Either english isn't your first language or I need some sleep, that's gibirish to me.
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
Either english isn't your first language or I need some sleep, that's gibirish to me.
It has to multi function to be worth using a large hard point on. So reloading, refueling and repairing. (all at cost of course). You shouldn't limit such a item to a specific faction.
No other ship's are built to armor tank so it'd be useless on them anyway. Re-reading it seem's a bit of both.
Last edited:
No other ship's are built to armor tank so it'd be useless on them anyway. Re-reading it seem's a bit of both.
ASPs would be light armor tanks if it wasn't for SCBs. Plus it's very important for Explorer teams, after a 1000 jumps you've probably accidentally dropped out enough to bring your hull down low.
I guess you've got a point there.
If you neuter the ability for Anaconda to defend itself, from even a single medium or small combat ship, you are effectively removing it from the game. I'm sorry but to assume commanders are all going to line up in droves to throw tens of millions of credits down the lavatory, every time they try to take an anaconda out of dock, as some sort of honourable suicide pact, is extraordinarily hopeful.
This is going to be true for the newer big ships as well. If they are ludicrously expensive and undefendable outside of a wing, less people will use.
SCBs need work. So do shields. Removing SCBs doesn't fix the reasons for their use. Review and sort out the underlying mechanics, then you can actually figure out how SCBs fit into the mix.
Class 7 and 8 shields have the same regen rate as a class 1. All shields have the same (IIRC) flat regen rate. Regardless of power or regulator. That is non-sensical. And that is, imho, where changes need to start.
Last edited:
TOTAL BULL. Without SCBs an Anaconda can one on one any ship, it's fantastic pitch makes sure of that, with perfect flying it can even best a pair of vultures.
Sorry, I didn't express my point very well. I was not talking about an Anaconda "tanking its way to victory" .. I was talking about the Anaconda having a chance to survive a 1v4 situation for long enough to high-wake out. The idea is that if a player starts to use SCBs then his WEP will be empty for a longer period of time (a minute or so maybe?). The ship would go into a defense mode where it can tank damage but is longer able to fight back. It would give large multi-role ships a good chance to survive unfavorable situations without making them OP as attack vessles.
Last edited:
So add some ARMOUR to the damn thing then? It's not like you DONT have enough module slots for armour mods.
With military grade armour, a 7A shield and X3 S6 SCB's you have enough space to add X3 5D armour mods and X3 4D armour mods.
That ship now has around 3000 armour
With X4 0A shield boosters you also have 1260 shield HP and 15 SCB charges
NEUTER the Anaconda from defending itself? Hyperbole much?
Thank you. Anaconda was tough long before SCBs and it will continue to be tough long after.
i found all this discussion ridicolous... Find people defendind SCB so badly is incredible:
First of all, if you remove or limitate the use of SCB, you do that for ALL players, basically change the conditions for all the gameplay...well we are going into a MASSIVE balance problem:
If elite would be ''Dangerous'' only insane players put their ship alone in an SSS or into an HAZres, instead, i can go into them with my python and do all the stuff i want without any danger, gain some million, and come back to nearest station with 99% hull in the worst case
Another problem is the weapons variety: missiles, mines etc are nearly useless, and obviously the Point defence turrets or countermeasures are left alone, and we prefere locate a ridicolous amount of shield boosters in our utility mounts.
i'd allow 2 scbank racks just for trading dedicated ships, as the T9 , but overally they would have A LOT of hull for defend theyrself from pirates and griefers attacks, 1 rack for multiroles and no SCB for dedicated fighters, considering the advantages in firepower , maneuvering, and number of Hardpoints.
if the balance would be done in that way,you find a situation where any players have advantages and disadvantages.
Plus, remember that large ships already can escape because the masslock mechanics, so not a big problem surviving until FSD is back online.
Small ships, in wings would have a role again, and anyway, a wing of 4 FDL can destroy a T9 easily, but not a single one as it happens now.
So basically,
trading ships: poor shields, strong hull, 2 SCB, poor utility mount - poor agility,poor firepower,
Multirole: great shields, medium hull, 1SCB, good utility mount - medium agility, good firepower
Fighters: good shields, weak hull, no SCB, great utility mount - great agility, great firepower
Integrate missiles and mines properly in game,allowing people to use many different loadout and playstyles and you have a great situation balance.
At the moment the only way that makes this game dangerous is the amount of SCBanks into a griefers wing...nothing less, nothing more, and since there is a module SO powerful to force people tu use them, the game will be never balanced properly....my 2 cents.
