The Shield Cell Bank Fix Thoughts and Discussion Thread

[Cheese Helmet]

Fights shouldn't be determined by who has the most SCBs. A simple limit of 2 would suffice. This means you have the capacity to compensate an ambush, but battles aren't turned into slugfests of who has the most SCBs.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

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.

That was some creative thinking there, suggesting an alternate mechanic - one that involved a "hold down to dump SYS into Shield" mechanism.

Your response wasn't constructive. I don't believe you actually even read the suggestion before you brought out the hackneyed and dodgy "cargo rack" thing.

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.

To be honest, I don't see any useful analogy between cargo racks and Shield Cell Banks.


An 8t cargo rack stores 8t of stuff. One twice as big stores twice as much stuff.


A Shield Cell Bank, in contrast, supercharges a partner module, the Shield Generator, increasing its effectiveness.

A small Shield Generator gives you some shielding. One with twice the shielding protects you twice as much.


A Shield Cell Bank, however, augments the Shield Generator, multiplying its effective protection.

One Shield Cell bank can multiply the base Shield Generator's effective protection by four, easily.

Two Shield Cell banks can multiply the base Shield Generator's effective protection by, say eight.

Add some more, and you can multiply up to twelve or thirteen.


Cargo Racks?

Enough of the Cargo Rack "soundbite", please.

And, please, at least read peoples' suggestions and ideas before you sarcastically criticise them. It would be helpful to have a bit less "ruthless" defence of Shield Cell Banks, and a bit more intelligent consideration.

 

[PHRIXOS]

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.

I agree with Psycho Romeo. SCBs are vital for smaller ships. I could agree to limit the size of them to 2A or 3A, or make bigger ones (above 2A/3A) to deteriorate significantly (smaller ones less), so that you'd be forced to fix/replace them.
On the side note though, I think Python itself is bit over the top ship, but I don't see any threads complaining about it. Take it easy.

 

[withnail]

I don't like them, takes all the fun out of PvP.

 

[Starender]

I don't like them, takes all the fun out of PvP.

That would be a bit extreme, but people are right when they say they are to important to pass out which is the real issue here.

A simple limit of 2 shield cells and some new defensive modules for more competitions would ultimately reduce people's dependency over SCBs, as well as add more choices for builds.

 

[Kestril]

That would be a bit extreme, but people are right when they say they are to important to pass out which is the real issue here.

A simple limit of 2 shield cells and some new defensive modules for more competitions would ultimately reduce people's dependency over SCBs, as well as add more choices for builds.

Yes, but that doesn't address the issue that they aren't exactly fun to use or fun to play against--they don't really "follow the rules" of other things that draw on the capacitor, like weapons and boosting.

 

[PHRIXOS]

Yes, but that doesn't address the issue that they aren't exactly fun to use or fun to play against--they don't really "follow the rules" of other things that draw on the capacitor, like weapons and boosting.

They don't draw energy because they're Shield Cell Banks - they're basically energy cell banks. The module draws energy to operate those cells, as you have multiple charges in one module.
When you buy batteries to your remote (or whatever), you don't have to charge them. You replace old ones with new ones. Same principle for SCBs, as far as I can see it.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Kremmen, I think you are too excited to try to invalidate what I have to say and that is filtering your interpretation of my post.

That was some creative thinking there, suggesting an alternate mechanic - one that involved a "hold down to dump SYS into Shield" mechanism.

Your response wasn't constructive. I don't believe you actually even read the suggestion before you brought out the hackneyed and dodgy "cargo rack" thing.

I have read this exact suggestion. Here and in two other threads about this topic. Long story short, tying it to SYS doesn't solve the problem and only further increases the disparity between smaller and large ship combat due to distributor scaling. My post informed readers that I felt the limit SCB suggestion is as ridiculous as suggesting to limit cargo racks. This is only not constructive if you don't care about my opinion. You do care about what others have to say, don't you? Because you'll hurt my feelings if you don't.

