The new SCO Drive and it's jump range...

[Rat Catcher]

But the fact that stealth builds using Clean drives exist rather undermines your point, doesn't it? Also, even E-rated modules offer a trade-off by being cheap as dirt.

Using logic to illustrate that a rant is unfounded is frowned upon here, you know...

Same as current FSDs being obsoleted by the FSO ones to come, I'm not sure I wan't to spend the odd 250KLS jaunt between stars in my DBX to be a constant fight for direction, just because the new kid on the block added another 2 LY range to the FSD... (Not that I'd be forced to use SCO, but it is there, innit?)

 

[BetaToaster]

But the fact that stealth builds using Clean drives exist rather undermines your point, doesn't it? Also, even E-rated modules offer a trade-off by being cheap as dirt.

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.

 

[Rat Catcher]

No. My point was that modules which are strictly inferior to others have no place in the game.

Firsty, isn't "strictly inferior" a matter of interpretation? (a Clipper is strictly inferior to a Cutter, in some player's opinion)
Secondly: You don't have to buy them in your chosen playstyle if you don't want to... Although those base models are inserted as soon as you sale a core component...

 

[Markov Chaney]

On this whole rational utilitarian thing... it's a simulation, so it should simulate what ship manufacturers might build. It seems to me it's simulated the concept of "market for personal transportation vehicles makes absolutely no sense at all" very accurately and is an excellent reflection of the real world as it was in 2024, but in spaaaaaace.

Hell, even some of the actual space market in 2024 makes less sense than ED does.

 

[aRJay]

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.

The problem is there are a lot of players in this game most playing it slightly differently some playing it very differently from yourself which means that just because you or others don’t see an advantage there will be some that do.

TLDR
Some choice is better than none.

 

[BetaToaster]

Firsty, isn't "strictly inferior" a matter of interpretation? (a Clipper is strictly inferior to a Cutter, in some player's opinion)

No. "strictly inferior" means "objectively worse in every possible situation". And when comparing FSD drives with FSD drives, it means "every number is worse than or equal and not all are equal."

Secondly: You don't have to buy them in your chosen playstyle if you don't want to... Although those base models are inserted as soon as you sale a core component...

Of course I don't have to buy them. Nobody has to buy them. And nobody in their right mind will. They'll just be sitting there cluttering the UI, serving no purpose whatsoever. Hence bad game design.
[Keep in mind this is still all predicated under ...IF the new SCO drive options will turn out to be strictly superior to Sirius ones in every and any possible way imaginable. Which some streamers apparently have claimed, and some people are advocating for in this thread. That's the position I was and am replying to.]

The problem is there are a lot of players in this game most playing it slightly differently some playing it very differently from yourself which means that just because you or others don’t see an advantage there will be some that do.

TLDR
Some choice is better than none.

See above. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Three Stars]

I feel like it greatly depends on what you’re doing. For distances less than 600 ls I don’t feel that the SCO is much of a benefit, because the risk of overshooting is very high unless you have the timing down to a science. There’s also the point I made above about the FSDv1, which gains the benefit of better jump range than the regular FSD and also has the 2 second boot time so it can be power prioritied out in favor of other modules. For the cause of destroying other ships, I’d say that extra power is more valuable than getting to the battle a bit faster.

 

[midnight void]

A-rated engineerable SCO FSD with same as old FSDs jump range - it is not just a new but slightly better version of still the same old module, this is, in fact, a change of one of the core game mechanics.
And if it is so, all old FSD modules have to be upgraded with this new SCO feature for no cost.
Otherwise, it is simply a wipe of progression. Not a complete wipe of course, but still. In a 10 years old game.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Hence bad game design.

In your own opinion, of course...

Do you believe that the store should only sell "A" rated modules? Obviously the remainder are strictly inferior to those!

Never mind though, I don't mind having a choice, nor mind that some modules are strictly inferior to others, I just choose what I want at the time and an not bothered in the least that other strictly inferior ones accompany my choice in the UI.

 

[aRJay]

No. "strictly inferior" means "objectively worse in every possible situation". And when comparing FSD drives with FSD drives, it means "every number is worse than or equal and not all are equal."


Of course I don't have to buy them. Nobody has to buy them. And nobody in their right mind will. They'll just be sitting there cluttering the UI, serving no purpose whatsoever. Hence bad game design.
[Keep in mind this is still all predicated under ...IF the new SCO drive options will turn out to be strictly superior to Sirius ones in every and any possible way imaginable. Which some streamers apparently have claimed, and some people are advocating for in this thread. That's the position I was and am replying to.]


See above. You're barking up the wrong tree.

No more that I am looking at the view from a different tree.

If it were just about the superiority of the stats then we would all be flying identical ships for the same activities.

 

[Shurimal]

Otherwise, it is simply a wipe of progression. Not a complete wipe of course, but still. In a 10 years old game.

I wouldn't say it's a wipe of progress. Suppose shuffling around dead Titans and playing with their guts results in new armor that has low, but balanced resistances—say, 10%—to all human weapon damage (no need to plug reactive armor hole with thermal resistant HRP), 20% resistance to caustic damage and regenerates slowly if not shot at. This is obviously overall way better than existing armor types, especially for AX combat, and would be the new go-to for certain combat builds. Would this also be "wiping progress" if you bear in mind people have spent billions of credits plus many engineering materials for reactive armors on their 'Vettes and Cutters?

