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

[Dogmeat]

Your "Problem" doesn't sound like a problem at all. Have you tried not using shield cells? You stated you are in a unique situation and can not find a challenge that is as uniquely endowed as you. Seems like a easy fix.

I've heard that non-point made so many times on this and other subjects. Why not refrain from using them? Well, why not stop playing altogether? Because I want to play all aspects of this game and enjoy them.

Not using a broken mechanic doesn't fix the mechanic. When you come up against another player using that mechanic to the max, you will still have to deal with that broken mechanic. Pinning all combat outcomes to the use of one overweeningly effective piece of equipment cheapens everyone's experience, whether they are benefiting from it or losing out to it, and whatever ship they choose to pilot.

I don't think a 5 second delay is going to be enough to address the problem, I'm afraid.

 

[Kyokushin]

Nothing is overpowered. I think they are ok.

Wait for other ships and other stuff in game.

 

[Darian]

I do not see the problem, If you want to fly the toughest ship of them all you fly it.

There will be always one ship that is "best " for what you want it to do

I personally do not limit my choices to what is seen as "best", I play to have fun and when my idea of fun does not match with what is seen as the "best" I donot have an serious emotional breakdown over it, to be honest it does not interest me.

While I do not like the "insta win" button i do know too that people who use it soon loose interest and toddle off, so no skin of my nose or how the saying goes.
Thus the whole discussion about if ships could be too powerfull is mood, either you allow only one ship so there is no "all powerfull" or you have ships that differ and one ship will have that half percent moar that allows it to bust all others as soon you know about the half percent moar. (And that is out in the open as soon someone finds it.)

Thus we can have endless circles of nerfs and reblalancing and discussions or accept thatg diversity means that not all things are the same.

There will be always "the best trading ship" if one looks at cargo only, but if one wants guns too there is less cargo space.

There will be the best warship but if one wants an speedy ship better take the smaller guns and leave the armor plating at home.

People will not all fly one ship because people are, and that is great, different and have different ideas about what is best.

Or no one would fly an T9 who is about the worst warship ever.

I rest my case.

 

[Theaghan Black]

I strongly believe that an expensive ship must not be taken down by a cheaper ship (EDIT: if the players have similar skill and standard equip). "Fair" has no value here.

For no reason a bigger combat ship (like the Python and the Anaconda) should be slower and less maneuverable than a Viper or a Cobra: being bigger means that they mount a bigger powerplant and bigger thrusters.

I really don't believe that a single eagle/cobra should be able to take down an Anaconda turning around it.

Of course it's not like someone say, that since ship A cost 10mils then you need 10x1mil ship to take it away: in those 10mils there are many things like hull strenght and expandibility (above all). Having a bigger ship means that you can do better profits and have a better survival ability against single ships in a 1v1. But 1vN is another matter and I'm just waiting for the wing mechanics to play seriously (anyway no ironman mode, ridiculous rebuy cost and not-really-rare rare commodities are still big problems of the gameplay).

Anyway since the game provide us with an awful SA of what we have around (see "the first who shoot wins"), in combat the player skill doesn't count really much.

 

[Briarée]

I strongly believe that an expensive ship must not be taken down by a cheaper ship. "Fair" has no value here.

For no reason a bigger combat ship (like the Python and the Anaconda) should be slower and less maneuverable than a Viper or a Cobra: being bigger means that they mount a bigger powerplant and bigger thrusters.

I really don't believe that a single eagle/cobra should be able to take down an Anaconda turning around it.

Of course it's not like someone say, that since ship A cost 10mils then you need 10x1mil ship to take it away: in those 10mils there are many things like hull strenght and expandibility (above all). Having a bigger ship means that you can do better profits and have a better survival ability against single ships in a 1v1. But 1vN is another matter and I'm just waiting for the wing mechanics to play seriously (anyway no ironman mode, ridiculous rebuy cost and not-really-rare rare commodities are still big problems of the gameplay).

Anyway since the game provide us with an awful SA of what we have around (see "the first who shoot wins"), in combat the player skill doesn't count really much.

well then it comes down to another issue, if he BIG ship is able to turn as fast as a small one and can OS it, how many small ships would you need to take down the big one? a thousand?

 

[bassman]

I strongly believe that an expensive ship must not be taken down by a cheaper ship. "Fair" has no value here.
........
I really don't believe that a single eagle/cobra should be able to take down an Anaconda turning around it.

Well that would make for a very boring game since big and small ships have no motivation to fight each other: the smaller ship faces certain death and the bigger ship get no excitement or element of risk.