First of all, if you remove or limitate the use of SCB, you do that for ALL players, basically change the conditions for all the gameplay...well we are going into a MASSIVE balance problem:
If elite would be ''Dangerous'' only insane players put their ship alone in an SSS or into an HAZres, instead, i can go into them with my python and do all the stuff i want without any danger, gain some million, and come back to nearest station with 99% hull in the worst case
Another problem is the weapons variety: missiles, mines etc are nearly useless, and obviously the Point defence turrets or countermeasures are left alone, and we prefere locate a ridicolous amount of shield boosters in our utility mounts.
i'd allow 2 scbank racks just for trading dedicated ships, as the T9 , but overally they would have A LOT of hull for defend theyrself from pirates and griefers attacks, 1 rack for multiroles and no SCB for dedicated fighters, considering the advantages in firepower , maneuvering, and number of Hardpoints.
if the balance would be done in that way,you find a situation where any players have advantages and disadvantages.
Plus, remember that large ships already can escape because the masslock mechanics, so not a big problem surviving until FSD is back online.
Small ships, in wings would have a role again, and anyway, a wing of 4 FDL can destroy a T9 easily, but not a single one as it happens now.
So basically,
trading ships: poor shields, strong hull, 2 SCB, poor utility mount - poor agility,poor firepower,
Multirole: great shields, medium hull, 1SCB, good utility mount - medium agility, good firepower
Fighters: good shields, weak hull, no SCB, great utility mount - great agility, great firepower
Integrate missiles and mines properly in game,allowing people to use many different loadout and playstyles and you have a great situation balance.
At the moment the only way that makes this game dangerous is the amount of SCBanks into a griefers wing...nothing less, nothing more, and since there is a module SO powerful to force people tu use them, the game will be never balanced properly....my 2 cents.
Last edited:
People here a considering that PvP extends beyond 1v1. An anaconda has to be able to tank 4v1 fire long enough to escape / allow its buddies to bring down the pain.
Otherwise, as soma said, you effectively remove the anaconda as an option. And CMDR's will not throw away 30M at each PvP battles. Seriously, are you that rich ?
Also, when tanking, an anaconda firepower is quite reduced (You got 2 pips left for eng/weap).
In my experience 1v1 PvP is rather rare and mainly done by large combat ships on unwilling small, non-combat ships, or is organised/planned in advance.
Oh I agree that a Anaconda would have a hard time 4v1. But the comment I was replying to said "If you neuter the ability for Anaconda to defend itself, from even a single medium or small combat ship, you are effectively removing it from the game.". That's a total false basis.
Any ship should have a serious tough time 1 vs 4, even if its 4 sidewinders vs an anaconda it shoud be tough fight. With SCB stacking it makes it easy.
-If SCB's are properly balanced or even removed would that not also extend to the ATTACKERS of this hypthetical Anaconda?
-If this also applies to the attackers are not the playing field just the same?
-Also, an Anacondas firepower is only reduced as long as all pips are into shields, you do have ARMOUR as well I hope. Or are all ships suddenly fragile baloons that pops if the shields are gone?
It is false basis from the point of view that yes, the anaconda will still be in the game.
It will just not be seen in open. No one will put 30M on the table (or if they do it will no be for long) if small / med ships trash it for 1/10th of the cost.
The turret / gimbal chaff interaction make it so that small vs conda boils down to : will my chaff spam last longer than you SCB spam. It is very sad.
What you want can be reformulated as : I want small/med ships to be able to spam chaff longer than you can with SCB's.
And please, don't come out with a LTP argument. If two competent pilots face off in vulture vs anaconda, the anaconda will not be able to use fixed weapons.
IMO the issue with the SCB's are more a symptom of unbalanced gameplay than imbalance by themselves.
So, large nerfs to SCB's will likely make the perf/cost ratio of large ships garbage, which will push them out of open (likely). Unless this gap between cost and utility is somehow filled by something else.
Here is the way I would "fix" the issues.
It will just not be seen in open. No one will put 30M on the table (or if they do it will no be for long) if small / med ships trash it for 1/10th of the cost.
The turret / gimbal chaff interaction make it so that small vs conda boils down to : will my chaff spam last longer than you SCB spam. It is very sad.
What you want can be reformulated as : I want small/med ships to be able to spam chaff longer than you can with SCB's.
And please, don't come out with a LTP argument. If two competent pilots face off in vulture vs anaconda, the anaconda will not be able to use fixed weapons.
IMO the issue with the SCB's are more a symptom of unbalanced gameplay than imbalance by themselves.
- Ship cost increase exponentially (sqrt(10)^x, as do modules. Their performances, on the other hand, increase linear/quadratic (x to x^2). This makes balance hard. If ships perf goes as fast as cost, all bellow is trash. If perf raise too slow with cost, large ships are trash in terms of cost effectiveness.
