 

[Philip Foster]

And what proposals have been made? Or have the detractors left it for FD to figure out so that they can shoot up the developer for not making 'the right choices'. Again. And again. And again.

People have the choice. They can choose to grind for a ship that can carry a gazzillion SCBs or not. OP seems to be wanting his cake and eat it. Doesn't want to grind for the big ship but wants to make it as easy as possible for his ship to take down the big ships. My proposal is a simple one. Put some effort in to it. Why should it be easy for you? Wouldn't it be boring if it was easy?

 

[deathmagnet]

where you have to have SCB's that are godmode

SCB's are not godmode.....people like to state that but it is not true. Once again that is an outside looking in perspective.

 

[Reav]

For me they should be one scb per ship.

 

[Aoife Thomas]

It's not spam shield cell banks or loose....

Double and triple chaff are effective tools

Full pips to engine in highly manuevarable ships to out turn your opponent is an effective tool

FA off is a great tool

Stealth ships are an awesome tool


SCB or die is false....

As I've mentioned in previous posts this is all assuming equal skill level. Every video I've seen with the silent running ships they were against considerably worse pilots and sometimes still lost. I've seen vids where they literally run out of ammo before breaking the shields. Every pilot who wants to go into pvp knows to use fixed weapons. So much so that many people have dropped chaff, making it almost worthwhile to use gimballed again. Scb's allow someone who doesn't even have the faoff button bound to fight and escape from much better pilots, and that's a problem.

 

[deathmagnet]

As I think we have concluded in the last pages of discussion, Shield Cells are in pretty much a state of dominance, where the entire balance of combat hangs on how Shield Cells are used by the combattants.
You gave us good video example yourself - the first one, where you survive 11 minutes of fighting without loosing your shield against a FDL, where your shields would ahve dropped at around 3 minutes without the usage of shield cells.
In the second one, where you easily could escape an attack by four well-equipped pirates in your Anaconda, because you spammed SCB's while hyperspacing.

Also, are you seriously claiming in the post above that good usage of FA Off confers an advantage similar to the one you get from spamming Shield cells?

Yes I am...those that have mastered FA off can pull off amazing things when outclassed and gunned by a massive amount.

 

[Dillontheman]

People are arguing for SCB because they dont want to see their overbuff tactic dethroned from the meta that they themselves employ.

People arguing against it are people that may or may not use SCB but want to see a more interesting and varied combat system.

Same thing would happen in Dark Souls... Why have a unique class or strategy when you can just load point in strength and health and use Havel's armor? That turns into there being only one thing going on across the board. Instead of fighting different players it just feels like youre fighting the same dude over and over holding the right trigger down and watching closely at his shields waiting for the right moment to pop a cell.

Meta = Making a game disgustingly boring

Solution: Adapt game until no definite meta is in place.... Dont ask me exactly how

 

[hanks01]

And what proposals have been made? Or have the detractors left it for FD to figure out so that they can shoot up the developer for not making 'the right choices'. Again. And again. And again.

Happy to pimp my idea. Either it sucks or it's not combative enough to be worth replying to:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=171298&p=2622108#post2622108

 

[deathmagnet]

[video=youtube_share;deG3GYkBiJc]https://youtu.be/deG3GYkBiJc[/video]

Another video of a FA off expert dominating much more capable ships in a viper.

 

[Defacto]

Yes I am...those that have mastered FA off can pull off amazing things when outclassed and gunned by a massive amount.

By people that don't use SCB's.
Have you seen Isinona's videos?

Oh, and that last one showed your ''FA OFF expert'' vaporizing a SCB-less vulture while spamming SCB's. Hooray for the skills!

 

[Schmack]

As to why this will become apparent in a minute.



Not pirates.

PKers. Not PvP. Not people interested in fighting or combat. People interested in simply interdicting and destroying other players for nothing more than the destruction itself.

That seems like a different problem altogether and has little to do with SCBs. If you take away shield cell banks, you still end up with 4 or so A0 shield boosters, max hull and mega weapons against a trader.

 

[ROSS-128]

SCBs would be unbalanced if only one of you could use them. Is your ship unable to cary as many SCBs as your targets? Use the same ship they are using. Don't blame your tools, it's your choices that are open for criticism. Think about how you can deal with it, stop thinking about how FD should make your targets easier to take down.

