Well said man.
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
SCBs are a bad mechanic because they don't scale linearly and have no draw backs. Shield generators get better incrementally, by class and by size. SCBs get better incrementally, but ships can also carry more of them as they get larger. This gives them an exponential scaling. Shield Boosters also have the exponential scaling problem, however, pilots can't deactivate/activate Shield Boosters and still gain their benefits.
Last edited:
Making SCB's the same as what? Other SCB's? There are no modules that SCB's could be made similar to. Everything is currently the same right now because there is no choice except SCB's. You put modules on an even playing field for their advantages and disadvantages while giving them unique mechanics. Not that hard of a concept to grasp. You will never make SCB's the same as chaff, you will never make ECM the same as SCB's. They will always remain distinct because of how and when they work.
The Anaconda can already stack 8 SCB's if they so desire, so really what you're saying is that if SCB's remain unchanged and are moved to utility slots that it has no effect on that ship. Other than giving up your chaff, heat sinks, scanners, and boosters.
Choices. They make games fun.
Python was never meant to be the de-facto mid-sized combat ship anyways. That's literally what the FDL was meant for, yet can't accomplish.
Why look at it as a heirarchy or progression in the first place? That's something other game's push, thet FDev hasn't really with ED it's just the player's pushing the "progression" talk. In fact they've gone out of their way to say "each ship has it's own advantage" and so far from my experience it's true.
What? A FAS isn't a good ship because of shields. It's because it's hull is amazing. So SCBs aren't really that useful. In fact it could be argued a shield isn't that useful on a FAS.
Which highlights a salient point. If people don't really understand the strengths of any one ship they want to impact, they're probably not in the best place to advise on it. No offence.
Frankly I much prefer FDs approach. Which at last mention was increasing the risk of damage/ upping the heat factor. That naturally governs how much each ship can use; this creates a much better risk/ reward offering.
And nerfing something to increase options? No. No one ever asks for a nerf to increase options. It's asked because the person doesn't like a mechanic, at all, or doesn't understand it, and wants it gone.
Changing the slot count reduces flexibility. Putting into a different slot class reduces flexibility. That's the point I am making. forcing constraints, naturally reduces flexibility.
Changing the dynamic. That's a whole different ball game. Changing how SCBs work would be a far more beneficial change.
Which highlights a salient point. If people don't really understand the strengths of any one ship they want to impact, they're probably not in the best place to advise on it. No offence.
Frankly I much prefer FDs approach. Which at last mention was increasing the risk of damage/ upping the heat factor. That naturally governs how much each ship can use; this creates a much better risk/ reward offering.
And nerfing something to increase options? No. No one ever asks for a nerf to increase options. It's asked because the person doesn't like a mechanic, at all, or doesn't understand it, and wants it gone.
Changing the slot count reduces flexibility. Putting into a different slot class reduces flexibility. That's the point I am making. forcing constraints, naturally reduces flexibility.
Changing the dynamic. That's a whole different ball game. Changing how SCBs work would be a far more beneficial change.
Honestly FDev's current "fix" seem's far to easy to counter with a Heat Sink or two.....What? A FAS isn't a good ship because of shields. It's because it's hull is amazing. So SCBs aren't really that useful. In fact it could be argued a shield isn't that useful on a FAS.
Which highlights a salient point. If people don't really understand the strengths of any one ship they want to impact, they're probably not in the best place to advise on it. No offence.
Frankly I much prefer FDs approach. Which at last mention was increasing the risk of damage/ upping the heat factor. That naturally governs how much each ship can use; this creates a much better risk/ reward offering.
And nerfing something to increase options? No. No one ever asks for a nerf to increase options. It's asked because the person doesn't like a mechanic, at all, or doesn't understand it, and wants it gone.
Changing the slot count reduces flexibility. Putting into a different slot class reduces flexibility. That's the point I am making. forcing constraints, naturally reduces flexibility.
Changing the dynamic. That's a whole different ball game. Changing how SCBs work would be a far more beneficial change.
And to an extent I agree but theres no balance between a viper and a T9 in the trading department, why should there be one the fighting department. My favourite daily is probably my FDL it needs balancing with an asp and a T9, can I get this added so I can carry 400 tons and 20ly hops?
However way you hope it to be, there's a hierarchy of ships. Ships advantages, to a degree should span across their class and dragging ship x down to the level of ship y because you like ship y isn't good gameplay, it just means "you"* picked the wrong tool for the job and are having problems reconciling that decision.
* not actually you
Last edited:
Never a truer statement said. Have some rep. If they nerf the SCBs, not only would PVP be affected but other aspects of the game would be and, that would maybe be deal breaker for that part and thus the endless cycle of changes. Perhaps, the powerdraw could be increased slightly so ppl would min / max vs reward/risk? But wholesale nerf or removal seems, reactionary.