To be honest, I don't see any useful analogy between cargo racks and Shield Cell Banks.
[...]
One Shield Cell bank can multiply the base Shield Generator's effective protection by four, easily.

Two Shield Cell banks can multiply the base Shield Generator's effective protection by, say eight.

Add some more, and you can multiply up to twelve or thirteen.

And five SCBs will easily multiply your shield generator's effective protect by zero if your shield generator is broken

And, please, at least read peoples' suggestions and ideas before you sarcastically criticise them. It would be helpful to have a bit less "ruthless" defence of Shield Cell Banks, and a bit more intelligent consideration.

I'd like to see you give my opinion a little more consideration before you try to chop it down in favor of something you think sounds really good.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

And five SCBs will easily multiply your shield generator's effective protect by zero if your shield generator is broken

So not a lot like cargo racks, then.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Cargo racks will easily multiply your profits by zero if you're scanned with illegal goods.

Edit: sorry, less than zero. Something negative.

And another: Trying to break an analogy by pulling it out of context is just plain trolling, so please don't continue. Seriously. This is like me saying that you can't compare SCBs and cargo racks because they're spelled differently.

SCBs aren't nearly as potent to the PvP subset of combat, just like cargo racks aren't nearly as helpful to the smuggling mission subset of trading. Don't call SCBs broken or needing to be fixed when you take a combat ship into PvP, just as you would not call cargo racks broken or needing to be fixed if you take a trader into a smuggling mission.

 

[Mephane]

Cargo racks will easily multiply your profits by zero if you're scanned with illegal goods.

Edit: sorry, less than zero. Something negative.

And another: Trying to break an analogy by pulling it out of context is just plain trolling, so please don't continue. Seriously. This is like me saying that you can't compare SCBs and cargo racks because they're spelled differently.

SCBs aren't nearly as potent to the PvP subset of combat, just like cargo racks aren't nearly as helpful to the smuggling mission subset of trading. Don't call SCBs broken or needing to be fixed when you take a combat ship into PvP, just as you would not call cargo racks broken or needing to be fixed if you take a trader into a smuggling mission.

Well, let's put all the questions about PvP aside, let's also even put aside whether SCB stacking trivializes some parts of PvE.

What SCB have been doing now for a long time, is provide a faux-response to the problem of the absymal non-scaling passive shield regeneration. That getting your shields taken out or even just very very low, means you can just as well park your ship somewhere out of sight for the next 10 minutes and wait. I've been completing combat Elite recently, which involved lots of fighting at High Intensity Conflict Zones, and as I refuse to join the SCB stacking metagame, I can tell you that it is the most frustrating thing when you have just come back from one shield regeneration hiatus, get back to the battle, attack a viable target at the edge of the pandemonium, just to have three other ships decide to pick you as their next target (or just a couple of Anacondas in fire-at-will turret mode hitting you all the time). You kill one ship and your shields are already low again, another 10 minute timeout.

This has been an issue for a long, long time, and more than once people have defended this situation by saying "just pop a shield cell and you are good to go". Well, not when you don't carry them by the dozen, or even not at all. This is why my proposal here on the previous page was not only meant to do something about SCB stacking, but also the ridiculous downtimes, which imo are a much worse problem than just SCB stacking.

 

[clinton]

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).

