The Shield Cell Bank Fix Thoughts and Discussion Thread

[Kestril]

I've been digging a while through the forums now, and there are still some issues when it comes to Shield cell banks and balance. I thought I'd take a look and offer some suggestions to address the problem of shield cell banks. I hope this will be a great resource for the devs and the commanders curious on the subject.

The commentary will keep a few thoughts from the dev. in mind, specifically:

Don't get me wrong, I don't want shield cell banks to be the "be all and end all" of module selection; we going to keep an eye on them once the changes roll out, it will be great to get feedback from the player base, and if more tweaks are required (even to the point of cool down usage, one cell bank only etc.) we won't be afraid to implement them. I'm certainly not going to sit here and announce that "everything is awesome! Tss, mm, tss, mm, tss, mm".

I simply disagree with the notion that because they can create imbalance - they should be dropped. In my opinion, given the amount of imbalance it's possible to create for any situation - this argument is not strong enough to sway me.

From Here

So, from what I gather, I think the issue is not one of strict imbalance caused by SCB's between the different ships (I think that's more of a symptom than the underlying problem, really), but it's that shield cell banks are not fun to use, are not fun to fight against, and interact very little with the heat management, capacitor energy management, or the power management of your ship.

In other words, they feel like you're quaffing down a "be-all-and-end-all" health potion rather than piloting a starship.

So, with that in mind, here's a few humble suggestions. Keep in mind, when I say, "interaction" I don't mean "balance". When I mention "interaction" I'm mentioning that, "interacting with the ship, NPC, or player while using shield cell banks should be fun" SCB's right now are un-fun for everyone. Let's fix that. Let's make SCB's fun:

Require more capacitor management when using shield cell banks.
-Have the recharge actually draw power from the SYS capacitor, just like firing a weapon. This adds to more of those cool choices we already have in combat. Do you throw all pips to ENG and maneuver or keep them in shields so you'll have enough to fire those cell banks? Or do you recklessly throw four pips to WEP in order to keep all your lasers firing? Capacitor management should definitely be a large part of using cell banks, just like it is with maneuvering or shooting.

Re-tool cell banks to quickly recharge shields that have dropped. A cell bank can quickly recharge a large portion of the red circle to get your shields back up quickly.
This suggestion, while changing the role of cell banks, makes combat more dynamic and presents more choices to players. When your shields drop do you try and fire up the bank to try and gain some shields? Or do you instead flip on silent running and fire the heatsinks? Additionally, it makes combat more interesting. With shields switching between off-and-on again more rapidly, it will make more weapons useful throughout combat, and give reason to target the shield generator module. Changing cell banks to restore downed shields gives both the attacker and defender more fun options in combat.

This dynamic makes player/player and player/npc fights more interactive and fun, plus it's fun on the player/ship side as well, hopeing that circle fills up and becoming relieved once shields pop back online. Plus, the larger ships will no longer have to wait a long time for their shields to recharge.

Make Cell banks require power to hold their charges
This would address more address the symptom of ships stacking SCBs, but still, the suggestion has merit. By requiring SCB's to have power, it gives more of a meaningful decision to make in the outfitting section. Now stacking SCB's will still be possible, but also have diminishing returns and require sacrifice in weapon and module selection. This suggestion doesn't do much to help player/ship interactions, but it does address the symptom of imbalance, and could address player/player interaction.

Make SCB's generate lots of heat when they overcharge shields
This promotes good cell-bank management and gives them a drawback, but does not do much to fix the
player/player interaction.

Limit Cell banks to 1 per ship
I don't like this suggestion. I think this should be an absolute last resort, but it is a quick-fix and makes sure that player's don't have the boring experience of pecking away at shields for 40 minuets with no result. This fixes the player/player interaction, but does nothing else to address the problem.


Perhaps with a combination of these suggestions (and others on the forum), cell banks can finally be fun to use, and fun to play against.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I'd rather see the silly things banned from the game.