What? A FAS isn't a good ship because of shields. It's because it's hull is amazing. So SCBs aren't really that useful. In fact it could be argued a shield isn't that useful on a FAS.
Which highlights a salient point. If people don't really understand the strengths of any one ship they want to impact, they're probably not in the best place to advise on it. No offence.
Frankly I much prefer FDs approach. Which at last mention was increasing the risk of damage/ upping the heat factor. That naturally governs how much each ship can use; this creates a much better risk/ reward offering.
And nerfing something to increase options? No. No one ever asks for a nerf to increase options. It's asked because the person doesn't like a mechanic, at all, or doesn't understand it, and wants it gone.
Changing the slot count reduces flexibility. Putting into a different slot class reduces flexibility. That's the point I am making. forcing constraints, naturally reduces flexibility.
Changing the dynamic. That's a whole different ball game. Changing how SCBs work would be a far more beneficial change.
The FAS is not an optimal PvP ship. I have used it extensively and due to it's weak shields and inability to stack SCBs it is at a severe disadvantage.
I do like this suggestion about heat and overcharge and whatnot. I just want them to reduce the overall megajoules it gives because no matter the drawback, if something is ridiculously overpowered compared to something else, players will find ways to get around any drawback to utilise it.
Flexibility is about choice. By having only one optimal solution that overpowers anything else (IE every slot filled with SCBs) you are reducing choice to one simple answer
- - - Updated - - -
I actually think SCBs are worse for PvE than PvP. NPC combat is a joke with SCBs
Rage all you want about "nerfs" but Elite is not your skinner box. This game is not meant to be easy. At the moment, it is, trivially so
Last edited:
I agree 110%, before SCB's you actually had to think twice before engaging an Anaconda let alone an Elite. At the moment, I could easily destroy one with a Viper.
What? A FAS isn't a good ship because of shields. It's because it's hull is amazing. So SCBs aren't really that useful. In fact it could be argued a shield isn't that useful on a FAS.
Which highlights a salient point. If people don't really understand the strengths of any one ship they want to impact, they're probably not in the best place to advise on it. No offence.
Frankly I much prefer FDs approach. Which at last mention was increasing the risk of damage/ upping the heat factor. That naturally governs how much each ship can use; this creates a much better risk/ reward offering.
And nerfing something to increase options? No. No one ever asks for a nerf to increase options. It's asked because the person doesn't like a mechanic, at all, or doesn't understand it, and wants it gone.
Changing the slot count reduces flexibility. Putting into a different slot class reduces flexibility. That's the point I am making. forcing constraints, naturally reduces flexibility.
Changing the dynamic. That's a whole different ball game. Changing how SCBs work would be a far more beneficial change.
The FAS is a good ship because it has plenty of firepower and good maneuverability. Whether it relies on shields or hull is irrelevant, because neither of those are it's strong points. Unless you're like me, and love stacking on armor and going around ramming things to brighten up your weekend.
Heat is not a balancing factor. It's too easy to manage and has no significant consequences. Same with internal damage. Modules are now protected by armor, so feel free to nuke your own modules down to 75% if that's what it takes to win the fight, especially because they won't be taking any damage at all as long as your shields are up thanks to your SCB's.
Yes, everyone has asked for a nerf to increase options. It's the only reason to ask for one. When something is overpowered it becomes the only option. If you want more options, you ask for it to be toned down. Literally the only reason to ask for a nerf is to make existing options viable again.
There is no flexibility in having SCB's as an internal, because there are no other modules to balance it against in that category. And no, armor doesn't qualify. You're either going 100% shields or 100% armor. No one divvies up their slots between SCB's and armor, because it doesn't work. If it doesn't work, it's not an option.
There is nothing wrong with how SCB's work. The problem is in how effective they are and how they interact with the different hull types.
Last edited:
Cool. So now slots get used by heat sinks that would have been used by shield boosters?
So that would be choice, and a change in game dynamic. Versus just making every ship have a maximum of one shield cell leading to calls to change something else because now a ship with a big slot can carry a very big SCB, and people then demanding the size be reduced.
It's okay to hate SCBs. But you can't really stop people from being creative until you remove all choice from the game. Because that is the logical conclusion.
It's okay, I'll agree to disagree.
Last edited:
What? A FAS isn't a good ship because of shields. It's because it's hull is amazing. So SCBs aren't really that useful. In fact it could be argued a shield isn't that useful on a FAS.
Which highlights a salient point. If people don't really understand the strengths of any one ship they want to impact, they're probably not in the best place to advise on it. No offence.