Well, let's say that hypothetically we buffed railguns to the point where a railgun loadout on most ships could one-shot the shields of an equivalently sized ship and the second volley would likely one-shot the powerplant. As a consequence of this, a sufficiently large ship hitting a smaller ship would likely punch clean through the shields and kill them in one volley.

By your logic, there is nothing wrong with these new one-hit-kill railguns. Their ridiculously high power just means that everyone should go equip them right now. Opponent has more railguns than you? Get a bigger ship, now you have more railguns. Don't blame the game if you're not running railguns, you made a poor decision to not equip them.

So if we nerf everything shields lets make sure we nerf the chaff too for earlier said reason...also we need to nerf the heat sinks because the stealth ships shouldn't be able to go silent and make me loose target. They certainly shouldn't be able to have more than 1 rack of 3...3 should be enough for them. I mean how fair is it that something as small as a DBX should be able to have to be target purely on sight with no computer assistance?

Once again. I feel these threads are started and defended by people that don't PvP and don't understand the full mechanics behind every PvP option. It is a group of players that only have an outside looking in perspective and want to control the way people enjoy playing.

To continue the railgun analogy, what, you think they do too much damage? You clearly just hate railguns and want to force people to use lasers. If we're going to nerf railguns we should nerf pulse lasers too, they also do damage and they're much easier to aim.

Like I've said earlier, nobody is looking to remove shield enhancing modules per se. It's just that SCBs are so ridiculously powerful that they overshadow all your other options. Saying "I like them because they're OP and I like being OP" doesn't do much to help your case.

Also chaff and heatsink launchers are both pretty easy to counter if you get up in your opponent's face.

I guess one upside to these threads, at least I'm raking in tons of rep.

 

[Philip Foster]

People are arguing for SCB because they dont want to see their overbuff tactic dethroned from the meta that they themselves employ.

People arguing against it are people that may or may not use SCB but want to see a more interesting and varied combat system.

Same thing would happen in Dark Souls... Why have a unique class or strategy when you can just load point in strength and health and use Havel's armor? That turns into there being only one thing going on across the board. Instead of fighting different players it just feels like youre fighting the same dude over and over holding the right trigger down and watching closely at his shields waiting for the right moment to pop a cell.

Meta = Making a game disgustingly boring

Solution: Adapt game until no definite meta is in place.... Dont ask me exactly how

A partisan attitude you have there. I don't use SCBs. It is just another thing to worry about. To my mind people who want them nerfed want an easy ride. They can make different choices in game but choose to lobby the devs to make it easier for them to take down their prefered targets. Sounds weak and feeble to me.

 

[deathmagnet]

By people that don't use SCB's.
Have you seen Isinona's videos?

Oh, and that last one showed your ''FA OFF expert'' vaporizing a SCB-less vulture while spamming SCB's. Hooray for the skills!

Yes i have he is a great pilot....exactly how do you "spam" SCB's in a viper? it only has 3 left over compartments after shields. 2 if you have a fuel scoop equipped. that doesn't leave much room to "spam" anything. Every ship he faced comes with better shields and a better "spam" ability but even though he had the disadvantage in that regards he came out on top.

- - - Updated - - -

To continue the railgun analogy, what, you think they do too much damage? You clearly just hate railguns and want to force people to use lasers. If we're going to nerf railguns we should nerf pulse lasers too, they also do damage and they're much easier to aim.

wait..where did i say i clearly hate rail guns or anything like that? If rail guns were vaslty more powerful than any other weapon I would learn how to use them..like I have learn to use Plasmas and SCB's

 

[Philip Foster]

Well, let's say that hypothetically we buffed railguns to the point where a railgun loadout on most ships could one-shot the shields of an equivalently sized ship and the second volley would likely one-shot the powerplant. As a consequence of this, a sufficiently large ship hitting a smaller ship would likely punch clean through the shields and kill them in one volley.

By your logic, there is nothing wrong with these new one-hit-kill railguns. Their ridiculously high power just means that everyone should go equip them right now. Opponent has more railguns than you? Get a bigger ship, now you have more railguns. Don't blame the game if you're not running railguns, you made a poor decision to not equip them.



