The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

Rowander

Rowander
feldz said:
I would love to be able to ovepower something like an ASP or Python (player controlled) in a nimble eagle or viper.
Click to expand...

If both pilots know what they're doing, no Eagle or Viper should be able to drop a combat Python easily in any case. That's like saying a man with an AK-47 should be able to kill a Leopard main battle tank.

Before SCBs and powerplant sniping fixes, entering combat in an Anaconda was basically suicide, nobody would risk it, ever, unless he was filthy rich. And it really should be the other way around: if a lone pilot in an eagle sees an Anaconda, he sould have goosebumps and turn away bosting.
 

feldz

F
Rowander said:
If both pilots know what they're doing, no Eagle or Viper should be able to drop a combat Python easily in any case. That's like saying a man with an AK-47 should be able to kill a Leopard main battle tank.

Before SCBs and powerplant sniping fixes, entering combat in an Anaconda was basically suicide, nobody would risk it, ever, unless he was filthy rich. And it really should be the other way around: if a lone pilot in an eagle sees an Anaconda, he sould have goosebumps and turn away bosting.
Click to expand...
Again... Viper vs Python is not AK vs Leopard. It's a fighter-jet against big bomber - hard, but very possible win. But I can't keep explaining it every time. Reason will always be buried under heaps of nonsense. Will see you in the next SCB thread :D
 

Defacto

Defacto
Rowander said:
If both pilots know what they're doing, no Eagle or Viper should be able to drop a combat Python easily in any case. That's like saying a man with an AK-47 should be able to kill a Leopard main battle tank.

Before SCBs and powerplant sniping fixes, entering combat in an Anaconda was basically suicide, nobody would risk it, ever, unless he was filthy rich. And it really should be the other way around: if a lone pilot in an eagle sees an Anaconda, he sould have goosebumps and turn away bosting.
Click to expand...

Can be discussed. I don't think a lone Eagle should have very much of a chance against a competent pilot in an Anaconda, but at the same time, the Eagle is the combat ship, not the Anaconda. The Anaconda has the mass advantage and the ability to leave at any moment. The Anaconda has the ability to do non-combat tasks such as hauling. The Eagle is a naval ship, the Anaconda isn't.
Really, I think people forget, the Python and Annie are armed merchants. They're not warships.
 

[VR]tailgunner30uk

V
It was suggested that rockets and missiles be "buffed" to be more effective against shields. I suggest rather, making SCBs vunerable to plasma accelerators and rail guns, with the potential for exploding and damaging other modules. Possibly chain reacting stacked SCBs. No change to the functionallity or stackability. The risk becomes having lots of them, or even one could potentially destroy or cripple your ship, with the benefit of fast shield recharge. This adds a role that some weapons have needed, alongside their cost and difficulty to use.
 

Snarfbuckle

S
Well, if anything they should really be moved to a UTILITY slot. After all, just like Chaff and Heat Sink they use charges and require the player to use them.

Put shield boosters as an internal module instead to be in the same field as Hull Upgrades and it will be fine.

In the end it will not affect Anacondas due to their large amount of internal and utility slots.

Combine this with a better overhaul of how armour works so we can have proper Armour tanking as a choice as well.
 

Rocky-451

Rocky-451
The OP makes as much sense as a miner who, after losing a fight to a pirate, says "I lost only because he has stronger guns. All Class 3 guns should be removed or nerfed to the level of the mining laser. Otherwise it's so unfair!" :rolleyes:
 

Jesse30

Jesse30
Some people in this thread really think that I am just a noob or dont know how to counter SCB stacking. LMAO, I have been there done that since Beta and believe me combat didn't need SCB at all, it was fun you actually had to use tactics when your shields were down, just like CQC per example one on one I have a better chance to win, but I as soon I am getting incoming fire from two or more I have to RUN and recharge my shields, no SCBS needed. So my main concern is at this point CQC combat is better than the main game at this point, not because all the ships are in the same class, but it really separates the good pilots away from the average joes. Like I said, SCB stacking is bad for business at least limit one per ship, to at least give you time to high wake if you find yourself in a hairy situation for those of you that like it, after all you should never win a fight against two or more Cmdrs period.

I have a lot of fun with CQC you should try if you haven't already,

[video=youtube;Rr5RqQLAb5c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr5RqQLAb5c[/video]
 

Jesse30

Jesse30
I rarely lose any fights against other Cmdrs, you have to attack me with a wing of two or more. And also could run in circle around any NPC.
 

Lynk101

L
You guys see, this game is aiming to be realistic, and to be realistic it has to be like real life, and in real life, SCB would probably exist, and they would be used all the time! Besides, nerfing or removing SCB would ruin combat for many.
 

Soopyyy

S
Defacto said:
Can be discussed. I don't think a lone Eagle should have very much of a chance against a competent pilot in an Anaconda, but at the same time, the Eagle is the combat ship, not the Anaconda. The Anaconda has the mass advantage and the ability to leave at any moment. The Anaconda has the ability to do non-combat tasks such as hauling. The Eagle is a naval ship, the Anaconda isn't.
Really, I think people forget, the Python and Annie are armed merchants. They're not warships.
Click to expand...

The Eagle has paper think shields/armour and toy guns. The Anaconda is the heaviest armed vessel in the game. I don't think the technical definitions matter.
 

Muetdhiver

Muetdhiver
If the eagle can beat the anaconda, I guess the anaconda should cost 50K too ?

Lets be serious here. A full combat fitted anaconda is 500M, and some expect the eagle to go toe to toe with it.
What a load of non-sense here.

And to be honest, SCB's, if removed, would cause a lot of heavy ships to get mothballed and used solo only.
There has been loads of good/sensible suggestions to improve / balance SCB's arround, without relying on
dumb nerfs such as removing them or limiting them to one per ship. My guess is that if there where more sensible/usefull
combat internal, SCB's would get limited in number through gameplay choices instead of blunt nerfs.
 
Last edited:

lovely lovely

L
The introduction bought PvP combat to life - you could fight longer before shields down and the naked hull race to SC began
Nerf/Removing them would kill combat overnight -
 

Cmdr Wullfen

Cmdr Wullfen
Didn't read past first page of comments

Just seems to me somebody didn't bring enough lazorz and can't take down shields

When an enemy be it player or npc. Hit it as hard as you can
 

Jex =TE=

Banned
J
Can an Eagle reduce the shields on an Anaconda? Say the Ana is just sitting there doing nothing and the Eagle has all the time in the world, is that possible?
 

babelfisch

babelfisch
I have to agree that SCBs are the worst game mechanic in this game. But as long as there is no other alternative to waiting 10 minutes for your shields to recharge I understand that everyone who flies a big vessel wants to keep them.
 

Kubicide

Kubicide
Snarfbuckle said:
Well, if anything they should really be moved to a UTILITY slot. After all, just like Chaff and Heat Sink they use charges and require the player to use them.

Put shield boosters as an internal module instead to be in the same field as Hull Upgrades and it will be fine.

In the end it will not affect Anacondas due to their large amount of internal and utility slots.

Combine this with a better overhaul of how armour works so we can have proper Armour tanking as a choice as well.
Click to expand...

Good suggestion. And makes total sense. These two items do seem out of place / backwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom