Scrap or redesign shield cell modules, they are too overpowered and trivialize PvP.

[defekt]

I read Sandro defending the mechanic, and I fear the game is going in the wrong direction.

I will admit to being somewhat disappointed to see shield potions being defended in such a manner. It doesn't look like ego, the responses are reasoned and well considered. To be honest it would be easier if it was ego because that wouldn't suggest that I've misunderstood part of the core design philosophy behind ED.

Combat since these things arrive has taken a very noticeable nosedive IME, rendering PvP battles where shield potions are a factor (which is nearly all of them I hasten to add) tedious and infuriating in equal measure. Previously combat between unmatched foes was usually swift and decisive, as it should be; when equally matched combatants engaged the battle was lengthy and a real test of wits, as it should be. Now we face proportionately lengthy battles between unmatched foes, and battles that quite often have no end between equally skilled combatants; worse, add a 'big ship' into the mix and you face battles of such length that the most likely result is simply someone getting so bored that they'd rather jump out.

Increasing the cost of shield potions is a good start but I see it having almost zero impact upon their negative influence on the PvP game. (Not to mention how their use in PvE is all but 'God Mode Engaged' for the player.) Shield potions are at their most egregious when mounted on big ships, and no amount of cost increase (short of extreme) is going to stop the commander of a big ship from piling them on.

If combat duration is a concern, then boost the durability of some of the ships. Don't shoehorn in restoratives from every other MMO game out there; they work in MMOs, they don't work in a game that fancies itself as a gritty space sim(-ish).

If giving the underdog a greater chance at survival is a concern, don't add something that simultaneously drags more evenly matched PvP battles into the realm of abject tedium.

I also note that some amount of acceptance has been displayed in calling these things what they are: healing potions. Gone is the old spin on terminology that attempted to position SCBs as being something else. That, to me, at least, is a good sign because it indicates that the problem is beginning to be recognised.

TL;DR: Elite Dangerous needs a far more elegant solution than SCBs. That's not to attack the concept of a timed, shield-based temporary assist; it's an attack on the crude and damaging implementation of that idea.

 

[cherny_prapor]

It could swing the other way to the extent that nobody would fly the Anaconda because there is a sub 1M Cr. ship / loadout that will always destroy it in the hands of a competent pilot.

Replace the word "always" with "sometimes", and you'll get exactly my idea of good balance!
Why would a smaller ship "always" destroy a bigger one, if the equipment is balanced? As I said, bigger ships won't cease having better firepower, shielding and armor, they will still be able to pulverize smaller ones very fast. I'm not saying that small ships should be upped to the level of big ones, I'm saying that big ones shouldn't be invulnerable to small ones.

Anyone that fragile in open is going to go solo after their first "unjust" pvp death where they lost 1 million in their unupgraded hauler.

Totally agree. If someone kills you just for fun, you can always plot bloody revenge instead of running away. And, again, Elite's galaxy is so huge that if you move 50 LY away from "busy" systems, you will hardly encounter a non-NPC pilot ever, so how is ganking a problem? You can always beat the cr*p out of the "pirate" out of revenge, or just leave the area and trade safely as much as you like. Plenty of options, the way I see it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Replace the word "always" with "sometimes", and you'll get exactly my idea of good balance!
Why would a smaller ship "always" destroy a bigger one, if the equipment is balanced? As I said, bigger ships won't cease having better firepower, shielding and armor, they will still be able to pulverize smaller ones very fast. I'm not saying that small ships should be upped to the level of big ones, I'm saying that big ones shouldn't be invulnerable to small ones.

Apologies - I did with an edit.

If a small ship with a (relatively) cheap loadout can almost always destroy a ship costing hundreds of times as much then there is little incentive to use the bigger ship.

 

[DaveB]

....In short, SCB's have the effect of reducing PvP...

...Combat since these things arrive has taken a very noticeable nosedive IME, rendering PvP battles where shield potions are a factor (which is nearly all of them I hasten to add) tedious and infuriating in equal measure. Previously combat between unmatched foes was usually swift and decisive, as it should be; when equally matched combatants engaged the battle was lengthy and a real test of wits, as it should be. Now we face proportionately lengthy battles between unmatched foes, and battles that quite often have no end between equally skilled combatants; worse, add a 'big ship' into the mix and you face battles of such length that the most likely result is simply someone getting so bored that they'd rather jump out.

Increasing the cost of shield potions is a good start but I see it having almost zero impact upon their negative influence on the PvP game. (Not to mention how their use in PvE is all but 'God Mode Engaged' for the player.) Shield potions are at their most egregious when mounted on big ships, and no amount of cost increase (short of extreme) is going to stop the commander of a big ship from piling them on....

Shield cells should IMO be redesigned with PvE as the primary focus of the changes, not PvP.

If shield cells presence in the game discourages PvP than that is consistent with many other design decisions that FD have made. Remember this line from DB? "...we are designing the bounty system (and others) to discourage PvP and encourage player cooperation."

Even though I do enjoy taking on another player, I know that this is not, and never will be a PvP-focused game. Yes, shield cells are OP right now, but in keeping with the design vision they should be rebalanced for PvE. If that mitigates their effect on PvP, that's a bonus, but the fact that they discourage PvP should not be a factor in designing the changes.

 

[aowqyaaw]

Apologies - I did with an edit.

If a small ship with a (relatively) cheap loadout can almost always destroy a ship costing hundreds of times as much then there is little incentive to use the bigger ship.

I don't buy this arguement. If it's not better out the box, then it's underpowered or overpriced.

A shield cell arms race does not solve anything.

 

[cherny_prapor]

Apologies - I did with an edit.
If a small ship with a (relatively) cheap loadout can almost always destroy a ship costing hundreds of times as much then there is little incentive to use the bigger ship.

Of course it shouldn't be "almost always". Like I said, it should be very difficult, yet possible, but currently it's nearly impossible. Balance, it's all in the balance - remove or re-engineer everything that gives one an obvious advantage with no equal trade-offs, and the game will only become better. Again, it's not like everything should be nerfed to the level of a pea-shooter, powerful equipment simply needs some trade-offs. The powerful guns that are currently present in the game, DO have those - plasmaguns are hot and power-hungry, missile pods are expensive to re-arm and difficult to use, etc. However, SCBs do not have a trade-off that could make one seriously consider not installing more of them. The lost cargo slots are a joke - like I said before, most players use a separate ship for trading.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Of course it shouldn't be "almost always". Like I said, it should be very difficult, yet possible, but currently it's nearly impossible. Balance, it's all in the balance - remove or re-engineer everything that gives one an obvious advantage with no equal trade-offs, and the game will only become better. Again, it's not like everything should be nerfed to the level of a pea-shooter, powerful equipment simply needs some trade-offs. The powerful guns that are currently present in the game, DO have those - plasmaguns are hot and power-hungry, missile pods are expensive to re-arm and difficult to use, etc. However, SCBs do not have a trade-off that could make one seriously consider not installing more of them. The lost cargo slots are a joke - like I said before, most players use a separate ship for trading.

As soon as any attempt is made to allow the small ship to have a chance of destroying a large ship then that makes the chances of a group of small ships destroying the same big ship significantly greater.

 

[Miimis Maks]

Just pretend that theres no shield cells, play your own game. Use some of your imagination.

 

[cherny_prapor]

As soon as any attempt is made to allow the small ship to have a chance of destroying a large ship then that makes the chances of a group of small ships destroying the same big ship significantly greater.

And I think that's great! Pirate gangs ambushing a large ship with a whole bunch of small rust-buckets, losing half of the gang in the process - that's absolute gold!

 

[Raest]

in the small vs big debate, remember that IRL big ships pretty much never go anywhere alone 'cause alone they're very vulnerable since they're easily outmanouevered. so yeah, a player in a combat ship taking down what is essentially an expensive armoured freighter (the 'conda) "sometimes-turned-frigate" (by small navies who don't know/can't afford better) in a 1vs1 battle should be much, much more than a slim possibility (so to balance f.e. add the possibility to hire bodyguard eagles or sidewinders or vipers like the NPCs already do with their t6/7/9)

 

[bassman]

Apologies - I did with an edit.

If a small ship with a (relatively) cheap loadout can almost always destroy a ship costing hundreds of times as much then there is little incentive to use the bigger ship.

Thats true but that wasnt the case in beta before shield cells were introduced and would not be the case now if they were taken away. What would the case is that if someone in a big ship didnt know how to use his kit to best advantage, he might be vulnerable to someone in a smaller ship flown by who did (as again was the case in early beta). Also in early beta an anaconda was vulnerable to multiple smaller attackers in what felt like a proportional way.

 

[Defacto]

As soon as any attempt is made to allow the small ship to have a chance of destroying a large ship then that makes the chances of a group of small ships destroying the same big ship significantly greater.

I don't see any problem in this. Especially not now, when it is so easy for large ships to escape.

 

[SuBSynk]

It could swing the other way to the extent that nobody would fly the Anaconda because there is a sub 1M Cr. ship / loadout that will almost always destroy it in the hands of a competent pilot.

Not only that but the costs of 10-20% hull damage on a military spec Python/Anaconda is far higher than full rebuy of the smaller ship its fighting so therefore why would anyone face such a massive cost?

People have to remember that even scratching a large ship is costing so much that the fight is won credits spent wise there and then...

To destroy the ship entirely would cost the equivalent of 10-20X small ships insurance and so should take many of these ships to be able to take it on and win without loses.

 

[ScottGust]

Other threads on this. But i disagree..shield cells take a few seconds to charge n r only able to b used if u still have shielding left....also they r wonderful deterrents for unwanted pvp or griefing...i hope FD leaves them as is.

 

[Flyinpiranha]

Of course it shouldn't be "almost always". Like I said, it should be very difficult, yet possible, but currently it's nearly impossible. Balance, it's all in the balance - remove or re-engineer everything that gives one an obvious advantage with no equal trade-offs, and the game will only become better. Again, it's not like everything should be nerfed to the level of a pea-shooter, powerful equipment simply needs some trade-offs. The powerful guns that are currently present in the game, DO have those - plasmaguns are hot and power-hungry, missile pods are expensive to re-arm and difficult to use, etc. However, SCBs do not have a trade-off that could make one seriously consider not installing more of them. The lost cargo slots are a joke - like I said before, most players use a separate ship for trading.

Better for who? I'm not playing 'only PVP'. I rarely play in Open. I enjoy the PVE groups and Solo mode because I like having a big ship and "making my own story". I don't need Demon's Souls In Space. All these changes for "PVP Balance" directly affect me in my little bubble playing a game I 'thought' was going to be PVE focused with PVP as an afterthought. Now we have the most discussions I've seen since launch from the developers in these subjects based around PVP "balance".

 

[bassman]

Not only that but the costs of 10-20% hull damage on a military spec Python/Anaconda is far higher than full rebuy of the smaller ship its fighting so therefore why would anyone face such a massive cost?

People have to remember that even scratching a large ship is costing so much that the fight is won credits spent wise there and then...

To destroy the ship entirely would cost the equivalent of 10-20X small ships insurance and so should take many of these ships to be able to take it on and win without loses.

Thats true but thats really a separate problem i.e. that eanings don't scale for large combat ships. Making the largest combat ships virtually impregnable is not the right solution to that problem.

 

[aowqyaaw]

Other threads on this. But i disagree..shield cells take a few seconds to charge n r only able to b used if u still have shielding left....also they r wonderful deterrents for unwanted pvp or griefing...i hope FD leaves them as is.

We may aswell drop the 'Dangerous' part then.

 

[Beans]

...they r wonderful deterrents for unwanted pvp or griefing...i hope FD leaves them as is.

By the time FD have finished pandering to griefers the whole game will be a "Press X to Grief" QTE

 

[SuBSynk]

We may aswell drop the 'Dangerous' part then.

The Dangerous part of the title never had anything to do with game difficulty. Many confuse the title to mean it is a difficult/dangerous game in some way but that is an ill-conceived notion.

 

[aowqyaaw]

The Dangerous part of the title never had anything to do with game difficulty. Many confuse the title to mean it is a difficult/dangerous game in some way but that is an ill-conceived notion.

?????????????