Frankly I much prefer FDs approach. Which at last mention was increasing the risk of damage/ upping the heat factor. That naturally governs how much each ship can use; this creates a much better risk/ reward offering.
And nerfing something to increase options? No. No one ever asks for a nerf to increase options. It's asked because the person doesn't like a mechanic, at all, or doesn't understand it, and wants it gone.
Changing the slot count reduces flexibility. Putting into a different slot class reduces flexibility. That's the point I am making. forcing constraints, naturally reduces flexibility.
Changing the dynamic. That's a whole different ball game. Changing how SCBs work would be a far more beneficial change.
A LOT OF US ARE ARGUING TO CHANGE THE MECHANIC!
Phew... okay.
You obviously realize that there is a problem with SCBs. Some solutions involve making SCBs worse, some involve moving or limiting them, some involve adding a significant downside or totally changing the way they work.
You seem to prefer the latter so please start arguing for those instead of saying variations of "Balance is Anti-diversity". You sound like the broken record.
The core concepts of balance is to improve diversity. Your might as well be arguing definitions with a dictionary.
Last edited:
There's a kind of heirarchy, but you messed up comparing a combat ship to a trader as noone's ever said that. They complain that the FDL and now the FGS too can't compete with a SCB stacking Python, ballance in this particular case is sorely needed(more for FDL as I think the FGS wasn't meant to be the equal to it anyway). The Python and Cliper and Conda are all considered THE ship's you need to be in to stand a chance in even a skirmish with a player pilot, because none of the dedicated combat ship's can compete in the shield meta's and the shield meta ship's can keep their shield's up so long that any armor or firepower bonus the combat ship's may have is rendered useless 90% of the time.
Preach. Sure some ships are better than others. But why should the Clipper (a 20 mill multirole) be more favoured in PvP than the Gunship (a 35 mill Combat specialist) AND be better at trading? Similarly python and FDL.
A choice, yes. A hiderance, not at all. What's my choice in a FGS? Armor stack and run from any player multi role's, it's rediculous that the combat ship's need to cower in fear from any non-NPC multi roleCool. So now slots get used by heat sinks that would have been used by shield boosters?
So that would be choice, and a change in game dynamic. Versus just making every ship have a maximum of one shield cell leading to calls to change something else because now a ship with a big slot can carry a very big SCB, and people then demanding the size be reduced.
It's okay to hate SCBs. But you can't really stop people from being creative until you remove all choice from the game. Because that is the logical conclusion.
It's okay, I'll agree to disagree.
Hurrah we agree.
The trading comment was to emphasise the point that ships within Ed are and should be unequal and nothing more.
I partially agree.
Can neither confirm not deny on the grounds of incriminating something something I forget now.
True. I'd rather see a counter to SCBs than just making them an irrelevance. But that is tied at the hip with shields themselves. Making it very very easy to cripple a shield, doesn't solve SCBs, for example. This is impactful for anyone who isn't actually running a combat vessel.
Given the rise in NPCs using rail guns and what not, making a change that impacts PVP (which lets be honest, most of the complaints are related to energiser pythons) actually will impact NPCs as well. So I'd like to see something happen that takes shields into consideration when addressing SCBs. Because they are now very much joined at the hip.
Takling one side, without consideration of the other tends to result in the sorts of violent swings we see repeatedly. One extreme to the other. Some of those I will happily hang on FD, others are purely a reaction to a demand that has been done in a vacuum, without even the slightest hint of testing.
The Python isn't actually multi-role. It's a heavy fighter that can trade. People can spin it anyway they want, but you don't stick that many class 3 hard points on a trading ship; the same with the Anaconda. They are designed to be self sufficient. That means they can be purposed into a tank.
That people use it for combat, is because FD designed it to be that way. Look at the jump range, the size of the power plant. They nerfed some aspects but left the large hardpoints and giant power supply. If it was only ever designed to be a multi-role then it's shields would be weaker and at least one of those hardpoints would be removed.
You cannot claim this thing was designed to be anything else other than a heavy fighter, or an armed security truck. It's designed to be a brute. People will turn anything into a combat ship, regardless though.
The Federal Drop Ship is lethal in a wing. It's not self-sufficient though. Which is quite clearly alluded to in it's description. FGS partly answers that. FAS is the Ferrari version. I'm all for game balance. Not just random changes to a specific module that doesn't address why it exists in the first place.
Last edited:
Makes a damn fine miner too, making sure that 160 plus tonnes of Panite, Palladium and Gold make it to the refinery.
So yeah, it is a multirole ship: a small capital ship, a secure transport and a hazardous duty miner.
Last edited: