The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[kofeyh]

SCBs are used, because they are available.

If they are changed and something else is available, the meta will change. This argument is self-fullfilling in its navel gazing that will be repeated when you get what you want and FD add something else/ or change utility counts and people just stack something else instead.

Rather than forcing the game to adapt to you - adapt to the game instead.

People are creative and will always find a way to min/ max a build.

Endless complaints about SCBs letting people get away with more crime, isn't a problem with SCBs. It's how crime is managed. Conflating various issues simply hides the actual causes.

 

[Jesse30]

When the CQC instance style of areas become integrated intot he game.... Elite will be made alot funner.

What? Are they going to do that? Nice one I am looking forward for that.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

When the CQC instance style of areas become integrated intot he game.... Elite will be made alot funner.

On the subject of CQC, the CQC sidewinder has a cooldown on SCB use. Why not integrate that into the main game?

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Well, I will give another change for the python... Tomorrow.

What are these "plenty of tricks" if I may ask? I may have use for those

Using boost and/or FAOFF to flip your ship around or slide as needed. It's just a matter of practicing flying with a couple extra tools in the box, and knowing when to use them. Practice around a station or some other structure that allows you to easily keep your directional orientation, it makes learning what you're doing right and what you're doing wrong a lot faster.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

SCBs are used, because they are available.

If they are changed and something else is available, the meta will change. This argument is self-fullfilling in its navel gazing that will be repeated when you get what you want and FD add something else/ or change utility counts and people just stack something else instead.

Rather than forcing the game to adapt to you - adapt to the game instead.

Oh gosh am I sick of this argument. This isn't about winning or losing or having a meta, this is about having interesting, exciting and diverse gameplay. SCBs currently are simply unfun to fight with and against. And because they are the only viable option, especially in PvP, it limits people's options for gameplay, which is unhealthy for the game as a whole.

 

[Cruis.In]

Can bigger ships get an increase in shield cap and recharge then if scbs are gone? I find it hilarious that a 56m ship the python has 294 shields compared to 124? For a 140k ship. There's almost no point in flying the python, if you nerf scbs. (For combat i mean) Or anaconda.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Can bigger ships get an increase in shield cap and recharge then if scbs are gone? I find it hilarious that a 56m ship the python has 294 shields compared to 124? For a 140k ship. There's almost no point in flying the python, if you nerf scbs. (For combat i mean) Or anaconda.

Something has to be done about shield recharge rates. They should be much higher with shields down on larger ships. However the mild inconvenience of having to wait for shields to come back is a lesser evil compared to literally running out of ammo trying to break through a Duracell Conda's SCBs

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

SCBs are used, because they are available.

If they are changed and something else is available, the meta will change. This argument is self-fullfilling in its navel gazing that will be repeated when you get what you want and FD add something else/ or change utility counts and people just stack something else instead.

Rather than forcing the game to adapt to you - adapt to the game instead.

Endless complaints about SCBs letting people get away with more crime, isn't a problem with SCBs. It's how crime is managed.

If they're stacking something else then that needs to be balanced also. Assuming that it's impossible to balance modules so that players have to make legitimate choices and trade-offs is it's own form of navel gazing.

Can we trust FD to balance every module they introduce? No. But by being absolutely relentless in our pursuit of forcing them to listen and make adjustments we can at least get them into the habit of trying, which they have not shown to date.

 

[Don_Von_Hulio]

What? Are they going to do that? Nice one I am looking forward for that.

Im pretty sure the reason why they made CQC a seperate instance like it is is to see how people perform and use the map as well as its impact on their systems. Id be very surprised if FD denied this claim.... otherwise all the work in making those environments would be wasted imo.

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

Rather than forcing the game to adapt to you - adapt to the game instead.

Unfortunately some ship's are completely incapable of "adapting to the game" and they're in the game not just people talking about the game. The game has devolved into.
.
Want to PvP? Buy a Conda Cliper or Python and fill it to the brim with one module.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

I disagree SCB stacking is not really helping traders at all, traders have shields as it is a few SCB's wont save them after all.

I disagree with that. As someone who has traded in open since day one SCB's have saved me many times, much more than during PVP where I use less because of the ship I fly

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

If they're stacking something else then that needs to be balanced also. Assuming that it's impossible to balance modules so that players have to make legitimate choices and trade-offs is it's own form of navel gazing.

Can we trust FD to balance every module they introduce? No. But by being absolutely relentless in our pursuit of forcing them to listen and make adjustments we can at least get them into the habit of trying, which they have not shown to date.

*sniff* I miss my Torpedo's/Seeker Missile's.....

 

[Alexander the Grape]

*sniff* I miss my Torpedo's/Seeker Missile's.....

Torpedos ironically are excellent murder weapons. The trick is that it's only good against armour, and in this meta, if you get their shields down, you've basically won anyway

 

[Kastor]

What will happen is hundreds of trade condas, T9's and T6's will die faster and send another large batch of players to solo.

