Isn't the whole point of the game to give you the freedom of how play the way you want? Personally I don't use SCBs as I have come to learn that some fights you can't win and thusly you should turn tail and run. I think there should be no changes because at the end of the day, that player has made their choice to kit out their ship with n SCBs and probably cornered themselves into a certain play style (ie combat). On the flip side, if someone gets swarmed by a wing of players or NPCs then I imagine it would be a good idea to have a couple SCBs.
SCBs boil my blood.
- Thread starter CMDR Hagglebeard
- Start date
I think his point was that the attitude Item X is not unbalanced, because anyone can use Item X is wrong. And he used the railguns as an example.
I really must agree with that-I just don't think it is a good argument. Sure, anyone can get item X, but that item can still be unbalanced.
Hi All,
Mostly PVE me, just have not seen the need ingame to do PvP yet, other than rage revenge.
I like SCB, 125Mcr of shield tanked Python, is about the same 100Mcr of FDL, I just do not see the problem. Anyone spendin 150-200Mcr on a ship deserves it to hang around a while.
Hopefully if PP aimed shots become less effective the need to shield tank to defend the hull is some what negated. Only after this change would I review SCBs.
Cheers
Simon
Mostly PVE me, just have not seen the need ingame to do PvP yet, other than rage revenge.
I like SCB, 125Mcr of shield tanked Python, is about the same 100Mcr of FDL, I just do not see the problem. Anyone spendin 150-200Mcr on a ship deserves it to hang around a while.
Hopefully if PP aimed shots become less effective the need to shield tank to defend the hull is some what negated. Only after this change would I review SCBs.
Cheers
Simon
So as someone who doesnt use SCB (Like myself), you'd rather have 85% of the players you come across employ the exact same strategy? I mean for me it isnt a case of I cant beat it so it must change, but its the fact that its clearly the single best way to outfit as far as PvP goes (ala Meta) and 85% is probably an under exaggeration of the SCB stacking demographic of Elite PvP.
You dont wanna see some variety in combat? I see the same people in this thread arguing for SCB, argue in other threads that combat doesnt have enough depth to it. Because the most one-dimensional playstyle is the most powerful...
I'll continue to leave a path of space wreckage in my FSD wake, but I'd would like to see a lil variety n who I come up against.
Right now its just SCB Anaconda, SCB Python, SCB Anaconda, SCB Anaconda, the odd SCB Asp, so on and so forth
You say it's not your logic, and then you literally say "Don't have as many SCBs? Get a bigger ship, now you have more SCBs."
What's the difference between a module so powerful that your rack space decides the fight, and a weapon so powerful that your hardpoint count decides the fight? How is "get more rack space so you can spam more of the same module" any different than "get more hardpoints so you can spam more of the same weapon"?
Seriously? The SCB's aren't OP at all, you'll just have to ''keep pummeling'' for 10 minutes!
And not less than two, we saw from the video that you could keep your shields up for at least 3 minutes fighting a well-equipped FDL.
Last edited:
No..because i was fine with the Python nerf. and the missile nerf...I just truely don't believe the SCB's are as powerful as you think they are...you just aren't willing to learn or deploy the tactics it takes to overcome them...once again..160 million credit ship, the Clipper is 90-110 million...the Anaconda is a 500+ million credit ship when combat fitted. Those ships should not fall easily..you should have to work at it. Sorry if your lazy.
- - - Updated - - -
Seriously? The SCB's aren't OP at all, you'll just have to ''keep pummeling'' for 10 minutes!
And not less than two, we saw from the video that you could keep your shields up for at least 3 minutes fighting a well-equipped FDL.
Yes he is well equipped.....between the ears and on the sticks....his load out isn't what got me but his skill. As the video states..I have NEVER had that much trouble keeping a ship in my sights. He is a truly gifted CMDR.
What other options? Hull reinforcements? You can't blame SCBs for being so popular when they are the only option for on-use combat modules (internal slots). I don't think hull reinforcements are even in the same category as they are passive, they only share in common that they take up an internal. I mean, to say they are OP....sure, they are OP compared to cargo racks, and discovery scanners, and FSD interdictors and refineries and limpet controllers.
The railgun analogy only works if the railguns you were talking about were equipped in a utility slot, where they would be the only thing in their class that could be equipped in that type of slot.
If you listed off all the modules regardless of slot SCBs would look like they are in the same "class" as boosters/chaff/point defence/ECM; they increase your defensive capability. Yet they don't directly compete with any of those items other than through power consumption.
It is because of my above reasons that I find it hard to consider them OP or game breaking. If there were 3-4 other internal modules that were combat oriented and SCBs gave a significant advantage above those other modules, that would be OP, but I don't see how you can say they are OP when all you have to compare them against are cargo racks and fuel scoops.
Now if you want to go into a hull vs shields debate that seems like an entirely different can of worms. It seems that in this game the devs prefer shields to be the big mitigating factor for a fight, once they go down you have enough hull to run (usually).
In the end I think we are suffering from a lack of combat internal module options, rather than combat internal imbalance. Were there other options I believe you could consider them all to be OP against any ship not carrying them, just as any ship sporting railguns is "OP" against a trade ship running no guns.
Sorry, but I'm not sure if I can take you seriously anymore
Oh please, great master, teach us these mighty Anti-SCB tactics! We have heard whispers about how we are supposed to ''keep pummeling them for 10 minutes'' but we can not interpret this without your wisdom
Did you see the one where he and a friend fights a Python for 15 minutes, without the Python ever loosing its shields? It ends witht he Python decidign that he is bored, and leaving.
Last edited:
Sorry, but I'm not sure if I can take you seriously anymore
Oh please, great master, teach us these mighty Anti-SCB tactics! We have heard whispers about how we are supposed to ''keep pummeling them for 10 minutes'' but we can not interpret this without your wisdom
Go equip a python for 160 mil and then I will fight you..without SCB's and after 2 or 3 minutes when you are staring at a rebuy screen for 8 million tell me if you feel you got your worth out of the ship
No I didn't....I bet the python was having fun though...but his fun does not matter now does it...the other two's fun take precedent.
Yes!
Single combat, that is the only solution. If you win in your SCB-less Python against my SCB-less Python, then SCB's are fine. If I win in my SCB-less Python against your SCB-less Python, then SCB's are flawed.
Also, some of you keep going on about how ship X with price Y should be strong and hard to defeat - yes. They are. If you have to fit SCB's in order to achieve that, however, then that is definitively a problem, so I really don't see what you're getting at there.
If you actually feel that you aren't getting your worth from your ship though - I urge you to get a cheaper one. All the other Python pilots seem to do fine, but I profit a lot in my Cobra. It's a great ship, really.
Last edited:
HAH! That's funny. Hey, get a SCB or two. Its made for combat. That's balanced.
Yes!
Single combat, that is the only solution. If you win in your SCB-less Python against my SCB-less Cobra, then SCB's are fine. If I win in my SCB-less Cobra against your SCB-less Python, then SCB's are flawed.
You are mincing words that I did not say.. I said go get a python that is equal to mine and after I have you staring at a rebuy screen see if you think that it was fair for you to die that fast with that type of investment.
So the big ships should be hard to kill but not hard to kill the way they are hard to kill. They should be hard to kill for some other reason? then you would complain about that as well.
More than three minutes? 180 seconds? That's a lot of time to correct your mistakes, or just getting out of there. I definitively think that most ships should be capable of going down in 180 seconds when under sustained fire from an equal ship. If you can't take the investment, don't.
I say, if the purpose is to have ships hard to kill, then they can't only be hard to kill when using SCB's.
They are pretty much that without SCB's already, though. 180 seconds - that is a lot of time.
An easy thing to do here is we can compare it to what you get above the baseline from them.
For example, an Anaconda with an A7 shield has 595 shields baseline.
If you equip it with eight shield boosters, the maximum it can possibly carry, it goes up to 1547 for an increase of 160% shield HP. 20% per booster, not surprising. A tough customer, but also not terribly overwhelming.
If you pack its 6-4 slots with SCBs, by the time you exhaust all the charges your effective shield strength will be 7891, an increase of 1226%. That's spread across nine SCBs of various sizes, so it averages out to a 136% increase per SCB. Is a 136% increase in capability per module roughly what we should expect for "comparable" modules?
There have been so many proposals by now that people aren't bothering to make them again, lest be accused of spamming. Look for them if you care to.
Yes, it would be incredibly boring if it was easy. Thus raising your Asps shield value from 389 Mj to 1570 Mj is, by your definition, boring.
Or perhaps you mean that SCBs, being mostly a crutch for the unskilled, would make life more boring for those who have skill as they'd stomp all over the SCB spammers? Well that is a point to consider I suppose. What would the game be like for those who depend on having 500% more shields than their opponents in order to have a chance?
Shield boosters are balanced. They can't be switched on and off in battle and used, power consumption has to be factored in, and they have the downside of causing the shield recharge time to extend.
Also, I used to sometimes get interdicted back when I was running a trade Cobra. This was before SCB use was so ubiquitous. And sometimes, when interdicted, I'd make the other person regret it... Sometimes not of course. But it was doable.
If someone chaffs then deselect the target and fire fixed mode. It's tougher, but it can be done.
If someone goes to SR and throws out a heatsink then you can either continue to fire if you aquire them visually, or you can boost away and wait for them to be forced out of SR by their heat level (which will rise very quickly the instant they fire). Furthermore they'll have dropped their shields as a consequence of going to SR, so there are drawbacks as well as advantages to those tactics.
See? These things make combat interesting and skill based.
Now let's look at SCBs... ohh... press the SCB button... I'll bring your shields back down with my lasers... you press button again... I keep firing... press button again...
You didn't make a very good case there.
SCBs is basically just like having health potions, and so long as you pop them at the correct moment it boils down to who has the most - that's not very interesting.
if the argument is that fights should last longer, just buff HP across the board.
if the argument is that fights should last longer, just buff HP across the board.
It think you want a FPS game where everyone dies in a matter of seconds...this is not an FPS and was never advertised as such.
Starting to move towards EVE length 1 on 1s at that rate.... next people will want time dilation so they can power on/of all those spare SCB.