Then that would mean that everything would need to be fixed, with new values for balance purposes in the argument's sense. If you alter one thing that affects everything, you have to change the entire thing.
Last edited:
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
Not everything. Just shield values on a few ships.
And boost armor of course.
Last edited:
No, because only the Python would be affected to such an extent that the ship may no longer be viable. Everything else would be just fine. There is no other ship in the game that abuses them nearly so much as the Python.
Most likely Python and Anaconda ("turtle" ships) would need a shield increase after such fix.
Btw, it would be good if charge rates where dependant on the power distributor. (instead of 1MW for all).
That would help large ships and combat ships (that have nifty distributors).
Btw, it would be good if charge rates where dependant on the power distributor. (instead of 1MW for all).
That would help large ships and combat ships (that have nifty distributors).
I'm sorry what, just shield values on a few ships? So are you saying that we give certain ships a shield buff to adjust for value of the craft, what craft would be left out then? The Traders? Who also spend good money on the craft and have to encounter the occasional interdiction? If they do it, I'm only saying that certain craft would need a base shield value buff, and the shield gen module on its own would require a base value buff.
Last edited:
Why should the Python being a god-ship be a fundamental part of the game? It's an armed freighter. You want the supreme tank, get an anaconda
Currently the python outclasses the anaconda in combat and that's just dumb. If cost=auto win like some people seem to think, then the anaconda should be superior to the python
Currently the python outclasses the anaconda in combat and that's just dumb. If cost=auto win like some people seem to think, then the anaconda should be superior to the python
We could also look at how hull damage, module damage, armor, armor differences with bulkheads and things like that. The ''meta'' is very shield heavy right now, and many ships, especially merchants, are pretty squishy with shields down.
To answer your question: The changes done should be sufficent to keep things balanced. Testing would be required to find out the exact answer to what should change.
This could work with some tweaking, but I'd still want SCB's moved to the Utility slot first. Without moving it to the Utility slots there's still no decisions to be made on whether to use an SCB or not, every ship will have one simply to fill an internal slot because there are not enough fitting options for internals. Yes, that means not having enough useful internal modules is the problem, but how long is it going to be before Frontier finally adds some new modules that fill that gap, if ever? It hasn't happened yet in a year.
Ideally it wouldn't be nearly as strong as you suggest though. We were never meant to sit and farm in CZ's and RES's for 3 or 4 hours straight. We may be used to it now, but that doesn't mean it's working as intended. Having that kind of income is nice, but it's also the source of some of the much larger and potentially game-breaking problems that're starting to surface.
Yes but we're also talking about the pricing of ships, the classification of ships, and their roles. These are escorts mind you, not every ship is meant for every single combat situation, as you will certainly see ones better at somethings than the others. I understand that the mindset of the game is shield heavy, and that's a problem on its own, but it still doesn't make sense that we just make everything fair between a ship that is half price compared to one that costs twice as much.
- - - Updated - - -
Lore wise, the python was made to go head to head with the Anaconda.
Last edited:
What makes you think the ships were intended to be as tanky as they are? Our perception of them is entirely reliant on how we've begun to use them, which is reliant on a broken module. If you look at the other multi-role ships, they do not have this attribute at all. Their shields are merely okay, and once their shields drop they're done.
Even if SCBs were removed from the game, the python could still stock up on armour and tank. Just not have 10x the HP of a similarly sized combat vessel.
The issue here is not "how do we make python pilots happy". You spent your money, you got a ship that is good at a particular role. That does not give you the right to auto win against everyone no matter what
The issue here is not "how do we make python pilots happy". You spent your money, you got a ship that is good at a particular role. That does not give you the right to auto win against everyone no matter what
I think the issue with most of the counter arguments is, "How can we take away from the python to make it less effective. " Which genuinely for a ship of its class and description was a ship made for patrolling, it's a ship made for ideally combat with the side option of hauling. My counter argument is, " How can we make every ship more role effective. " The FDL needs more power, and needs more different types of Huge Weaponry, I think the existence of other types of ammo for anti-shields, anti-armor, anti-hull needs to exist, and other options that we could make weapons more viable rather than take away from SCB's. We need to add more variables to the pilots effectiveness with such craft. Only then will we see a difference from pilots and tactics to craft
Last edited:
Which is also a bit...dumb.