I visualise it like this:


Low capability.................High capability

.......<-----(-S-)----->
...............<-----(-M-)----->
.......................<-----(-L-)----->



The center "( )" zone represents the base capability of the ship.
So given generic loadouts and no huge skill differential and an aversion to high risk tactics then S < M < L i.e. the outcome is pretty certain to go the way of the bigger ship.

The "< >" zone represents the influence of the various variables such as aiming skill, loadouts optimised vs the enemys ships class, ability to exploit strengths and weaknesses of the respective ships, riskiness of tactics employed and of course a bit of luck thrown in etc.
So if a small ships fights a large one then there is some small probability of victory if all those variables work in its favour and work against its opponent.

This is not about "fairness" since a size difference is never fair and thats as it should be, its about always retaining some theoretical element of uncertainty and danger in all fights and thus making the game more fun and varied for everyone.

NOTE: for reference I'm using Viper Asp and Python as my reference points for S/M/L

 

[Puppie]

Hello Commander Johnny Spaceboots!

Just watched the video you linked. Have to say and I have to say, it didn't seem to me to a complete joke (I found it rather enjoyable, and in fairness, so it seems did the players involved).

The python is by most reckonings, a beast of a ship (a little too beastly, we will be dropping it's manoeuvrability a tad). Interestingly, if the Cobra had had weapons other than missile racks on the wing mounts, the python's shields would have probably broken a few times (missiles are utterly terrible versus shields, though they are hungry for hull).

Do I think the video highlights an issue: yes. Do I think the tweaks rolling out will address it: I'm not sure. Am I prepared to make further changes if we feel the next changes don't work: yes. Do we have quite a few options: yes.

It may well be that we end up with one of the more severe solutions, but that will only happen once I'm sure we can't find more interesting compromises.

Can we have clarification on this ? Your going to start altering ship characteristics?

 

[Kyokushin]

Hello Commander Johnny Spaceboots!

Just watched the video you linked. Have to say and I have to say, it didn't seem to me to a complete joke (I found it rather enjoyable, and in fairness, so it seems did the players involved).

The python is by most reckonings, a beast of a ship (a little too beastly, we will be dropping it's manoeuvrability a tad). Interestingly, if the Cobra had had weapons other than missile racks on the wing mounts, the python's shields would have probably broken a few times (missiles are utterly terrible versus shields, though they are hungry for hull).

Do I think the video highlights an issue: yes. Do I think the tweaks rolling out will address it: I'm not sure. Am I prepared to make further changes if we feel the next changes don't work: yes. Do we have quite a few options: yes.

It may well be that we end up with one of the more severe solutions, but that will only happen once I'm sure we can't find more interesting compromises.

In exchange of manoeuvrability you should give to it a speed. It is manoeuvrable but slow now.
I think this ship is good balanced for now.

 

[Theaghan Black]

Well that would make for a very boring game since big and small ships have no motivation to fight each other: the smaller ship faces certain death and the bigger ship get no excitement or element of risk.

I visualise it like this:


Low capability.................High capability

.......<-----(-S-)----->
...............<-----(-M-)----->
.......................<-----(-L-)----->



The center "( )" zone represents the base capability of the ship.
So given generic loadouts and no huge skill differential and an aversion to high risk tactics then S < M < L i.e. the outcome is pretty certain to go the way of the bigger ship.

The "< >" zone represents the influence of the various variables such as aiming skill, loadouts optimised vs the enemys ships class, ability to exploit strengths and weaknesses of the respective ships, riskiness of tactics employed and of course a bit of luck thrown in etc.
So if a small ships fights a large one then there is some small probability of victory if all those variables work in its favour and work against its opponent.

This is not about "fairness" since a size difference is never fair and thats as it should be, its about always retaining some theoretical element of uncertainty and danger in all fights and thus making the game more fun and varied for everyone.

NOTE: for reference I'm using Viper Asp and Python as my reference points for S/M/L

I agree: in fact I've edited my post to clear that out .

 

[Raest]

Or when i played an fantasie adv. way back, the warrior type liked the archers because they could own them left right and center.
One morning they woke up and found that the archers leveled up and sudden they go arrow in face if they became fresh.
Big screaming for the nerfbat because an guy with an bend woodstick and another straight woodstick PWNDZ them without breaking an sweat where before they walzt just over them.

and he had not to grind this shiny armor and magic sword!

The people who in the beginning ruled the battelfield with an iron fist tend to get upset when they stop to call the shots, i say "get over it or a bigger gun like everyone else"

Or we have to be carefull to make no ship no matter how big and expensive strong enough to outclass by sheer numbers an viper.

