The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[GimpstersGhost]

The only problem with Shield Boosters is they are implemented as a subsystem with ammunition. They should have been implemented in a similar way as the Booster, using the appropriate capacitor pool for its charge.

My vision for these two systems would be for both Engine and Shield boosters to be a graded but fixed size subsystem of which only one of each can be installed. The grade determines its efficiency in converting capacitor pool energy in to the desired effect. 10-50% boost in speed or shield level. It then become just additional depth for the energy management aspect of tactical combat.

 

[Kastor]

I have Anaconda with SCB stack atm. I think it is not balanced with hull strength. I also think that Viper should not have even tiniest change against Anaconda, even against bad Anaconda pilot.

...

Direct idea for SCB issue. What if the cells could be used after you lose your shields? Those could be only used to return your shields faster?

You can lose and return shields with faster interval. Pips in shields would be once again more meaningful.


edit...

I would actually be even more extreme with balance changes.

Viper fanatics say that their Viper should be able to destroy a ship that can be more than +200 times more expensive, even ~300 times.

This kind of gamey balancing where HP bars are dropping is . In Elite I can shoot down Anaconda with a rifle if it comes to that. Because it makes 0.00001 point of dmg! Yes, rather many shots it needs indeed.

I think that military grade anaconda should take 0 damage from C2 cannons. It just could not penetrate the armor. Create more role for the ships, instead of having all in the same bucket.

And yes, Vulture with C3 cannons could do damage to Anaconda. Get a right ship for the right task, and stop this competition that I should be able to pee shot a planet with my Sidewinder.

That SCB idea is quite common and is definitely one of the better ones.

My respect for you ends there. That you want an Anaconda to be literally invincible to class 2 weapons is extremely elitist. You want to take a already harsh power curve and make it far, far steeper?

So far I have never said something like this as I just feel it is childish but at this stage nothing else fits so here goes:

This is not the game you are looking for, this sort of power curve is standard in most fantasy MMOs, I recommend you play one.

 

[Coolgroove]

I think SCBs are good, stacking SCBs is good, and even that SCBs give an advantage to ships with better internals/PP is also good. I personally don't use them, but it is a good module nonetheless.
There are two things (IMO) that make SCBs overpowered, and they will stay overpowered if no changes for those will be made:
1. ability to shoot & use SCB at the same time
2. ability to use multiple SCBs at the same time

To solve this, I think, something like this should be done:
- SCB can be used only with hardpoints retracted. And if hardpoints deployed before SCB stopped, it should cancel SCB effect.
- Only one SCB module can be fired at a time. So if there are two modules active and player "pushed the button" only one of them will fire, and on the next push it'll fire the other one.
- If more than one SCB fired (second fired when first is still in a process) it will multiply heat by 4 times, an so on.

No more "one click = full shields", no more "firing weapons while recharging shields" - I think it would be much better if SCB is just a defence module.
But most importantly - it'll be player's choice to play offensive or defensive, with no option to play overpowered offensive present today.


If you think it will make SCB useless - simply look into (for example) Vultures loadouts with "SCB only when weapons not powered" - many CMDRs use them with no problems. And I don't think it'll be more inconvenient for big ships, because bigger hardpoints take longer to deploy/retract.

edit: offensive <-> defensive

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

The only problem with Shield Boosters is they are implemented as a subsystem with ammunition. They should have been implemented in a similar way as the Booster, using the appropriate capacitor pool for its charge.

My vision for these two systems would be for both Engine and Shield boosters to be a graded but fixed size subsystem of which only one of each can be installed. The grade determines its efficiency in converting capacitor pool energy in to the desired effect. 10-50% boost in speed or shield level. It then become just additional depth for the energy management aspect of tactical combat.

That is sounding like a plausible mechanic. Putting power into System is a bit of a joke right now, and it adds a mechanic that is consistent with Engines and Weapons.

 

[Yokoshima]

That is sounding like a plausible mechanic. Putting power into System is a bit of a joke right now, and it adds a mechanic that is consistent with Engines and Weapons.

I would also like to see larger ships/ships with bigger shields recharge those shields much faster, but drain sys faster. Same way boosting takes more for bigger ships. Right now the only reason to put more than one pip in sys is if you are taking direct damage.

 

[Muetdhiver]

I agree that on the principle it sounds like a good idea. But when you look at the actual size of the sys capacitor,
it only amounts to ~10% of the full shield value.

So, if SCB's where replaced by sys capacitor banks, they would have to be huge in order to have an effect similar to
the SCB's. That would be a bit problematic... like 50 MJ base capacitor + 200 MJ capacitor bank.

Thought :

• use said sys boost mechanic instead of SCB's and replace SCB's capacitor extenders.
• have this boost useable when the shield is down (fast recharge)
• while the boost is active (e.g. 10s), have the shield resistance increased/hardened (e.g. bonus equivalent to 4pips in shields), that way the sys boost should be used reactively when coming under heavy fire.