The Python is not an armed trader, just like the Anaconda it is a Multipurpose ship.
The problem is that the Anaconda is a kind of Mary Sue ship.
-Lots of firepower
-Can theoretically carry ALMOST as much as a T9
-Ginormous tank
It's not much of a multipurpose ship when it's not BAD at anything.
Can say the same about the python
but I digress.I don't think the python or the anaconda should be as powerful as they are.
Especially since the Imperial Cutter and Federal Corvette are coming. They should be the top tier combat ships in terms of tankiness. And the current meta means that they won't be able to do that without a bazillion internals
Ginormous tank is a result of it being the only ship in it's class. The Cutter and Corvette are coming, and will likely put the Anaconda to shame.
Can say the same about the python
I don't think the python or the anaconda should be as powerful as they are.
Especially since the Imperial Cutter and Federal Corvette are coming. They should be the top tier combat ships in terms of tankiness. And the current meta means that they won't be able to do that without a bazillion internals
Not entirely true. the Corvette and the Cutter will be smaller craft, they are going by old ship classifications where Frigates are more ship of the lines, Cruisers are patrol craft, Cutters and Corvettes were coast sitters, AKA Small craft, no armor, more weaponry.
Last edited:
Other multirole ships do not cost mind boggling amount of credits to combat fit. A combat ASP cost as much as the rebuy cost of an combat Anaconda.
What I expect is the following : nerf happening, two combat ships gone from open (python+conda). Removing ships from combat roaster seems a poor idea to me.
I mean, how in its right mind would choose the python over the FDL after such nerf ? It not like the python huge available power will do it any good anymore...
The FDL would have better / similar shields, cost less, much faster and more agile. (I also expect nerf cries for the FDL afterwards).
Mind Boggling amounts of money has never meant win in ED. That's why a 30 mil Vulture can trounce a 300 mil Anaconda. As trite, overused and conceited as this remark is this is one of the rare cases where it actually applies.
"Learn to Fly."
Edit: Let's be a bit clearer than that. When you pay stupid amounts of money for your multi-role ship, you are paying for the convenience and utility of it being a "Multi-role Ship". That is what makes it so expensive, not it's combat prowess.
Vultures, FDL's and the like are cheap because you will never make them into Traders, Explorers, or Pirate ships. They just don't function in those roles. You are still getting what you pay for in a Multi-Role ship even if it does not have All-Embracing tanking abilities.
Last edited:
I disagree, your paying 140-240 mil for a combat fit, where you can fit a trading python with only 70-80 Mil, the anaconda's trading/exploring loadout costs considerably less than the 560-660 mil loadout, your paying more for the load-out of a combat specced craft with a combat specced loadout so you get that role its supposed to assume in a combat situation. With costs of the ship. (edit)
hence what you said
its more about the role of the craft its supposed to assume and the variables between the pilot and the craft itself. Talent, Experience, Maneuverability, etc. etc.
- - - Updated - - -
We should just all suggest that FDev does more with weaponry, and make specific-role craft such as the FDL(attacker) more effective by using specific types of ammo, or different types of weaponry that are good for critical hits.
Last edited:
Ok, here is a simple example:
Pilots with equal skills, both pythons, same loadouts but with one difference - one has SCB, the other one does not.
Who do you think will win in this fight? Answer is obvious...
There is no counter to SCBs, so from an example above - not having SCB is not realy an option in most cases.
Other types of ammo - yes, and from what I can tell about crafting in Horizonts, something in this direction will happen. But it will be very BAD if it will be balanced as a counter to SCB and not as a additional mechanic to the game as a whole. So no, it wouldn't solve SCB issues.
and FDL doesn't need anything, except better maneuverability in supercruise and additional railgun ammo pack
It's perfect, dont touch it!