 

[X-Terminator]

Simply make them (as on my Vulture setup) operate ONLY when Hardpoints are retracted. Plus only the 1 available so you must have good tactics.
.
Seriously, I am gobsmacked why we have all the answers to add to the game that should have been on release and non of these changes silliness. I have lower respect for FD in just getting on with add-ons! Seriously.

 

[SushiCW]

My own favorite tweaks:

- Make SCBs unusable for 15-45 seconds (maybe scaled on size?) after first powering up the module. This would make it more difficult to switch between multiple banks mid-fight, and open a gap in the continuous spam.

- Make SCBs continue to produce heat for 10-15 seconds after triggering. Chain-spamming them would now come at the cost of seriously cooking your ship.

 

[Kestril]

I'd rather see the silly things banned from the game.

These sorts of comments add little to the discussion. Could you please explain? Maybe explaining could add some insight?

- Make SCBs unusable for 15-45 seconds (maybe scaled on size?) after first powering up the module. This would make it more difficult to switch between multiple banks mid-fight, and open a gap in the continuous spam.

- Make SCBs continue to produce heat for 10-15 seconds after triggering. Chain-spamming them would now come at the cost of seriously cooking your ship.

(The first one):While I think that will help, I think it addresses the symptom (SCB spam) rather than the problem ( very low skill to reward ratio of SCBs). Also, it's a little inconsistent with how other modules currently work. No other module has a delay time to be powered on.

(The second one): I like this! It really makes SCB's a thing to be managed more than just popped off without thought. It also adds more utility and flexability with heatsink launchers. It also give a drawback to SCB's and promotes a balance of firing as often as possible while still keeping heat manageable.

X-Terminator
Simply make them (as on my Vulture setup) operate ONLY when Hardpoints are retracted. Plus only the 1 available so you must have good tactics.

Operating while hardpoints are retracted is interesting. Hardpoint-retracted would change the dynamic of combat and would require less power management and encourage hit-and-run strikes. I think hardpoint-retracted SCB's would prolong combat more, and give less interaction between player/player or player/npc (after all, you're not even shooting while using the SCB!). So I don't think this suggestion really fixes anything.

I'm not sure what you mean by "plus only the 1 available."

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Personally I really like your first two points.

But I have come here to say what I say in every SCB complaint thread:
The entire SCB game changes when you really sit down and practice your PvP skills.
Anyone who knows what they're doing is going punch straight through your shields and it will take them less than ten seconds to do it.

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

My solution is to use them(or not use them) however you see as acceptable, and if you use just one or none avoid PvP if you don't want to deal with those who use them more than you would. That work's rather well, and alot less bothersome than trying to have something change that'll likely never be changed or if it is changed it won't be in the near future.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

I'll simply present what I see as the negative influences on overall gameplay for SCBs as they are today (which, it must be said, aren't as bad as they were in their previous incarnation).


Players can equip multiple (stacked) SCBs in their module slots. Power to most SCBs can be disabled, so the "limitation" of power draw per bank is side-stepped... but all SCBs are still "on call" mid-battle with a simple menu flick to disable one, and enable the next. Note that power "priority" can be used to further simplify "bank switching", in that it's only necessary to disable the active bank; The next priority bank(s) will come on automatically.


A Player ship with stacked banks can have overall "on call" shield strength so far in excess of any equivalent NPC ship that the word "overkill" doesn't come close to describing the situation.

This cheapens all NPC interaction to the point where a player becomes...


The Dragonborn

Spoiler

The One

Spoiler

The Chosen One

Spoiler

Okay, so that ones was just stupid...

I've previously used an example for this. I hope I worked out the maths correctly (!), as I'm about to pull numbers from those calculations and re-use them here...

Note: I've avoided throwing Shield Boosters into the numbers... so they are a little bit different this time...


Base Python with top 6A Shield Generator : 403 MJ Shield Power

That Python, with a fistful of stacked SCBs : 5253 MJ Shield Power


This is a thirteen-fold increase in on-call shield power, from a base "A" rated Python to an SCB-stacked Python.