Inspired by your ideas, let me offer the following small adjustments:

• For this discussion, I will use the terms "shield cell banks (banks)" and "shield cells (cells)". Each "bank" contains multiple "cells".
• Multiple shield cell banks on a ship are allowed, but they must remained powered. If they lose power they can't be used until the player docks at a station.
• Multiple shield cell banks are sequenced, they act like a single bank with more charges. However, once one bank is out of cells, it no longer uses power.
• To use a shield cell, two conditions need to be met:
  • There is actually a cell left (i.e. they haven't all been used) AND
  • That cell must be charged (although partially charge cells can be used for partial effect).
• Shield cells are by default not charged. Only two cells on the ship can contain any charge at any time.
• When the SYS capacitor is full, excess energy can be used in the following ways:
  • Extra shield regeneration, at 50% efficiency OR
  • Charge shield cells, at 200% efficiency
• The player determines the priority between the shield and the cells for the overflow capacitor power, however if the shields are full or two cells are fully charged, obviously the power goes to the other regardless of priority.
• Shield cells can be used when the shield is down, however the shield as usual does not come up until it reaches 50%. Obviously shield cell use will speed up this process.
• Stations as a complementary service charge both a ship's shields and their two largest shield cells (which will naturally be from the same bank).
• Reduce damage resistances so each pip reduces shield damage by 10% (i.e. maximum 40% reduction). Currently the maximum is closer to a 60% reduction.

Lets consider a Python with a 7A power distributor, which can pump 4MJ/sec into the SYS capacitor at 4 pips. Assume the shield is not full, so 1MJ/sec is going into the shield, with 3MJ/sec into the SYS capacitor. The pilot has two options here:

• Put an additional 1.5MJ/sec into shield recharge (increasing total shield recharge rate to 2.5MJ/sec) OR
• Put 6MJ/sec into charging a shield cell bank.

What does this mean? Well the stupidly slow recharge times are improved. The Python now has a natural recharge rate 2.5 times faster, which still takes some time but is no longer ridiculous. Or they can instead pump 6MJ/sec into recharging shield cells. This gets another 6B cell ready to go in just under 30 seconds.

Lets say this Python comes into the battle with a 6B SCB. They've got two 176MJ shield cells ready to go. Once they fire the first one the third one will start charging. With 4 pips to SYS at 6MJ/sec it will take just under 30 seconds to fully charge. If one fires a second cell and then a third cell less than 30 seconds after the first, this third cell will be only partly charged and hence only partly effective.

SCBs are still a useful item, but not overpowered. A python can over triple it's effective shield strength with a 6B SCB, and with 4 pips to SYS pump out the whole bank in two minutes. But that requires it to keep 4 pips to SYS, and only 2 pips to weapons. Since you're now getting an added shield recharge rate by pumping pips into SYS, I've reduced the damage resistance from SYS to balance it out.

This doesn't nerf SCBs much (indeed it gives them a boost by allowing them to be used to get empty shields up faster) but it means you can't just go 4 pips to weapons, blast lasers and pump out shield cells. Keeping the shield cells coming (after the first two) will require some effort being put into the SYS capacitor.

 

[Adept]

The shield cell banks were a bad idea, and the wrong fix to the wrong problem.

Problem at the time:
* Larger ships had punishing repair costs, any damage could become prohibitively expensive.
* Large ship shields recharge very slowly (due to every shield charging at the same speed regardless of class and grade)

"Solution" with SCB. A shield potion in limited quantities to allow large ships to stay in the fight without needing to escape if their shields were in danger of collapse.

Problem: SCBs ruined the balance of Elite combat that we had enjoyed since the Alpha 1.0 solo combat builds. Shuffling energy to and from SYS is exciting, and shields occasionally going down adds to excitement. The SCBs ruined this for all ships, and changed combat, especially PvP for the worse (and later shield boosters doubled down on it).

The real solution:

Get rid of punishing repair costs. This was eventually done, half of the reason for the ill-adviced SCB introduction was removed.

Make shield recharge proportional to their size, and dependent on shield quality. Have the downtime of the shields be the same or nearly the same regardless of class.

And Voila! The need for SCB is removed with a few strokes of the keyboard and a few hours of dev time.

If such a component is desired, it's use should be to dump the energy in the sys bar into the shields at an increased rate, or allow you to jump-start a collapsed shield fast.