As I wrote somewhere earlier, I only "need" 5A SCO drives on three ships: exploration Phantom, general mission-running combat multirole Chief and Titanbomber/AX Krait. The last one doesn't even need engineering on it since it doesn't need to travel much or have a fast reboot. All the other ships I have—miners, passenger liners, tritium barges etc—can use existing FSD-s since they don't really benefit much from neither jumprange nor SCO.

 

[Three Stars]

Do we know for certain that A grade SCOs are going to be a part of this patch? Like, from an FDEV source? I’ve seen it stated that “a full range of C grade SCOs will be available” which is an entirely different thing.

On its face this whole SCO thing originally seemed to be a Biweave Shield situation. A module that does a certain thing better than standard, but you have to trade off C grade level performance otherwise. For Biweaves it has always seemed a fair trade.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I only "need" 5A SCO drives on three ships: exploration Phantom, general mission-running combat multirole Chief and Titanbomber/AX Krait.

I'm even less fussy...
I only need it on the pre-built Python Mk II that I'll buy as soon as it is available. It flies in a straight line (mainly) using SCO.

The rest of my stable are fine and won't suffer by doing a few% less than is possible with the SCO drive, on my heavy sightseeing ships it probably won't make any noticable difference unless I make literall, 100's of jumps on a trip, and may save 5 minutes overall...

 

[Rat Catcher]

Do we know for certain that A grade SCOs are going to be a part of this patch?

No, we don't.
All I know from the streams this week is that thay are 'coming soon' - that may mean Tuesday, or maybe August. At least the patch notes Tuesday will tell us all.

 

[Shurimal]

I’ve seen it stated that “a full range of C grade SCOs will be available”

Aren't they already? I have class 2, 3, 4 and 5 C-grade SCO-drives from the first days they became available Aren't them the A-grade SCO drives that have unconfirmed and unclear availability?

 

[Three Stars]

Aren't they already? I have class 2, 3, 4 and 5 C-grade SCO-drives from the first days they became available Aren't them the A-grade SCO drives that have unconfirmed and unclear availability?

Yes, and that's why that statement was confusing...because they're already available.

 

[midnight void]

Suppose shuffling around dead Titans and playing with their guts results in new armor that has low, but balanced resistances—say, 10%—to all human weapon damage (no need to plug reactive armor hole with thermal resistant HRP), 20% resistance to caustic damage and regenerates slowly if not shot at. This is obviously overall way better than existing armor types, especially for AX combat, and would be the new go-to for certain combat builds. Would this also be "wiping progress" if you bear in mind people have spent billions of credits plus many engineering materials for reactive armors on their 'Vettes and Cutters?

for those who do combat, especially pvp - for sure, no question. For non-combat ships and non-combat pilots, of course it makes close to no difference.
Regarding SCO, I believe sooner or later we all will learn how to use supercruise boost properly and absence of such feature eventually will make old FSDs nothing but placeholders.

 

[Shurimal]

for those who do combat, especially pvp - for sure, no question. For non-combat ships and non-combat pilots, of course it makes close to no difference.

Same is true for SCO drives. In no way will SCO be useful on my barge that only does a few Mm stints between my carrier and a station loading/unloading cargo. Same for my mining ships which only move between a ring hitspot and my carrier.

Though the best would be phasing normal FSD-s above grade D out and offer a like-for-like swap to engineered SCO drives at Felicity's.

 

[House0fDerp]

But the fact that stealth builds using Clean drives exist rather undermines your point, doesn't it? Also, even E-rated modules offer a trade-off by being cheap as dirt.

How relevant is CR cost though?

In the P2W thread, when things like reduced rebuys are brought up they are shot down by the apparent triviality of earning credits. If a tradeoff is a nonfactor, is it really a significant tradeoff? Or does the lower performing module enter true obsolescence?

 

[IstvaanDCIV]

How relevant is CR cost though?

In the P2W thread, when things like reduced rebuys are brought up they are shot down by the apparent triviality of earning credits. If a tradeoff is a nonfactor, is it really a significant tradeoff? Or does the lower performing module enter true obsolescence?

That depends. For me it's not a serious consideration for most of my main playstyle, since I would only build an E-rated ship as a joke or an experiment. But if you were to try running a CMDR in a "poverty mode" playstyle as a kind of self-imposed challenge, then the cost of rebuys becomes a whole lot more relevant.

That's an edge case? Sure, I'd accept that criticism, for a sustained playstyle. Most people won't keep playing like that. But everyone starts the game effectively in poverty mode, and judging from the choices made in the prebuilds we've been given as examples thus far, there's no way that they're aimed at anyone who's been playing the game for an appreciable amount of time. Both the Chieftain and the Type-6 have been panned by experienced players in both the roles they're intended to fulfil.

Personally I'm OK with the presence of redundant and/or obsolete modules in the game. If it was ever required for performance reasons to remove or dummy out E-rated modules then I won't say I'd be sad to see them go, but I'm not sure if that would ever be necessary.