The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[Snarfbuckle]

I disagree, your paying 140-240 mil for a combat fit,

That's not his point.

The base Anaconda is 150 million due to it's FLEXIBILITY as a multi-role craft.

But the value of 150 million should never be a measurement of how good it is in combat, merely that it's MORE flexible than the Python for example.

DEDICATED ships should always be better than a multirole ship.

A T9 while cheaper than an Anaconda should be a BETTER trader and haul a LOT more cargo

A pure combat ship at 75 million base cost should be a BETTER combat hull than an Anaconda but not be versatile and SUCK as a trader.

 

[MVP_Bluntman]

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!

Yes but you would see more people flock to the FDL should the case be that we nerf the python and anaconda to specific situations as their suitability within CZ's and RES Sites fits very well. I find that the FDL and the Python are polar opposites that work well together in a HazRes Site, and should in fact be combined rather than raise the complexity of use of a specific craft thats made to take a beating and one thats made to dish it out.

 

[Muetdhiver]

Yeah, right.

But in the end what counts for gameplay is what is getting played. If cheap ship beat expensive combat ship, expensive combat ship will not get used*.
Wasted gameplay. Bad game design. *at equal piloting skills.

I say, make ship cost less spread out. (What I think would be best).

But the LTP argument is just using cost as a strawman. Its tiring and bad rethorics.
Especially since you seem to imply that people flying large/expensive ships are inherently garbage pilots, compared to the "true" pilots that you represent.
Sure, a bad conda pilot should get wasted by a good vulture pilot, if he stays in the fight. Two good pilots... the vulture should end up very dead.

Following your own arguments, the Vulture should be nerfed to death, considering how much more cost effective it is compared to the FDL. See ?

 

[MVP_Bluntman]

That's not his point.

The base Anaconda is 150 million due to it's FLEXIBILITY as a multi-role craft.

But the value of 150 million should never be a measurement of how good it is in combat, merely that it's MORE flexible than the Python for example.

DEDICATED ships should always be better than a multirole ship.

A T9 while cheaper than an Anaconda should be a BETTER trader and haul a LOT more cargo

A pure combat ship at 75 million base cost should be a BETTER combat hull than an Anaconda but not be versatile and SUCK as a trader.

And sure, we will likely see a difference of costs between the anaconda and the imp cutter/fed corvette, the Fed Corvette and Cutter should cost more in fact due to the differences of load out between the three and their faction dependencies.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Cost=raw power is a dumb balancing mechanic and against the spirit of elite. You should be paying to get a ship that's good at a role, and that is harder to screw up in, and is more forgiving.

If you say that the most expensive ship should always win, you effectively reduce the number of ships in the game for PvP to 1 and means that anyone who wants to PvP outside of CQC has to grind for 200 hours regardless of skill just to have a chance.

I really don't want elite to turn into an RPG where credits=levels=power

 

[MVP_Bluntman]

Cost=raw power is a dumb balancing mechanic and against the spirit of elite. You should be paying to get a ship that's good at a role, and that is harder to screw up in, and is more forgiving.

If you say that the most expensive ship should always win, you effectively reduce the number of ships in the game for PvP to 1 and means that anyone who wants to PvP outside of CQC has to grind for 200 hours regardless of skill just to have a chance.

I really don't want elite to turn into an RPG where credits=levels=power

You put it like everyone and their mother wants an anaconda, when its certainly not the case as the anaconda is not as easy to use as it looks. I'm not saying that the most expensive ship should win, I'm saying that a pilot regardless of background has an opportunity to exploit a weakness out of a craft just like anyone else. Experience or not. There's too many variables between pilots and the craft themselves to certainly just blame this on SCB's and nerf the only strength of turtle ships that are slow and hulking compared to ships that are made to strafe targets or circle.

 

[Muetdhiver]

This is why a more flat ship/cost curve would, IMO be of much benefit for the game.