My thoughts and observations from a "vs. NPC" perspective...

• A player can remove themselves from any open-space situation in 15 seconds by high-waking. Consequently...
• 13x shield power is EXTREME OVERKILL for any player encountering hostile NPCs in open space.
• 13x shield power encourages players to make poor decisions while attacking NPCs, without experiencing meaningful consequences. For example, not bothering to avoid a hostile's firing arc, not reacting at all to multiple hostiles firing, etc. This doesn't reward clever flying.

So with the maths spitting out these situations...


- Base Python with 403 MJ (no SCBs)

- Single Shield Cell Python with 1429 MJ - 3.5 x Base (1x6A SCB)

- Stacked Shield Cell Python with 5253 MJ - 13 x Base (2x6A, 2x5A, 2x2B SCBs)



...the question in my mind is, at what point does the "Base multiplier" stop being just a powerful upgrade, and becomes something over the top... or just plain ridiculous?


I'm doubtful that any player in this game needs 13 x base shield power in order to go about their business. But the fact is, it's available to all players... so the only reason I reckon players might "need" it is because other players may have it.




Now, if the "3.5 x Base" situation seems more reasonable, there is more than one way to go about it. It doesn't have to be a hard limit of one SCB per ship... although that's pretty easy for people to get their head around.

An alternative would be to have SCBs take time to come online after they have their power switched on. Like, a boot-up//charge-up/stabilisation phase. That way, players with multiple bank sets can still use them... but not in the current chain-smoked manner of "menu-flipping" and immediate triggering.



That's where my thinking is now.

 

[Mephane]

Personally I really like your first two points.

But I have come here to say what I say in every SCB complaint thread:
The entire SCB game changes when you really sit down and practice your PvP skills.
Anyone who knows what they're doing is going punch straight through your shields and it will take them less than ten seconds to do it.

Well, what you describe is the other extreme. On one hand, we see encounter that consist of two sides spamming SCBs until eventually, after a long time, one side runs out of cells and runs away. On the other hand, you have the possibility for encounters where someone's shields drop within mere seconds with little chance to prevent it, or do anything about it once the shields have failed.

As far as I know, SCBs were originally conceived in part to alleviate the second situation, but created the opposite problem.

What I would like to see, with SCBs or without, is a return to the old status quo when before SCBs and big ships. Way back when there was basically nothing bigger than a Cobra (Anacondas and T9s exists relatively early on, but were of marginal interest because they were seen too rare and T9s don't even really matter for these considerations), and before shield boosters (I have nothing against shield boosters, btw) where the fixed passive shield regeneration felt decent enough and in protracted battles, you would see shields fail but eventually get restored again on their own, too.

I do not think that an emergency tool like SCBs is bad in principle, to the contrary, but the way they and the surrounding metagame work at the moment, they destroyed that initial feeling of combat.

I have been a proponent of limiting SCBs to 1 per ship as a quick fix, a way to address the endless spamming and the module-shuffling, the latter being something that I find absolutely awkward and never felt like something the SCBs were intended to promote (like, when the SCB nerf increased their power draw, it seemed FD didn't even consider that SCB stacking already meant you would toggle them on and off on demand anyway, and therefore the nerf mostly hit smaller ships that already struggle for power, not Pythons or Anacondas filled to the brim with SCBs).

I still believe this would be a massive improvement over the current status quo, but I have eventually come to the conclusion that a better idea would be to completely redesign SCBs into almost the opposite of what they are now. So here is my current proposal for a complete redesign of SCBs:

• SCBs are a buffer for SYS power, no longer requiring ammo.
• After purchasing or turning on an SCB, it needs to charge its internal capacitator from SYS.
• When that capacitator is full, the SCB can be fired at will, depleting its entire charge.
• You can have multiple SCBs, and they will behave like chaff, i.e. not firing together, but sequentially. (You could press the SCB key binding in quick succession to fire multiple SCBs almost simultaneously, of course, but you wouldn't need to deal with fire groups just to prevent them from going all off at once.)
• Firing an SCB has the same effect as it does now, with one major change: they also work when the shields are down, spending their stored power to speed up the shield reinitialization.
• When you toggle an SCB off, it immediately loses its charge.
• When multiple SCBs are depleted, they recharge sequentially, starting with the weakest or strongest one (not sure which way around it would be better).
• SCB recharge rate depends on class and rating, so that generally, SCBs of the same rating recharge at the same speed between all classes, but of course draining more from SYS the higher class. In other words, a C2 SCB and a C4 SCB all take the same time to regenerate (provided sufficient SYS power), but the C4 SCB drains SYS more during that time, because it also stores a bigger charge.
• The amount of power an SCB stores is equal to what it can put into the shields, and not necessarily equal to a full SYS bar (it could be less or more, depending on the sizes and ratings of the two modules).

Now please hear me out, for here comes my reasoning and some of the consequences I hope/expect such an implementation would have:

• If you want to use multipe SCBs, you need to keep them powered. The option remains, but removes the awkward module juggling while at the same time turning their passive power draw into a meaningful consideration, not something to just shrug off at the press of the "OFF" button.
• SCBs become more of a once-in-a-while tool instead of something to be spammed non-stop, due to their single-charge nature, you won't be able to fire many dozens in succession, but will have to wait for them to recharge.
• If you have multiple SCBs, you now have complete ad-hoc control how many fire. Each press of the SCB button activates the strongest charged SCB without any need to deal with extra fire groups just to manage the SCBs.
• It is now an option to not spend an SCB before the shields are down, but do a gamble whether the opponent will get through the shields at all, or will do much hull damage afterwards (remember, 1.4 will address power plant sniping), and if you lose that gamble, the SCB doesn't turn into dead weight, but remains a tool to speed up recovery.
• There is the distinct possibility that, due to their regenerative, ammo-less nature, that SCBs might now provide a real solution to the problem of long passive shield regeneration, because they can short-circuit the 1MJ/s passive regeneration by sending a large chunk of energy into the shields, previously drawn from SYS. Therefore, indirectly, they also serve the purpose of speeding up regenerating between fights by speeding up the effective rate of SYS->shields energy transfer. Using them in this manner also provides an interesting trade-off: having your SCBs depleted between two engagements, you won't have them all recharged in the next fight already, and you will need to keep pips in SYS if you want them to regenerate while you are fighting.
• That "SCBs empty, immediately head back to rearm" moment is gone, too. They are now a tool both for emergency and sustain, actually increasing their overall utility in a much more flexible way.
• It is conceivable that there could be equivalent devices for ENG and WEP, that store extra energy for these capacitators in exactly the same manner. WEP and SYS cell banks could even provide for a real trade-off, and combat ships could come wit a mixed loadout of various types of cell banks, while traders might prefer, for example, only ENG and SYS cell banks. (Please note that I am against the idea of a universal cell bank, precisely because that would eliminate the need to think through your loadout and what type of cell bank you want to bring into battle.)
• The entire notion of "shield potions" is replaced with a flexible module that integrates into other ship functions (power management).

 

[Argyris]

@Mephane

This is a suggestion very well thought through. I really like it and hope the devs will seriously consider to implement this kind of device.

+1 from me

 

[CaptainKremmen]

<snip>

I still believe this would be a massive improvement over the current status quo, but I have eventually come to the conclusion that a better idea would be to completely redesign SCBs into almost the opposite of what they are now. So here is my current proposal for a complete redesign of SCBs:

• SCBs are a buffer for SYS power, no longer requiring ammo.
• After purchasing or turning on an SCB, it needs to charge its internal capacitator from SYS.
• When that capacitator is full, the SCB can be fired at will, depleting its entire charge.
• You can have multiple SCBs, and they will behave like chaff, i.e. not firing together, but sequentially. (You could press the SCB key binding in quick succession to fire multiple SCBs almost simultaneously, of course, but you wouldn't need to deal with fire groups just to prevent them from going all off at once.)
• Firing an SCB has the same effect as it does now, with one major change: they also work when the shields are down, spending their stored power to speed up the shield reinitialization.
• When you toggle an SCB off, it immediately loses its charge.
• When multiple SCBs are depleted, they recharge sequentially, starting with the weakest or strongest one (not sure which way around it would be better).
• SCB recharge rate depends on class and rating, so that generally, SCBs of the same rating recharge at the same speed between all classes, but of course draining more from SYS the higher class. In other words, a C2 SCB and a C4 SCB all take the same time to regenerate (provided sufficient SYS power), but the C4 SCB drains SYS more during that time, because it also stores a bigger charge.
• The amount of power an SCB stores is equal to what it can put into the shields, and not necessarily equal to a full SYS bar (it could be less or more, depending on the sizes and ratings of the two modules).

Now please hear me out, for here comes my reasoning and some of the consequences I hope/expect such an implementation would have:

• If you want to use multipe SCBs, you need to keep them powered. The option remains, but removes the awkward module juggling while at the same time turning their passive power draw into a meaningful consideration, not something to just shrug off at the press of the "OFF" button.
• SCBs become more of a once-in-a-while tool instead of something to be spammed non-stop, due to their single-charge nature, you won't be able to fire many dozens in succession, but will have to wait for them to recharge.
• If you have multiple SCBs, you now have complete ad-hoc control how many fire. Each press of the SCB button activates the strongest charged SCB without any need to deal with extra fire groups just to manage the SCBs.
• It is now an option to not spend an SCB before the shields are down, but do a gamble whether the opponent will get through the shields at all, or will do much hull damage afterwards (remember, 1.4 will address power plant sniping), and if you lose that gamble, the SCB doesn't turn into dead weight, but remains a tool to speed up recovery.
• There is the distinct possibility that, due to their regenerative, ammo-less nature, that SCBs might now provide a real solution to the problem of long passive shield regeneration, because they can short-circuit the 1MJ/s passive regeneration by sending a large chunk of energy into the shields, previously drawn from SYS. Therefore, indirectly, they also serve the purpose of speeding up regenerating between fights by speeding up the effective rate of SYS->shields energy transfer. Using them in this manner also provides an interesting trade-off: having your SCBs depleted between two engagements, you won't have them all recharged in the next fight already, and you will need to keep pips in SYS if you want them to regenerate while you are fighting.
• That "SCBs empty, immediately head back to rearm" moment is gone, too. They are now a tool both for emergency and sustain, actually increasing their overall utility in a much more flexible way.
• It is conceivable that there could be equivalent devices for ENG and WEP, that store extra energy for these capacitators in exactly the same manner. WEP and SYS cell banks could even provide for a real trade-off, and combat ships could come wit a mixed loadout of various types of cell banks, while traders might prefer, for example, only ENG and SYS cell banks. (Please note that I am against the idea of a universal cell bank, precisely because that would eliminate the need to think through your loadout and what type of cell bank you want to bring into battle.)
• The entire notion of "shield potions" is replaced with a flexible module that integrates into other ship functions (power management).

That's some nice design-level thinking, Mephane.

 

[Starender]

i always suggested a limit of 2 shield cells, that way pure trader/explorer will use 0, occasional fighters will use 1, full time fighters will use 2.

Simple, effective, and adaptable.

 

[Simon Darkstep]

I would support making SCB's one-per-ship. If you want more, fit a larger module slot with one.

Make them take no ammo, but they recharge from SYS capacitor after the main shield is fully charged, and at the same rate.

You can use SCB at any time: Shields full, shields damaged, shields down. Doing so dumps SCB power into the shield. There is no (or a short) warm-up for this, but you hold the SCB button as long as you want it to be going. SCB might be very useful for people who use Silent Running often.

Using SCB generates main hull heat, like firing a similar MW laser with an empty WEP capacitor.

If you use SCB with your shield full, heat is generated as normal and the MW from SCB are still lost. (No use holding down the SCB button when a fight starts!)