 

[Vitamin Arrr]

I've only been playing the game since SCBs came out, so I don't know what it was like before. However I've played with, and without SCB's. But let me give my take on this debate.

For years I played Star Trek Online, and over the years it got so many special "shield heal" powers, attachments, and abilities that it just became freaking ridiculous. Like you could have someone's ship basically destroyed and magically it would repair itself back to 100% everything, etc. So stupid.

So to me, this shield cell bank implementation in this game is really reasonable. It has limited ammo. It uses a ton of power on your ship, so you have to leave it disabled or sacrifice other things, especially on a combat ship like a Vulture or Fer De Lance. It takes a few seconds to do its job. You must use it before your shield runs out all the way, or else it's useless, and on ships like the Clipper the shield drops pretty fast as it is. Furthermore shields recharge super slow without an SCB, and there is no clear visual indication of how long it's going to take, like a percentage number. Just those three blue rings. Why can't the shields show a percentage, or a detailed meter, like the hull does?

Based on all this, I really don't see why shield cell banks are a big deal. I see no really legitimate arguments here against SCBs, not even the one that says SCBs makes too hard to melt someone's shields in 1 vs. 1 combat, and then if you do, they just run away or log out. Well, the logging out issue is its own issue and should be addressed with its own kind of fix. If they run away successfully, it's because they have a faster ship, which means, they could've run away whether they had an SCB or not.

The argument that SCBs make it too easy to complete NPC-hunting missions is simply a lie. In my Clipper with the best possible SCB, I can barely pirate 5 canisters of cargo from an NPC before running all the way out of SCB ammo, unless I kill them (and for undermining missions you lose 20 merits when you kill them). If I take on an Anaconda and it has any form of support wing, I still risk death, even with an SCB. From my perspective anyway, it really does not feel overpowered, and further, why should YOU care I do when I play PVE? If you don't like SCBs for PVE, then don't use them; nobody's forcing it on you. Does it really bother you THAT MUCH that another player is out there, somewhere, using an SCB? If so then, I'm sorry to say, you should probably take a break from computer games and get some perspective.

In Star Trek Online, it's generally accepted you go 1 vs. 1 against another player and simply expect one of the two people will end up as space dust. I don't know why people think that, in Elite, every 1 v. 1 fight in PVP should be like a duel in the old West where one of the players always dies, and nobody ever runs away. You're just making the SCB the scapegoat for your being butthurt over someone having escaped your nerd-wrath. How about just getting a wing of friends together and outfitting your ships for maximum DPS, then use actual strategy and overwhelming firepower and numbers to eliminate your target? That's basic military strategy in just about any universe.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

The argument that SCBs make it too easy to complete NPC-hunting missions is simply a lie. In my Clipper with the best possible SCB, I can barely pirate 5 canisters of cargo from an NPC before running all the way out of SCB ammo, unless I kill them (and for undermining missions you lose 20 merits when you kill them). If I take on an Anaconda and it has any form of support wing, I still risk death, even with an SCB. From my perspective anyway, it really does not feel overpowered, and further, why should YOU care I do when I play PVE? If you don't like SCBs for PVE, then don't use them; nobody's forcing it on you. Does it really bother you THAT MUCH that another player is out there, somewhere, using an SCB? If so then, I'm sorry to say, you should probably take a break from computer games and get some perspective.

I do support SCBs and would rather they remain for the most part unchanged, however I take issue with this paragraph.

1) I know the clipper has pretty meager shields but if you can get five canisters before completely running out of SCBs, something is definitely wrong with your strategy.

2) Someone else using something you feel shouldn't be used is indeed quite a problem. You are being forced to use them if you wish to remain competitive. Just because I don't combat log, does that make it okay for others to? Should I feel like I need to take a break and get some perspective if I get upset when someone combat logs? Another example, if I like high waking from piracy, and I don't do it, does that make it wrong for me to become upset if someone else does it?

No, not really. Within reason, at least. I mean, if you start screaming at the screen then yeah, you probably need a break.