The problem is that ship cost progression is so steep, that balancing becomes very hard.
Either the ships become not worth their cost, and are not used, or are so weak compared to more costly
ships that they are also not used.

We already see that in the fact that the "apex" for fighting is at the vulture/FDL scale.
The anaconda is not worth its cost, while the viper/cobras are not getting used because being wimps to the vulture/FDL.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

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.

No, you're paying 140 mil to take a sub-par fighter and force it to be an average to good fighter. You pay a premium because that's not what the ship was intended for. Likewise the cost of modules is not balanced solely by their performance in their various roles. Just because you spend more money on fitting for combat doesn't mean your ship should be better at combat than trading. That expense is there to balance out the risk and reward of combat as a profession. Combat capability is largely in the hull, not how much money you can spend filling up slots on the hull.

 

[MVP_Bluntman]

This is why a more flat ship/cost curve would, IMO be of much benefit for the game.

The problem is that ship cost progression is so steep, that balancing becomes very hard.
Either the ships become not worth their cost, and are not used, or are so weak compared to more costly
ships that they are also not used.

We already see that in the fact that the "apex" for fighting is at the vulture/FDL scale.
The anaconda is not worth its cost, while the viper/cobras are not getting used because being wimps to the vulture/FDL.

^^^^^ This. Im more for encouraging the raising of logistics for turtle craft than anything else really. As I said before the Pilot makes the craft, and the craft makes the pilot, every pilot has a chance to exploit a crafts weakness and every craft in this game has one or more weaknesses, every craft in this game has a role, despite some being multi-role, some are better at certain things rather than others, this fufills the feel of a PVE with ship classifications of specific feeling. However I'm more appalled by the lack of logistic costs that makes flying smaller, cheaper, role specific craft more promoted.

 

[Coolgroove]

Yes but you would see more people flock to the FDL should the case be that we nerf the python and anaconda to specific situations as their suitability within CZ's and RES Sites fits very well. I find that the FDL and the Python are polar opposites that work well together in a HazRes Site, and should in fact be combined rather than raise the complexity of use of a specific craft thats made to take a beating and one thats made to dish it out.

More player will switch to FDL from Python and no SCB spamming -> more players will get better at piloting -> more interesting fights <- ok with me, let all those good things happen
Why do you think so many players today chose Python over FDL for combat, when FDL is a specialized combat vessel in the same category with Python? Another obvious answer...


As was posted before - increase Python shields, boost armor in general and there will be no problems with Python. And if SCB changed - there will be no mandatory module anymore.

 

[MVP_Bluntman]

More player will switch to FDL from Python -> more players will get better at piloting -> more interesting fights <- ok with me, let all those good things happen
Why do you think so many players today chose Python over FDL for combat, when FDL is a specialized combat vessel in the same category with Python? Another obvious answer...


As was posted before - increase Python shields, boost armor in general and there will be no problems with Python. And if SCB changed - there will be no mandatory module anymore.

No most people choose the python over the FDL due to the amount of internal slots it has compared to logistic costs and loadout costs. Which is trivial between the two, the cost offsets makes the FDL officially useless and not essentially promoted for play. If we were to boost the versatility of the FDL and logistics cost of SCB ammo, fuel, and other variables it would increase the usability, the Python should cost close to a million in my own thoughts for logistics cost compared to an FDL which should cost considerably less.

 

[Muetdhiver]

Everyone in the same ship, with the same loadout = totally balanced, but totally boring.

This is where we will end up (either the FDL, or the Vulture (if the FLD future nerf calls are listen to)) with such blunt force nerfs.

The FDL is overpriced for what it delivers. For its cost it should come with luxury sport car style paint jobs for free XD.

IMO it should have one more C4 internal. And a bit more FSD range.