SCB capacity appears on the HUD as a second bank of shield-ovals shaded and underneath the main shield. Or possibly as a second rectangular bank adjacent to SYS capacitor.

That's my take on it.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

i always suggested a limit of 2 shield cells, that way pure trader/explorer will use 0, occasional fighters will use 1, full time fighters will use 2.

Simple, effective, and adaptable.

I would support making SCB's one-per-ship. If you want more, fit a larger module slot with one.

Make them take no ammo, but they recharge from SYS capacitor after the main shield is fully charged, and at the same rate.

You can use SCB at any time: Shields full, shields damaged, shields down. Doing so dumps SCB power into the shield. There is no (or a short) warm-up for this, but you hold the SCB button as long as you want it to be going. SCB might be very useful for people who use Silent Running often.

Using SCB generates main hull heat, like firing a similar MW laser with an empty WEP capacitor.

If you use SCB with your shield full, heat is generated as normal and the MW from SCB are still lost. (No use holding down the SCB button when a fight starts!)

SCB capacity appears on the HUD as a second bank of shield-ovals shaded and underneath the main shield. Or possibly as a second rectangular bank adjacent to SYS capacitor.

That's my take on it.

Great idea! Let's limit cargo racks in the exact same way.

 

[Kestril]

Psycho, please give constructive comments in this thread. In the end, I think the devs and the community would appreciate thoughtful replies rather than a thread-full of jabs.

In any case, the difference is other player's experience isn't effected by how many cargo racks you have. If you'd knock it off with the red herring, we can all move forward discussing the issue in the thread.

I like your thoughts on the matter, Mephane. It make SCB's both consistent with other SYS modules we currently have, and implements their use with the SYS capacitor rather well. I like your analysis on how it will effect gameplay, and think that's fairly spot on. I like the risk and reward for power management with them. Also, stacking multiple SCB's would give diminishing returns and force you to keep the pips in SYS to keep everything powered. Most of all, they sound fun and interesting to use. I'm really trying to find some flaws, but so far I can only think of one:

I think the amount of power the SCB's would require would have to be looked after. If an anaconda, for example, loads up on small cell banks, would the anaconda essentially gain constant-recharging (though weak in strength) shields? I mean, I think that has the potential, depending on charge time, to give larger ships with a large power plant and capacitor the ability to always reacharge. That may be a balance issue that'll crop up and something to look out for.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

In any case, the difference is other player's experience isn't effected by how many cargo racks you have. If you'd knock it off with the red herring, we can all move forward discussing the issue in the thread.

If another trader is running the same route as I, them having more racks will absolutely affect my experience when my route dries up.
If I participate in a CG, other participants having more racks will absolutely affect my experience when I score low.
.
A reoccurring issue with SCB threads is that people are taking an extremely narrow minded view of the situation. The complaints sound like "I am beating my face against this brick wall and the brick wall isn't crumbling fast enough therefore SCBs should be removed/limited". I too felt this way, until I sat down and spent two minutes thinking about it.
.
This boils my blood, and I will ruthlessly defend SCBs. I do not want to see this become another vulture/FDL price cut, or fuel cost removal, or repair cost slash, etc.

 

[Kestril]

I understand your enthusiasm, but I'm still trying to figure out your point. Just saying, "cell banks are fine" offers little to the discussion. What do cell banks do right? I'd really like to know how they are fine so so it stops bugging me.

On cargo racks: Sure, it may effect the credits you get, but that's not the same thing as combat with another player. I think it's comparing apples and oranges here manly because the two modules are for very different subsets of the game. In the discussion of combat balance, cell banks affect the experience much more. Comparing cargo racks to cell banks doesn't hold up without a lot of reaching. Cargo racks effect trading, and cell banks are concerned with pvp and pve: two very different subsets of the game. Furthermore, a lot of factors go into the economy, in other words, cell banks affect the fun in combat way more in comparison to cargo racks and the human-space dynamic economy. So it's a faulty comparison.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

From another thread:

This thread is going around in circles so fast it is about to disappear up it's own gravity well!