 

[Vitamin Arrr]

I do support SCBs and would rather they remain for the most part unchanged, however I take issue with this paragraph.

1) I know the clipper has pretty meager shields but if you can get five canisters before completely running out of SCBs, something is definitely wrong with your strategy.

2) Someone else using something you feel shouldn't be used is indeed quite a problem. You are being forced to use them if you wish to remain competitive. Just because I don't combat log, does that make it okay for others to? Should I feel like I need to take a break and get some perspective if I get upset when someone combat logs? Another example, if I like high waking from piracy, and I don't do it, does that make it wrong for me to become upset if someone else does it?

No, not really. Within reason, at least. I mean, if you start screaming at the screen then yeah, you probably need a break.

1) Yeah I think I overstated that. I can probably do 2 or 3 runs of 5 each, TBH. But not if the cops show up.

2) I was referring only to PVE here. Sure, in PVP, I think you have a right to be annoyed if another player combat-logs—as I said, that's its own separate issue, which needs to be addressed in an update, because it's an exploit. You also have a right to be annoyed if they escape via high-waking, because that also seems like an exploit. Using an exploit to avoid death is dishonorable and players should be banned for doing that stuff, IMHO.

What I do in solo mode, however, does not affect you. So as long I'm not using an exploit to make infinite money, then shut up about it. Why should anyone else care if I use SCBs in solo mode against NPCs? As far as PVE is concerned, just play the game however you enjoy it, and don't worry about what others are doing. "You are being forced to use them if you wish to remain competitive." No, not in PVE you're not... nobody's forcing you to do anything, and you are also not forced to be competitive. You wishing to be competitive is not the same as someone forcing you to do something. You're only being forced if you have no choice in the matter.

For that matter, nobody is entitled to "remain competitive." Even if this game was like Halo used to be, where everybody in PVP matches had exactly the same stats and the same access to gear, and pure skill was the only separator, even then, the man or woman who put in the most time practicing and was born with the right twitch-genes, will probably beat you. If you have to work 8 hours per day, commute 45 minutes each way, and take care of a family, you'll never "remain competitive" against kids with no responsibilities who spend every waking second playing the game.

Life ain't fair. It's not fair that some people don't have to work, and can play games 12 hours per day because they have a trust-fund or are on government paychecks for a disability. Should Frontier ofer to pay people, so that those of us with jobs can quit, and not have to work, so therefore we can play the game just as much as people with no lives, so we can "remain competitive"? The reality is that, in MMOs, people with busy lives can never compete against people with no lives, unless maybe the game is pay-to-win, and even then, it's seldom worth it, and then the kids who don't have to work and who can play 12 hours a day, will complain, because they feel entitled to being rewarded somehow for having wasted their precious time on this planet playing a video game, because that's the only place in their lives they actually have a chance to be superior to someone else.

Almost everyone on MMO forums everywhere universally thinks there is some magical thing about their own situation that means the game developer tailor or change the game so that they won't ever get annoyed or pwnd. Because god forbid you ever die, or fail to kill someone else. To compensate for their lack of actual skill in the game, they make up for it by posting messages on the forums incessantly whining about stuff that results in them not getting their actual way inside the game itself. It sickens me when developers actually bow to this kind of whining, and reward people for this behavior.

Of course, because this was a Kickstarter-funded game, the players feel a bit more stake in how the rules are set up, and take extra umbrage to changes that are counter to what they had originally wanted. And I'm sure the opposite argument could be made as to why SCBs should be in the game, since maybe they were put there because of people whining, for all I know. Either way, it is the way it is now, and SCBs are really the least of our worries. I'd prefer to us focus on coming up with suggestions to improve PowerPlay and add better social features than see this game go through endless rounds of people whining about PVP combat, which people will always do no matter what Frontier does, because someone will always be butthurt when they suck at PVP, and will always blame the game, and will always complain about it on the forums.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

What I do in solo mode, however, does not affect you. So as long I'm not using an exploit to make infinite money, then shut up about it.