But as said i do not want to play that game then because if everything IS a viper (exept filthy traders) wy play more than the three weeks it takes to have an viper.

In Elite you have either pvp or trading an biger ships, nothing else, and booth, pvp and trading with bigger ships becomes boring fast.

Now you want to reduce it to pvp only .

Meh.

you don't even understand that what you're arguing for is basically this: "i want the boring ship balance that means everybody and their mother in 1-2 months will be flying only pythons and anacondas (or if they introduce ships that outclass them in combat/trading)". that's really really poor game design/balance (and it's already starting to happen. take a look at traffic reports. unless you're in a system dominated by bounty hunters, the top 3 is always t6/cobra/asp (all the others added together rarely reach the numbers of a single one of the top3), in a couple of weeks/a month it'll be python/t7 [or clipper if people catch on it being not much more expensive but a much better trader]/asp and a month after that just python/'conda). people like you will be the death of this game (and, as others have pointed out multiple times, that's not how the originals worked)

 

[Jex =TE=]

Hello Commanders!

Another quick update: with the next tweaks of shield cell banks (coming soon(tm)) the spool up delay has also been increased from one second to five (which in fairness is another number that fell between the cracks during the last round of balancing).

Again, this isn't the be all and end all. But we look forward to seeing how the tweaks change folks perception of shield cell banks.

Doesn't this just mean using the cell 5 seconds earlier but having the same affect?

 

[Jex =TE=]

That would be a stamina potion.
<scnr>

I've actually made it through all these 53 pages now but I can't help myself that whenever people are trying to advocate the existence of SCBs these modules look like a cheap first aid plaster to me that tries to cover an underlying, deeper issue. I'd rather like to see these maladies to be cured in the first place, but then the plaster has to be removed at first to get to the core of the real problem more clearly, some of which already were mentioned. My suggestion would be to temporarily take them out for the next 3 month and then start another discussion about it (unless nobody would miss them anymore).

lol WELL DONE, i COULDN'T MAKE IT ALL THE WAY.

(oops caps)

I agree with you - having a magic button that takes away the advantage your opponent had over you through their luck and skill ruins combat and could potentially be a game changer for a lot of people. Should it prove to be too much of a crutch when I get around to combat then I'd probably stop playing. So far I'm not feeling the "dangerous" part and this is not helping the cause.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Or you could introduce extra skill to pressing the button. You know, like a flashing light on your dash. If you hit the button when the light is on you get a shield boost, if you miss your engine blows.

Lets keep skill in the game.

Edit: Why would there be a cool down for using a battery boost, a battery boost which is being used to shorten a cool down in the first place.

This is sounding like a case of a badly thought out game mechanic where the devs introduce something, realised they really messed up and then try to change it but it makes no sense, like you pointed out above.

Sometimes it's just better to hold up your hands and admit you put in a crap idea.

 

[lexandro]

How about instead of cells recharing shields.......they just harden them a bit (ie increased resistance). Still a good option to reduce incoming fire, but not so excessive as to require you to bust the shields down multiple times before it drops. Say they add like 40% resistance for X seconds. Would make it more tactical in their usage, and more of a skill item rather than an iwin. It also brings them more in line with chaff dispensers.

 

[Jex =TE=]

You're not wrong, but I don't think that this is an issue of fairness. I think it's an issue of something affecting combat in a way which sucks.
If Shield cells does not change the dynamic of a fight, but muddle the gameplay down, is that not a cause for removing them.

If we ''merely'' want to prolong fights, I suggest that we simply make ships a bit stronger.

This now begs the question....


why wasn't this picked up in Beta? A tiny ship versus a huge ship and their statistics don't really reflect on them. It seems the bigger ships don't have enough hull but then are almost or are as maneuverable as smaller ships. The Asp, Cobra and Python all have an agility of 6 and almost all have the same speed. The Python is 4 times larger than the cobra but only has twice the armour and twice the hull mass - what?

 

[Jex =TE=]

It ultimately boils down to whether you want a traditional tiered MMO style experience where people only ever fight things/people in the same power tiers (except for wanton griefing) ... or not. Personally I don't, every encounter should carry some element of danger for all concerned: I do not want a game where there is near zero possibility of at least damaging a better ship, and neither do I want one where I can fight smaller ships with zero risk.

Edit --- The more I think about it the more it seems that we should emphasis hull strength more: have stronger hulls and weaker shields, perhaps have very strong hulls but have shields let through a certain % of damage perhaps depending on how many rings you have.