But ask yourself the following 5 basic questions:

1. If FD deleted SCB's overnight, how would it change the way you play? - remember, no one has SBCs!

2. Are you convinced that without a hull full of SBCs you won't win the battles you are currently winning?

3. When you are engaged in a battle, are you more concerned about the Commander's ranking, how he has armed his ship, or how many SBC's he is carrying (and just hope you have one more)?

4. Do you expect to win every engagement you enter into, no matter who or what the opposition is, based solely on the fact you have sufficient SBCs to carry you through?

5. If you exhaust your SBC's do you immediately turn and run to the nearest station to re-arm?

I would be interested in your answers, as long as you answer them truthfully!!!!!

I'm assuming this is about PvP.
.
1) I would not be able to recover from mistakes. If I let myself get pressured, it's time to leave the fight. This means I will never be able to recover from being taken by surprise, or from silent running.
.
2) No, quite the opposite. In a fight between two combat ships, the fight will become shorter, making skill less of a factor and luck/credits more of a factor. However, a PvP fit ship will have an even easier time against typical combat ships as escape will now be impossible. Typical combat ships will become virtually defenseless against PvP ships which will further increase the divide between people who want to fit for PvE and people who want to murder you.
.
3) If I approach someone I want to kill, I'm most concerned with their ability to use their thrusters, because one pass is all it'll take with or without SCBs. I'm not implying I'm skilled. Seriously, try a real PvP build. I'm not joking. One pass is all it takes.
.
4) No. I rarely use SCBs in the fights I win and they have little relevance to PvP fit ships. Average combat ships will find that they will lose to other combat ships if they have less.
.
5) Yes. I abhor death. Not having SCBs means that I cannot take chances and fight game that outclasses me. Having SCBs means that I can take a risk, and if the odds don't immediately swing in my favor, I have the protection I need to live long enough to get out. Without this fallback, my targets will be exclusively ships that are smaller and less able to defend themselves.
.
------------
There are three components to a fight: Luck, skill, and tools. Luck is pretty global and can't really be harnessed. Skill is developed through practice. Tools include how fit your ship is, what ship it is, etc.
.
A hundred bouts, and luck will be safely written out of the equation. What's left is skill and tools. Skill is acquired or innate, though generally the more you play the more skilled you become. Tools are your ship type, your load out, how many SCBs you bring, this is all based on your credits. A major factor for tools is having/bringing SCBs. Like cargo racks do for trading, SCBs have a pretty direct affect on general combat. Bringing more cargo racks or SCBs will make you more effective in general trading or general combat. However, more cargo racks and more SCBs don't necessarily have the same kind of affect on the more refined versions of the activity, such as smuggling or white hot PvP. There are other factors that determine success in a more direct way such as your ship's heat, or your weapon choice.
.
When people complain about PvP being ruined by SCBs, they are upset that their general combat ships (which focus in endurance and attrition) take too long to kill the other ship. This is exactly like taking a T9 toaster oven with 500t of cargo smuggling and complaining that you're getting scanned. Limiting SCBs to one per ship in attempt to get people to stop complaining about long fights is like limiting cargo racks to one per ship to get people to stop trying to stealth their cows past security.

 

[crutonius]

Mephane I like your suggestion, was about to post something similar. Along the same lines I'd also like to see some complexity added to the shield system. Like different strengths for different sections of the shield.

Don't mind Psycho. Every time the game is criticized in the forums the white knights have to shine up their armor and defend the game for honor.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Don't mind Psycho. Every time the game is criticized in the forums the white knights have to shine up their armor and defend the game for honor.

Don't invalidate my opinion based on who I agree with in this particular circumstance. I'm not defending the game's honor and I think there's ninety nine problems, but SCBs (like vulture price, fuel tax, and integrity) aren't among them. If you spent any amount of time reading the posts before commenting you might feel differently. I can't make you - I'm not good at training dogs - but I highly suggest you make an attempt.