I still feel that this would be quite a heavy nerf to heavy ships, though if it was usable to boost shield recharge when they are down, that might be okay-ish.

 

[Burlsol]

I think SCBs are good, stacking SCBs is good, and even that SCBs give an advantage to ships with better internals/PP is also good. I personally don't use them, but it is a good module nonetheless.
There are two things (IMO) that make SCBs overpowered, and they will stay overpowered if no changes for those will be made:
1. ability to shoot & use SCB at the same time
2. ability to use multiple SCBs at the same time

To solve this, I think, something like this should be done:
- SCB can be used only with hardpoints retracted. And if hardpoints deployed before SCB stopped, it should cancel SCB effect.
- Only one SCB module can be fired at a time. So if there are two modules active and player "pushed the button" only one of them will fire, and on the next push it'll fire the other one.
- If more than one SCB fired (second fired when first is still in a process) it will multiply heat by 4 times, an so on.

No more "one click = full shields", no more "firing weapons while recharging shields" - I think it would be much better if SCB is just a defence module.
But most importantly - it'll be player's choice to play offensive or offensive, with no option to play overpowered offensive present today.


If you think it will make SCB useless - simply look into (for example) Vultures loadouts with "SCB only when weapons not powered" - many CMDRs use them with no problems. And I don't think it'll be more inconvenient for big ships, because bigger hardpoints take longer to deploy/retract.

The way SCBs work is that they are effectively dumping a pre-charged cell into the existing shield system, instead of just charging the capacitor. This is why it works independent of what power is in the capacitors or what power is being diverted to shields.

I do agree on the problems though. First being that multiple shield cells can be used in quick succession. Second being that there is no downside to using shield cells in heavy combat. The easiest solution for the first is to make all shield cells work on the same cooldown, and requiring longer time between a cell has completed a charge and when the next one can be used. For the second one, the easiest solution would be to either make shield cells produce heat (about as much as charging a FSD) when being used so that firing weapons while charging has the problem of overheating, or making the shield cell drain power from weapon systems while it is working (similar to how point defense and countermeasures also use weapon power). While this doesn't mean having to retract weapons to use a SCB, it does prevent you from using weapons effectively when using a SCB unless you also want to toss out a heat sink or are using only multicannons.

 

[Deniper]

Make them incompatable with interdictors (one or the other) LOL not serious.... Am I?

 

[Coolgroove]

The way SCBs work is that they are effectively dumping a pre-charged cell into the existing shield system, instead of just charging the capacitor. This is why it works independent of what power is in the capacitors or what power is being diverted to shields.

I do agree on the problems though. First being that multiple shield cells can be used in quick succession. Second being that there is no downside to using shield cells in heavy combat. The easiest solution for the first is to make all shield cells work on the same cooldown, and requiring longer time between a cell has completed a charge and when the next one can be used. For the second one, the easiest solution would be to either make shield cells produce heat (about as much as charging a FSD) when being used so that firing weapons while charging has the problem of overheating, or making the shield cell drain power from weapon systems while it is working (similar to how point defense and countermeasures also use weapon power). While this doesn't mean having to retract weapons to use a SCB, it does prevent you from using weapons effectively when using a SCB unless you also want to toss out a heat sink or are using only multicannons.

For example
[video=youtube_share;C-9yeg6oLds]https://youtu.be/C-9yeg6oLds?t=38s[/video]
I did this myself, on my first, second .... time PvP in my Clipper, and this is ridiculous! Shooting, ramming and recharging shields at the same time, ridicilous...


I don't feel like draining WEP capacitor is a way to go, because it seems like a "bad patch just to do something about it". WEP capacitor doesn't affect shield systems, so it souldn't affect SCB.


Extra heat only won't solve those problems. In my FDL rails loadout I can fight with 110-140% heat for a long periods of time, and it's no problem - just dock and fix it. Credits is not a valid argument here also.


That is why, I think
- SCB can be used only with hardpoints retracted. And if hardpoints deployed before SCB stopped, it should cancel SCB effect.
is very effective solution.

 

[Warriorsfortune]

I think devs added this to increase the engagement time, SCBs have caused an increase too much!
now PVP battles can go on for too long, and no matter how you put it, SCBs do have negative effect!
I run clipper and do use SCBs in conflict zones, have saved my ass and millions of Credits.
In my opinion solution could be if SCBS causes increase of temperatures to near critical level...as then you cant do phew phew and boost boost as it will cause module damage.

 

[Muetdhiver]

Heat in itself would not solve the issue I agree.

Maybe double heat damage to the power distributor and shield sub-systems.

That way, too much SCB's = fried shield.

 

[EUS]

No already, no to nerfs.

 

[Starender]

No already, no to nerfs.

i second that, NO TO NERFS !