Again, prefacing with I completely agree that SCBs aren't nearly as big an issue as people make them out to be. They're fine. We are in agreement about this.

However, things people do in solo do affect me. Even if I cannot witness it and even if I have no idea it's happening - everything another CMDR does affects my galaxy. This is true for every game mode except shadownban.

If another CMDR undermines using SCBs, their SCB use affects my galaxy when the system goes into turmoil.
If another CMDR escapes an NPC pirate using submit jump, their escape affects my galaxy when the CG contribution threshold is pushed out of my reach.

etc etc.

 

[Vitamin Arrr]

Again, prefacing with I completely agree that SCBs aren't nearly as big an issue as people make them out to be. They're fine. We are in agreement about this.

However, things people do in solo do affect me. Even if I cannot witness it and even if I have no idea it's happening - everything another CMDR does affects my galaxy. This is true for every game mode except shadownban.

If another CMDR undermines using SCBs, their SCB use affects my galaxy when the system goes into turmoil.
If another CMDR escapes an NPC pirate using submit jump, their escape affects my galaxy when the CG contribution threshold is pushed out of my reach.

etc etc.

Er, I'm still kinda new and don't know all the undocumented game mechanics yet. How does escaping an NPC pirate affect a "CG contribution threshold"? For that matter, what is a "CG contribution threshold?" And what does it have to do with SCBs?

Anyway I do see your point about how SCBs could affect the outcome of PowerPlay, but I'm not sure how that affects you as a player, since your income from your Power remains the same regardless of what happens to the Power. You can still fortify and get merits... or am I missing something?

Also what is "shadowban"?

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Er, I'm still kinda new and don't know all the undocumented game mechanics yet. How does escaping an NPC pirate affect a "CG contribution threshold"? For that matter, what is a "CG contribution threshold?" And what does it have to do with SCBs?

Anyway I do see your point about how SCBs could affect the outcome of PowerPlay, but I'm not sure how that affects you as a player, since your income from your Power remains the same regardless of what happens to the Power. You can still fortify and get merits... or am I missing something?

Also what is "shadowban"?

The post was illustrating different ways that personal player actions that I may be completely unaware of could influence my game.

If a system I like flips and its black market disappears or a station changes hands, then other players have absolutely affected me as a player.

 

[Vitamin Arrr]

Require more capacitor management when using shield cell banks.

I disagree. It's a cell, i.e. a battery. Batteries should not require power management to use.

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.

No, devs... please don't do this. The current mechanic is perfect. If you drop someone's shields, they are screwed for two minutes. That's much more rewarding.

Make Cell banks require power to hold their charges

Again, this is stupid, please don't do this. Shield cells are single-use batteries and should not lose their charge over time.

Make SCB's generate lots of heat when they overcharge shields

"Overcharge"? What does that even mean? Like punish players for firing a shield cell accidentally when their shield is already full, by making it get really hot? It ought to be punishment enough that they just wasted one of their crucial shield cells. Please don't add some additional penalty.

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.

Please don't do this, either. It would make SCBs less useful and less fun.

Summary

Dear devs: All of these anti-SCB or change-SCB threads are really just about one thing: "make it easier for me to kill other players without enlisting the help of a wing, because I'm too anti-social to do that." Don't listen to these manipulative sociopaths who want you to ruin a perfectly good game feature by nerfing it into oblivion so they can pwn people more easily. Their idea of "fun" is when they don't have to worry if another player's ship is actually tankier than theirs, so they can go around ganking people. Bow to these kinds of players' twisted desires and this game will suffer, not improve. There is already a very steep penalty for death: it's expensive. The current SCB mechanic helps you hunt longer and survive better, but it is far from OP. PLEASE keep it how it is.

Signed, Rationality