It will likely limit the use of "large" ships in pvp battles because when you are being focused you need to tank damage. If they whack SCB with the nerf bat they need to balance that with massive hull upgrades to bigger ships and massively reduce the damage class 1 and 2 weapons do to larger, A class shields.

Trade and Stacking SCBs are mutually exclusive by definition, you can't carry 5 SCBs and a lot of cargo at the same time. Stacking SCBs are what we are against. The optimium solution has always been one that still allows traders to survive a bit longer while not making the aggressor near invincible. If anything a change would help traders as pirates would no longer be able to ignore the damage from small escorts and the traders own guns.

But sure, if it proves to be a problem I will be open to buffs to big ships after SCBs get hit.

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

Trade and Stacking SCBs are mutually exclusive by definition, you can't carry 5 SCBs and a lot of cargo at the same time. Stacking SCBs are what we are against. The optimium solution has always been one that still allows traders to survive a bit longer while not making the aggressor near invincible. If anything a change would help traders as pirates would no longer be able to ignore the damage from small escorts and the traders own guns.

But sure, if it proves to be a problem I will be open to buffs to big ships after SCBs get hit.

Point taken.

 

[Kastor]

I can only assume that the CMDRs who are shouting the most about nerfing SCBs are the elite PvPers. Why would you nerf something that is designed to save your ship when so many are already afraid to fly in Open. It would push even more into Solo, is that what we want?

The opposite is true, most arguing are mid tier. The "elite PvPers" enjoy and abuse the mechanic, that's what is meant when we say "Shield Meta". Meanwhile I don't think I've ever seen a trader actually saved by SCBs.

 

[kofeyh]

If they're stacking something else then that needs to be balanced also. Assuming that it's impossible to balance modules so that players have to make legitimate choices and trade-offs is it's own form of navel gazing.

Can we trust FD to balance every module they introduce? No. But by being absolutely relentless in our pursuit of forcing them to listen and make adjustments we can at least get them into the habit of trying, which they have not shown to date.

Relentless in making everything the same as everything else because "balance". If you want diversity, demanding flexibility be removed does not make a good argument.

Larger shields should take longer to regenerate. That's not abnormal. That's actually pretty logical. SCBs are used to keep shields going. So to change SCBs requires a fundamental rethink of shields.

Frankly I don't think FD are going to go near shields again anytime soon. Is SCB staking annoying? Probably. But to change that really needs a bit more thought than just force into utility slot (making anacondas suddenly able to stack 8 SCBs, freeing up spots for hull reinforcement - yay now they are even harder to kill! Success!; fer-de-lance would become the new Python, causing yet another thread of people whining) or setting a slot count limit; because even just a single SCB is enough to send some into an apoplectic fit.

I believe the entire mechanic needs work; but nerfing SCBs in the interim dosn't really achieve anything. I personally don't think SCBs are a great mechanic. But right now they are the only fix to slow shield regen; hanging the slot count doesn't just affect PVP.

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

Torpedos ironically are excellent murder weapons. The trick is that it's only good against armour, and in this meta, if you get their shields down, you've basically won anyway

Really? Against what ship's? I tried two medium rack's against an NPC Gunship(like you said I always knock out shield's first) and all 4 combined did 25% damage to hull...was very disapointing...

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Relentless in making everything the same as everything else because "balance". If you want diversity, demanding flexibility be removed does not make a good argument.

Larger shields should take longer to regenerate. That's not abnormal. That's actually pretty logical. SCBs are used to keep shields going. So to change SCBs requires a fundamental rethink of shields. Forcing a limit instantly makes every Anaconda the walking dead.

And it wouldn't just be the 'conda affected. Frankly I don't think FD are going to go near shields again anytime soon. Is SCB staking annoying? Probably. But to change that really needs a bit more thought than just force into utility slot (making anacondas suddenly able to stack 8 SCBs; fer-de-lance would become the new Python.

I believe the entire mechanic needs work; but nerfing SCBs in the interim dosn't really achieve anything.

Things can be different without one thing being massively overpowered.

They aren't gonna put them into utility slots so don't worry about that. A nerf would increase the tactical decision making in outfitting and make certain ships (gunship, FAS, dropship in particular) far more viable in combat because armour tanking would be a viable alternative to shield tanking.

You don't "remove flexibility" by having multiple options with different strengths and weaknesses. When one option is the only viable one, it's not a decision at all, and leads to cookie-cutter ships

 

[{SAS}Stalker]

You cant really strive for "balance" in a game like Elite where you have a hierarchy of ships, there needs to be an imbalance otherwise why bother progressing? I know it will never happen but I personally think that low class weapons should do barely any damage to high class shields, I think it should take several tens of minutes in a 1v1 scenario because you should be worried about pitching a 2m ship up against a 600m one.