 

[MVP_Bluntman]

The python is simply the sure option for combat, if we raised the combat usage costs of the Python, we would see a boost as it would be more profitability from using other craft due to the strengths and off sets of the costs, even if someone has 1 Billion Credits they would surely fly a FDL that costs 50k on a single sortie compared to a python that costs 1 Mil.

 

[Coolgroove]

No most people choose the python over the FDL due to the amount of internal slots it has compared to logistic costs and loadout costs. Which is trivial between the two, the cost offsets makes the FDL officially useless and not essentially promoted for play. If we were to boost the versatility of the FDL and logistics cost of SCB ammo, fuel, and other variables it would increase the usability, the Python should cost close to a million in my own thoughts for logistics cost compared to an FDL which should cost considerably less.

And what players put in this "amount of internal slots" in Python for combat? Again, answer is obvious... And this is a one major problem, and this is not a problem with a python or any other ship - it is a problem with SCB!
That is why this whole recent discussion about prices/ships/ect is pointless. Problem discussed in current thread is about SCB

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

The python is simply the sure option for combat, if we raised the combat usage costs of the Python, we would see a boost as it would be more profitability from using other craft due to the strengths and off sets of the costs, even if someone has 1 Billion Credits they would surely fly a FDL that costs 50k on a single sortie compared to a python that costs 1 Mil.

Spoken like someone who hasn't flown a Python and FDL recently.

Just give it up. The Python isn't a combat ship. Players made it into one using a broken module. By fixing this problem, we improve the game. It's not a loss, it's a gain. If you've got enough money to combat fit a Python, you've got enough money to turn that Python into a trader and buy a fully kitted FDL if it is really, truly an insurmountable issue that your Python isn't as good as it once was, doing what it was never intended to be the best at.

 

[soma]

The python is simply the sure option for combat, if we raised the combat usage costs of the Python, we would see a boost as it would be more profitability from using other craft due to the strengths and off sets of the costs, even if someone has 1 Billion Credits they would surely fly a FDL that costs 50k on a single sortie compared to a python that costs 1 Mil.

Sorry, but I disagree. SCBs are part of a fundamental problem, just increasing cost would IMHO be a poor "fix".

Also, I think you underestimate how much money people in this game have. Many players I meet are not in it for the money anymore (myself included). Besides, I really would not underestimate what players are willing to do to be able to run the most effective combat build. People would simply grind a trade route in solo for a few hours per week so that they can afford to fly their maxed out Python the rest of the time...

 

[Coolgroove]

Spoken like someone who hasn't flown a Python and FDL recently.

Just give it up. The Python isn't a combat ship. Players made it into one using a broken module. By fixing this problem, we improve the game. It's not a loss, it's a gain. If you've got enough money to combat fit a Python, you've got enough money to turn that Python into a trader and buy a fully kitted FDL if it is really, truly an insurmountable issue that your Python isn't as good as it once was, doing what it was never intended to be the best at.

This^

Now I think we can close all this prices/ships dabate and continue with SCB problem/solution discussion

 

[Nitek [pl]]

let's end this topic srsly. No more nerfing. Don't like scb's - DON'T USE THEM. Leave other cmdrs alone.
I am so fed up with "please nerf this or that" posts. If a commander is unable to win a fight against a conda in his eagle he will cry to nerf the conda.
Nerf yourselves and stop crying please :*

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

Lore wise, the python was made to go head to head with the Anaconda.

Yep, and it pretty much can in the right hands.

So now that the Python debate is over, can we get back to SCBs?

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

let's end this topic srsly. No more nerfing. Don't like scb's - DON'T USE THEM. Leave other cmdrs alone.
I am so fed up with "please nerf this or that" posts. If a commander is unable to win a fight against a conda in his eagle he will cry to nerf the conda.
Nerf yourselves and stop crying please :*

It's not about "other commanders". Every last person asking for a nerf uses them. We use them in big ships, small ships, even in our combat fit Pythons.

We're not crying, we're asking for Frontier to make a more interesting and dynamic game.