- The higher the "class" of the ship, the wider the gap between perf/cost. In the anaconda, a large part of the gap is filled by SCB stacking.
- Small ships have to use chaff, that are a must-have vs turrets / gimbal. There is no partial counter to chaff (160 tons 8A sensors, sorry these are useless...). Agility and good piloting only marginaly counter turrets.
- No other valuable combat internal beyond SCB's, which have very little downsides (beyond a bit of heat).
- AFMU cannot be used in battle and does nothing to hull, hull packages are not multiplied by bulkheads, and provide far less effective HP's than SCB's, bulkheads are horredously overpriced. No amount of armor allow you to "bounce" shots (i.e. negate damage). No amo-racks modules.
So, large nerfs to SCB's will likely make the perf/cost ratio of large ships garbage, which will push them out of open (likely). Unless this gap between cost and utility is somehow filled by something else.
Here is the way I would "fix" the issues.
- SCB's feed on sys, one charge each. So, they need to be powered and charged. No power, no SCB's.
- Bulkheads cost reduced or utility increased. Hull packages multiplied by bulkhead bonus.
- AFMU made useable in combat (no module switch off, repairs damaged stuff automatically if toggled to do it, can repair hull).
- Automatic reloader module : refill amo a bit like AFMU does, weapon is switched off while it reloads.
- Sensor boost : can "boost" using sys pips to partially counter chaff/stealth. The higher the sensor level differential btw ships / rating, the better.
- Turrets have traverse speed that depends on their sizes. Large turrets are slower. Small ones are nimble. Turret pointing direction of ennemy ships displayed on the HUD when targeting them, i.e. can use agility to slalom between them. Turrets have an aim time (depending on size/sensors), and a max / min dispersion. This means that a good anaconda pilot can use its pitch to add to slow turrets, while to fighter can use its agility + hud to try to evade. Chaff will help you, but is not immunity and so are SCB's.
Last edited:
To be perfectly honest, with the weaponry, speed and agility the Vulture has it's pretty damn clear it's DESIGNED to hunt larger vessels like the Anaconda.
And considering the size of the Anaconda it's not really designed for dogfighting, it's a small frigate designed for turret use and a large centerline weapon to use against other large ships.
So yes, against a Vulture the Anaconda will most likely loose, just like an Eagle will most likely loose against an Anaconda.
Seems to me that the main issue here is there is no victory worth 30mill.
Given that Anacondas are very common place PvP right now it would be refreshing to see only the truely adventurous and determined use the in PvP. The still would do a lot to make it's team win, but now there is a risk to using it.
It sure would be nice to see one actually die now and then.
- - - Updated - - -
Only the best vulture pilots can stay out of the front arcs of the Anaconda, it just throws itself into reverse gear and awwwaaayyy we go.
No, as the smaller ships can carry far less SCB's anyway.
Anaconda have to tank full wing or it will die? Really?
All this discussion is about Anaconda tank against full wing now?
Why should Anaconda tank full wing of anything Vipers or Bigger? Because it costs more? Ha-ha-ha!
I think this discussion shows how broken SCB are and how players are spoiled by them being broken...
If it is a wing of Vipers - Anaconda should have only one chance - run away. But if Anaconda stays to fight - there should be nothing like "It have to tank because... whatever". If Anaconda pilot has better skills - he wins, if not - Vipers win.
If it is a wing of Vultures - single Anaconda should never stand a chance in PvP, and have a little chance in PvE (if Vultures ranks Master or bigger).
If FDL or bigger - no chance at all.
In a wing vs wing players always focus one ship, then next one ... because it is effective tactic. And here some people try to say, that Anaconda should tank it? Hahahahaha, ridiculous...
All this discussion is about Anaconda tank against full wing now?
Why should Anaconda tank full wing of anything Vipers or Bigger? Because it costs more? Ha-ha-ha!
I think this discussion shows how broken SCB are and how players are spoiled by them being broken...
If it is a wing of Vipers - Anaconda should have only one chance - run away. But if Anaconda stays to fight - there should be nothing like "It have to tank because... whatever". If Anaconda pilot has better skills - he wins, if not - Vipers win.
If it is a wing of Vultures - single Anaconda should never stand a chance in PvP, and have a little chance in PvE (if Vultures ranks Master or bigger).
If FDL or bigger - no chance at all.
In a wing vs wing players always focus one ship, then next one ... because it is effective tactic. And here some people try to say, that Anaconda should tank it? Hahahahaha, ridiculous...