To continue the railgun analogy, what, you think they do too much damage? You clearly just hate railguns and want to force people to use lasers. If we're going to nerf railguns we should nerf pulse lasers too, they also do damage and they're much easier to aim.

Like I've said earlier, nobody is looking to remove shield enhancing modules per se. It's just that SCBs are so ridiculously powerful that they overshadow all your other options. Saying "I like them because they're OP and I like being OP" doesn't do much to help your case.

Also chaff and heatsink launchers are both pretty easy to counter if you get up in your opponent's face.

I guess one upside to these threads, at least I'm raking in tons of rep.

No. That is not MY logic at all. It is your logic and you want to dump it on me. My logic is that if your hypothetical Vulture can't deal with my hypothetical SCB heavy Anaconda then you might need a better ship than your hypothetical Vulture. Maybe you need an SCB heavy Anaconda just like mine. But you can't because you won't grind for it. That is your problem, not mine, not the game and not FD. It is yours and yours alone.

 

[Defacto]

A partisan attitude you have there. I don't use SCBs. It is just another thing to worry about. To my mind people who want them nerfed want an easy ride. They can make different choices in game but choose to lobby the devs to make it easier for them to take down their prefered targets. Sounds weak and feeble to me.

Of course, you could use that argument for any overpowered item - Item X is so extremely powerful, to a level where it heavily degrades the game experience, but those who want item X to change are nothing but item-x-haters and they really only want to have an easy time fighting wielders of item X.

And the only - truly only way to find out of item X actually is problematic or if the accusations leveraged against it just is the result of the local Anti-X club, is to have a rational and constructive discussion about item X.

No. That is not MY logic at all. It is your logic and you want to dump it on me. My logic is that if your hypothetical Vulture can't deal with my hypothetical SCB heavy Anaconda then you might need a better ship than your hypothetical Vulture. Maybe you need an SCB heavy Anaconda just like mine. But you can't because you won't grind for it. That is your problem, not mine, not the game and not FD. It is yours and yours alone.

It is the Anaconda you grind for, but it's the three letters before that's all the difference, the difference we discuss here. I don't see what the Anaconda or the grinding has to do with that, and I don't see how what you say goes against his claim of the railgun example following the same logic as your SCB opinion.

 

[ROSS-128]

wait..where did i say i clearly hate rail guns or anything like that? If rail guns were vaslty more powerful than any other weapon I would learn how to use them..like I have learn to use Plasmas and SCB's

The point was that if we were to over-buff railguns to ridiculous levels of overpowered, they would be just that: overpowered, not "balanced as long as you're using them too".

 

[deathmagnet]

Also chaff and heatsink launchers are both pretty easy to counter if you get up in your opponent's face.

I guess one upside to these threads, at least I'm raking in tons of rep.

Yes your right..there is a counter to everything....including SCB's....if that counter is pummelling them for 10 minutes by yourself than so be it. The other counter is that you don't attack said ship with 1v1....2v1, 3v1 and 4v1 will be vastly more effective and can easily make SCB's useless. You are mad the the most expensive ships CANNOT be killed in under 10 minutes by lesser ships? why is that? my 160 million credit ship should be able to be destroyed in less that 2 according to you?

 

[Philip Foster]

Of course, you could use that argument for any overpowered item - Item X is so extremely powerful, to a level where it heavily degrades the game experience, but those who want item X to change are nothing but item-x-haters and they really only want to have an easy time fighting wielders of item X.

And the only - truly only way to find out of item X actually is problematic or if the accusations leveraged against it just is the result of the local Anti-X club, is to have a rational and constructive discussion about item X.



It is the Anaconda you grind for, but it's the three letters before that's all the difference, the difference we discuss here. I don't see what the Anaconda or the grinding has to do with that, and I don't see how what you say goes against his claim of the railgun example following the same logic as your SCB opinion.

Agreed. And a partisan attitude does not a rational argument make. Even if you have a horse in the race, if you want to be taken seriously you need to at least attempt to be impartial.

Oh I don't know maybe it wasn't you. Were you the one who told me all about rail guns and then said I was banging on about rail guns?

I get confused when people try to put words in my mouth.