 

[Cruis.In]

You need to look at pvp videos, your claim that battles go on too long is farce. One-one battle with 2 scb stacked ships might be 8 minutes. With wings its like 3-10, and thats over MULTIPLE engagements.

 

[despiser]

Removing anything is a bad idea. Personally, I'd like to see more variety. If someone wants to fill their slots with them then that's their choice. Imposing outfitting of any kind is a bad idea

 

[raok]

That SCB idea is quite common and is definitely one of the better ones.

My respect for you ends there. That you want an Anaconda to be literally invincible to class 2 weapons is extremely elitist. You want to take a already harsh power curve and make it far, far steeper?

So far I have never said something like this as I just feel it is childish but at this stage nothing else fits so here goes:

This is not the game you are looking for, this sort of power curve is standard in most fantasy MMOs, I recommend you play one.

Good Sir, this comment is a bit rude to be honest. You also missed the point, so I do suggest you to read and think my posts in this thread again.

 

[Kastor]

Good Sir, this comment is a bit rude to be honest. You also missed the point, so I do suggest you to read and think my posts in this thread again.

"I also think that Viper should not have even tiniest change against Anaconda, even against bad Anaconda pilot." You said this.

That sounds like your point and even if that's not your point it's still used as part of an argument for one so I will still counter it. Such a draconian power curve will only ever serve to dissuade starting and middling players alike.

Find me one successful multiplayer RPG where it is literally impossible for a end game player to be beaten by a starting player that also has unrestricted PvP.

I stand by my previous comment on the subject until you do.

- - - Updated - - -

Removing anything is a bad idea. Personally, I'd like to see more variety. If someone wants to fill their slots with them then that's their choice. Imposing outfitting of any kind is a bad idea

Currently much variety is lost due to SCBs. Sure it's still a choice on a basic level, but if someone wants to engage in multiplayer action effectively it stops being a choice. They must equip SCBs to be competitive. In a way it's implementation is imposing far more rules on outfitting that it's removal or limitation would.

 

[KellyR]

I think an ace in a viper should have some chance of taking a newbie Anaconda pilot. Maybe not a huge chance but they should have a chance. But contrawise, an ace in an anaconda should always beat an ace in a viper. If they are both using their equipment the way it's supposed to be used, then whoever has the more powerful equipment will have the advantage. And that goes for real life too. An experienced captain commanding a cruiser should pound an experienced captain commanding a destroyer or a frigate. But a cruiser commander who doesn't know what he is doing is likely to get a very rude awakening from a veteran commanding a destroyer. And a veteran commanding a frigate probably won't sink him, but that cruiser will be in a bad way when it's done.

 

[Kyle Brennan]

I barely even play the main game anymore, the only time I get on the main game is to fly my Python and do some trading. Every time I have an PvP encounter it comes down to who has the most SCBs, please at least look into giving us a counter to SCB stacks, so why even bother looking for conflict in open when you could do the same with CQC without the aid of health poison. Does anybody else agree? at least in a real world scenario you know the only way to counter a tank is hit it from the back or the top, at least give us that option to find a weak spot to give us more game-play options, like choosing between fast and agile or slow and strong.

An example of good combat gameplay, I didn't need SCBs to accomplish that,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XARXJdyBzlY

So because you suck at combat everyone should suffer?

- - - Updated - - -

I think an ace in a viper should have some chance of taking a newbie Anaconda pilot. Maybe not a huge chance but they should have a chance. But contrawise, an ace in an anaconda should always beat an ace in a viper. If they are both using their equipment the way it's supposed to be used, then whoever has the more powerful equipment will have the advantage. And that goes for real life too. An experienced captain commanding a cruiser should pound an experienced captain commanding a destroyer or a frigate. But a cruiser commander who doesn't know what he is doing is likely to get a very rude awakening from a veteran commanding a destroyer. And a veteran commanding a frigate probably won't sink him, but that cruiser will be in a bad way when it's done.

It is not pilot skill, it is sheer weight of firepower, a kitten in a conda will kill anything you like in a small fighter.

 

[Defacto]

So because you suck at combat everyone should suffer?

- - - Updated - - -


It is not pilot skill, it is sheer weight of firepower, a kitten in a conda will kill anything you like in a small fighter.

That is pretty crappy, really.
I'm not saying that a Viper should be capable of beating an Anaconda in a straight-up pitched battle, but the E so many posters seem to envision, where the ''PvP balance'' is divided into tidy little tiers where anything bigger beats anything smaller sounds horrible. I'm happy that FD seems to realize this, at least partially.

Also, Anaconda = Armed Merchant. Python = Armed Merchant. Imperial Clipper = Armed Merchant.
Repeat this 3 times.

They're not combat ships. Really, they aren't.

Yes, they're used in CZ's, but Type 9's used to appear in conflict zones.