Dual chaff and FA off will make most other ships unable to hit the FAS let alone a module when silent running. I think the FAS was designed to 'go naked' but it is high stakes, especially as an all A build is around 80m.
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
Dual chaff and FA off will make most other ships unable to hit the FAS let alone a module when silent running. I think the FAS was designed to 'go naked' but it is high stakes, especially as an all A build is around 80m.
Yes I have tried B grade modules for the extra durability, but really, to be honest, I didnt feel that much more of an improvement. Maybe slightly, but the FAS certainly felt more sluggish and I didnt like that trade off.
But maybe its just me.
Aye, ıf you've spent a lot of time in the FDL it will seem sluggish. I guess we can say that about growing into any ship, really.
To each their own!
what are you talking about? I'm a fullt time FDL pilot but i recently made a VS video with the FDL nd found the FAS to be FAR FAR FAR less sluggish than the FDL, basiclly a heavier Vulture. Albeit with awful shields.
[video=youtube;vOz1-dAeKBs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOz1-dAeKBs[/video]
Last edited:
I meant the FAS seemed more sluggish with B rated modules than A rated.. But yeah, theres a good chance its my playing style that might have something to do with it. The FAS is a very nimble little beast compared to the FDL even with B rated gear.
I'll give my 2 cents.
I enjoyed PVP much more before SCB. Combat was heart pounding from the start. You had MUCH less room to make mistakes and combat took more skill as every hit you took and gave counted. Now with SCB, nothing really matters until you on your last group. The rush of combat is gone, it a waiting game now. SCB has made Elite less dangerous. It doesn't take much skill or power management to turn one off and turn the next one on.
What I would like to see it based on what someone else posted here, missiles. EMP missiles to be exact. I would like missiles (EMP or not) to have the ability to disrupt SCB for a very short time. Keyword, very short. You would have to time your shots carefully. This will also give point defense a something to do.
We have something that some say is overpowered and another thing that most say is underpowered. Both can be fixed easily.
I enjoyed PVP much more before SCB. Combat was heart pounding from the start. You had MUCH less room to make mistakes and combat took more skill as every hit you took and gave counted. Now with SCB, nothing really matters until you on your last group. The rush of combat is gone, it a waiting game now. SCB has made Elite less dangerous. It doesn't take much skill or power management to turn one off and turn the next one on.
What I would like to see it based on what someone else posted here, missiles. EMP missiles to be exact. I would like missiles (EMP or not) to have the ability to disrupt SCB for a very short time. Keyword, very short. You would have to time your shots carefully. This will also give point defense a something to do.
We have something that some say is overpowered and another thing that most say is underpowered. Both can be fixed easily.
Last edited:
so you say. You can't be doing daily pvp then. What the guy said is right and its what ive said. In group pvp, any ship besides an anaconda without SCBS will melt. Even an Anaconda shields melt under fire from 4 players in small ships themselves. 4 player cobras firing on an anaconda?
A python is such a vulnerable ship, it's slow and can't boost away when in trouble. A smaller ship, like a cobra, viper, hell even an FDL can get some distance quickly and at distance, damage from weapons fire is severely reduced. Not to mention accuracy. But ships like the python and up, have to sit there and take it.
How can you even be arguing against something and you don't by your own admission have much experience with it, since you say you can't hardly get in 4v4 battles. You therefore cannot bring any kind of credibility to the argument.
- - - Updated - - -
These arguments of skill, and being boring etc, are just tiring and without merit. If you want a lot of challenge, go fight elite anacondas in a sidewinder.
A python is such a vulnerable ship, it's slow and can't boost away when in trouble. A smaller ship, like a cobra, viper, hell even an FDL can get some distance quickly and at distance, damage from weapons fire is severely reduced. Not to mention accuracy. But ships like the python and up, have to sit there and take it.
How can you even be arguing against something and you don't by your own admission have much experience with it, since you say you can't hardly get in 4v4 battles. You therefore cannot bring any kind of credibility to the argument.
- - - Updated - - -
These arguments of skill, and being boring etc, are just tiring and without merit. If you want a lot of challenge, go fight elite anacondas in a sidewinder.
almostpilot
Banned
+1
Who says ED is only about PVP combat?
Please FD keep SCB in exactly way they are now.
I agree that SCBs need to be nerfed. The request is not new - has been talked about on the forum ever since they were introduced. Combat pre-SCBs was much more fun; much about skill. Now it's about shield strength and boosters. Just take a look at the many PvP videos shown by proud victors on the forum - most show them directly facing their opponents and simply spamming SCBs. It's dull.
-
Edit: I'd be a fan of removing them altogether. PvP and PvE combat was much more challenging and fun before their introduction. You want mightily shields? Then fit boosters and sacrifice firepower. That's how it should work, IMHO.
-
Edit: I'd be a fan of removing them altogether. PvP and PvE combat was much more challenging and fun before their introduction. You want mightily shields? Then fit boosters and sacrifice firepower. That's how it should work, IMHO.
Last edited:
I don't mind SCBs when they're used as a defensive tool, IE being focused in wing battles or while trying to escape.
What I really hate is how they're used as an offensive weapon: You don't need to worry about taking damage so you can just lay into your opponent. This especially sucks in 1v1.
It has the added effect (as well as the much maligned imbalance between combat specialists and multiroles) of making combat laborious, having to restock ammo every 5 mins. What's more, you can't use your multiroles as multiroles, because in PvP all your cargo HAS to be taken up by SCBs to stay competitive. It's harsh on those who want to play the role of "armed trader"
I say SCBs should stop capacitor recharge while in use, so that you cant stay a super mobile weapons platform. Make them useful for turtling, not aggressively tanking damage whilst dishing it out.
I understand the cost argument, but the game is already rigged far in favour of large ships. If you're worried about rebuy from aggressive small ships: just leave. they can't masslock you.
What I really hate is how they're used as an offensive weapon: You don't need to worry about taking damage so you can just lay into your opponent. This especially sucks in 1v1.
It has the added effect (as well as the much maligned imbalance between combat specialists and multiroles) of making combat laborious, having to restock ammo every 5 mins. What's more, you can't use your multiroles as multiroles, because in PvP all your cargo HAS to be taken up by SCBs to stay competitive. It's harsh on those who want to play the role of "armed trader"
I say SCBs should stop capacitor recharge while in use, so that you cant stay a super mobile weapons platform. Make them useful for turtling, not aggressively tanking damage whilst dishing it out.
I understand the cost argument, but the game is already rigged far in favour of large ships. If you're worried about rebuy from aggressive small ships: just leave. they can't masslock you.
Last edited:
I actually love this idea
This whole discussion about SCB (from both sides) is tiring and without merit. Challenge is about doing something hard, not stupid.
I didn't say it was only about PVP, just giving my opinion on how its affected PVP for me.
Also, never said it should change, we need something to combat them other than time.
Last edited:
If your going to do full calculations please cite sources. You are right that 5 times is not correct though but my maths came up with 3.09. Where you including shield boosters and/or prismatic shield?
I used this image off the wiki for SCB stats http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...n-Apr15.png/revision/latest?cb=20150709115719
First time I just eyed it up and did estimates in my head because I don't go out of my way to make perfect arguments on the internet (except when insulted it seems). That's where the 5 times came from.
Anni
1057 *3 3171
811 *3 2433
702 *3 2106
406 *1 406
Base Shield 595
8116
Cobra
702 *2 1404
406 *3 1218
Base Shield 126
2622
3.095347063
I'd still find utility mounts a good fix though, it's the combat/multirole balance that worries me more than the big/little balance. Additionally they would be in a better place to be balanced against other modules as there would actually be competing defense modules, heat sinks, chaff, shield booster or SCB is a much harder choice than SCB or cargo.
Finally unless you have actually spent years studying game mechanics and balance you are in no position to say my knowledge of it is bad.
As for the devs getting their maths right. They seemed to think that 811 pts of shield + power downside are worth 240pts of armor + weight downside. (scb v hrp)
This can't happen as right now there are other major balance issues and this SCB is the only band-aid solution. Right now high shield high mobility is king. Low mobility, large ships take at least 300% more damage in most combat situations. However they usually have a good power plant and storage for SCBs. Then you have the fed ships that have high hull strength, low shields. Without SCBs (save stealth PvP etc.) they would all be obsolete. So 'till they give low mobility ships better shield recharge rate or make fighting without your shield not utter suicide (HRPs not doing anything to protect SS for example) then we are forced to rely on the cookie cutter SCB spamming we have now.
The combat/multirole balance is fine.
Multirole can do trade or combat or explo (if range). Doing either is more costly than in an equivalent specialist ship. (e.g. cobra vs viper).
for the FDL vs python, we have an agile/fast ship with good shields, good for fixed weapons, vs something more significantly more expensive, slower, less agile, less good with fixed but very tanky.
Nerfing the multirole more (that is they already cost more at equal perfs now) would simply remove half the combat able ships from the game.
Sounds like a poor idea to me. Besides, most multirole, if combat is removed as a viable option, are just expensive trading ships.
I'd rather have the choice of playing the FDL when I want to play a heavy interceptor and my python when I want a sturdy tank.
Nerfing through the removal of options => impoverished gameplay.
I own both a python, a FDL, a Clipper and a vulture. I enjoy their differences.
Multirole can do trade or combat or explo (if range). Doing either is more costly than in an equivalent specialist ship. (e.g. cobra vs viper).
for the FDL vs python, we have an agile/fast ship with good shields, good for fixed weapons, vs something more significantly more expensive, slower, less agile, less good with fixed but very tanky.
Nerfing the multirole more (that is they already cost more at equal perfs now) would simply remove half the combat able ships from the game.
Sounds like a poor idea to me. Besides, most multirole, if combat is removed as a viable option, are just expensive trading ships.
I'd rather have the choice of playing the FDL when I want to play a heavy interceptor and my python when I want a sturdy tank.
Nerfing through the removal of options => impoverished gameplay.
I own both a python, a FDL, a Clipper and a vulture. I enjoy their differences.
You are arguing about a difference in my calculations when the difference is .2, when you are off by 2X vrs 5x?
Please. Look to the plank in your eye before worrying about the speck in mine.
I used http://coriolis.io/ to load up a Cobra vrs an Anaconda, and assumed they would use the largest slot for shields. Anaconda can have even more SCB charge if they go down in shield spec, as could the Cobra, but it really does not change the math much when we are talking your guess of 5x vrs 2x. And SCBs is what we are talking about, not shields themselves or armor. So why you are now dragging it in... well, I guess just to try and salvage your bad assumptions. Dunno.
Your basic premise is flawed: Moving shield batteries to the Utility slot will make the problem worse, not better. The math proves it, you are just arguing about how bad of a problem that solution is, not if it is a good solution.
And yes, I have been discussing balance issues in games since shortly after AD&D came out in 1981.
Last edited:
I kinda agree that a lot of people have complained about a lot of things and those things were "nerfed" but in the case of SCBs, I'll make an exception. Everybody (who doesn't take undue advantage by stacking them) knows that SCBs in their current form are deteriorating combat. When combat is reduced to who has the more SCBs and your skills or the size of your ship don't even matter, something is really wrong...
- - - Updated - - -
I really don't understand your logic. How can removing SCBs can help little ships? Usually, by the time I would lose my shields on my Python, the Viper or Vulture would be long destroyed.
If you get into a 4v4 wing battle and are on the losing end, just get the hell out of there. That's what I do. I only have one rack of SCBs, so, I run. I haven't had to run many times so far but I'm prepared to do it if I have to do it. I'm not afraid to risk my Python but I know now when it's time to bail out. And I don't want to sacrifice other internals just to stack more SCBs, sorry, that would ruin the game for me and my play style. So, I carry only one that I mostly use when facing a wing of 2 or 3 smaller ships. If I can't get them, I just leave, plain and simple.
- - - Updated - - -
I really don't understand your logic. How can removing SCBs can help little ships? Usually, by the time I would lose my shields on my Python, the Viper or Vulture would be long destroyed.
If you get into a 4v4 wing battle and are on the losing end, just get the hell out of there. That's what I do. I only have one rack of SCBs, so, I run. I haven't had to run many times so far but I'm prepared to do it if I have to do it. I'm not afraid to risk my Python but I know now when it's time to bail out. And I don't want to sacrifice other internals just to stack more SCBs, sorry, that would ruin the game for me and my play style. So, I carry only one that I mostly use when facing a wing of 2 or 3 smaller ships. If I can't get them, I just leave, plain and simple.
Last edited:
They may need balance, but it is not because combat is reduced to who has more SCBs and that skills or size of ship does not matter.
There are loadouts that will let you drop the shields of even an Anaconda quickly and effectively as has been pointed out already. Once the shields are down, the SCBs do not matter.
SCB's are fine as they are please leave them alone
I admitted me just eyeing up the calculations was wrong, i originally thought cobra had 4 utility points... hooo.
You didn't seem to even look at the part where I talk about balancing vs other defensive modules but whatever.
Eh, this whole conversation started with me arguing for someone else's idea, it's not my preferred solution. I'd rather the power overload module damage side of things, but that has to be implemented very aggressively to have the desired effect.
So I'd like to know how would you fix the SCB issue. Right now anything is better than nothing.