In summary I would:
1) get rid of cells (obviously)
2) Make hulls stronger across the whole range of ships (say 20-30%)
3) Increase the damage modifier for hull upgrades (to say 50% additional protection for military grade)
4) Have shields offer 100% protection only on 3 rings, with say 70% protection on lower rings
5) Have shields recharge rate be highly proportional to pips in sys with the 4 pips rate being about double the current rate.

With this system most fights would result in some damage to both parties in broad proportion to the relative power of the ships, it would bring in some extra tactical considerations like making subsystem targeting still relevant when shields were still up.

The guns need changing as well. There's a reason a spitfire could only fit machine guns to its wings and an AC130 can fit a howitzer to it's belly. An Eagle has no room for a large gun but one can be fitted on a bigger ship.

 

[Defacto]

This now begs the question....


why wasn't this picked up in Beta? A tiny ship versus a huge ship and their statistics don't really reflect on them. It seems the bigger ships don't have enough hull but then are almost or are as maneuverable as smaller ships. The Asp, Cobra and Python all have an agility of 6 and almost all have the same speed. The Python is 4 times larger than the cobra but only has twice the armour and twice the hull mass - what?

It's pretty confusing. How are things supposed to... equal against each other, really? What's the plan?

The Cobra and Pythons are generalists, so I would assume that they would be pretty defensive in combat style, the Cobra being fast and slippery as an eel (the freelancer's ship) and the Python being a rugged survivor (the blockade runner). The Cobra kind-of fits that style, but what about the Python? It's relatively fast, it's extremely manueverable for a ship that size, but it's certainly not very strong.
Also, what happened to armor? Is it even in the game? I don't seem to have any problems damaging heavy ships with weapons that have low armor penetration. HE Dumbfires should just sandpaper the hull of a Python.
If you wanted offensive fighting power (as in either blowing up your enemy or at the very least force them to flee), I would think that you would need a offensive combat-leaning ship, like the Viper.

I have a bit of fear that the entire balancing act is falling into a kind of self-made trap. Either we make small ships like Vipers or Cobras into irrelevant stepping-stones, or we risk turning all the large ships into credit-sucking bricks for masochists. It's hard to balance out everything, but I think a step in the right direction is first dealing with SCB's, and then decide: What's the purpose of small ships? Large ships? Generalists? Combat-leaners? Pure Traders? How will it all fit together?

 

[Jex =TE=]

Well, indestructable pythons are still staying even after the nerf. 5 sec spooling means they are to be used right after the second ring collapses and it's still the same thing.
Cost doesn't mean anything. Hell even I shoot torpedoes for fun when I get jumped by harmless sidey when I trade now and then. Since I can make 2.4m/hour in t7 I don't really care whether single cell costs 100cr or 5000cr.
Power draw... well again. I don't really care. A single higher class csb is more than enough for your average pvp encounter.

Basically the only thing this will achieve is an indirect nerf to bounty hunting. Less cells = less time at nav point before resupplying + lesser profit. So if it stays like this, not only pvpers but now even pve bounty hunters are just going to be more annoyed. PVP arsenal will still be limited to high thermic burst, kinetic weapons remaining borderline useless except maybe rocket spam.

Oh, so exactly like I predicted then.

 

[Jex =TE=]

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.

iT SHOULD BE HARD FOR A SMALL SHIP TO TAKE OUT A LARGE SHIP (grrr caps lock again!) The thought of taking an Eagle up against a Python should be a daunting task and shouldn't be impossible, just hard.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

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.

Why wasn't this noticed in Beta though?

 

[Jex =TE=]

I have to disagree with a couple of points here:

I don't think SCB's have the overall effect of helping traders survive piracy; the trader will have emphasized cargo capacity in his build and so will probably have fewer SCB modules then the pirate or 'griefer'. In reality, that trader will be running and charging up the FSD and doing nothing else. Perhaps one hit on a SCB will help keep the shields up while he does this. If for some reason FD make it harder to jump out when under attack, this trader, even if well-armed, will wish SCB's didn't exist because he will never have them coming out of his ears like the PvP oriented pilot will, and is almost certain to lose.

Using lots of SCB's right now I feel is the opposite of 'wit' and the very definition of 'no-brainer' if you want to win vs another player. It overrides all other loadout choices and tactical considerations, especially power management.

By way of partial apology for focussing on the PvP effect of these modules, I would say that though I did overlook the negative effect on PvE they bring, you can easily not use SCB's in PvE only playstyles.... until we get NPC's as good as human opponents, that is!

So if SCB's will require better guns to kill them then the arms race escalates as you would expect. Except now you've just forced everyone to carry SCB's so people who don't want to carry them are screwed over.