Is the new SCO Drive going to be balanced before its released?
My issue is that once engineered, that new A-rated SCO Drive has MORE jump range than a the Pre-engineered FSD with Mass manager applied.
This makes all previous FSDs obsolete, I was hoping for more of a meaningful choice between SCO or a bigger jump range.
I really don't get what the issue is that you see here, evolution is a massive advantage of the online gaming environment.
It devalues what I have done as if it were nothing.
You can do better signing up to the game now.
Why not leave the SCO advantage as being only one thing, Super Cruise Boost?
The only thing that has changed is your perception, those old drives of yours have not, get over yourself!
No, no one said that. Adding new things is a good thing - unless it makes old things completely obsolete. That is called power creep.
Power creep? Na, this is maxwells demons at work again, pesky things!
The grind is only a grind if it's done inefficiently.
Bravo! Once in character and in the game, it is all part of daily life, and as with all things in life, there is always a way if there is the will to find it!
I've read some people complain that the SCO should have worse jump range and I think to myself, "What??? Why can't something new just be better than something old?"
Not everything has to be a "hard decision" or a "trade off" just because this is a video game. Example: Supercruise Assist and docking modules. They should just be software installed by default on ship computers. But instead we get the "hard choice" about if its worth a size 1 slot. The answer is always NO. Having my ship auto-fly itself in the blue zone the entire way to a destination is not worth the trade-off of any other module that could fit in a size 1 slot. That slot is 100% always better served as a DSS, HRP, 1A Prospector Controller.... I fitted a SCA module the first day they came out and I thought it was fun to use but there is no build I'll ever make where module economy allows for it so I'm kind of sad that something cool was added to the game that I'll never use.
And then I remembered that some of the people who play this game are the reason we have to pay for the privilege to wait for our ships and modules to be delivered anywhere, and I rolled my eyes.
Exactly, this really is the essence of engineering both in game and in real life, man some of the things that folk come up with can be hilarious, but they genuinely think that it is a good idea at the time.
Agree with you that SCA should be a "software" feature that takes up no module space, but feel completely different about actually using it. While I can live without a docking computer and these days I tend to leave it out so that I can get better at using my HOSAS setup, I absolutely can't stand the "gameplay" offered by regular supercruise travel. Losing a small module slot is absolutely worth not having to just sit there making tiny adjustments while watching a number go down.
I install a supercruse assist when doing certain tasks, such as mass pirate cleanups or high grade emissions, use them as a speed break is all.
I expect the fuel rats to be recruiting!
Heh, yes this thought does spring into mind!
No. My point was that modules which are strictly inferior to others have no place in the game.
That's not affected by the question of "is the particular module X indeed strictly inferior to Y?"
You're free to think that stealth builds are viable, or that credits are a limiting factor. Then those modules serve a purpose.
The question I was addressing "why does there always need to be a tradeoff?" was explicitly about the point when there is no advantage at all to a choice.
There is no inferior where 'min max' solutions are concerned, due to the complexity, you might like to consider looking that up; It really is essence of the gameplay.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
