The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[Alexander the Grape]

Well so, you were not tanking it but dodging it, that's different.

I don't act like it's impossible, but why bringing the 1v4 aspect on the table so? I'm for buffing the base shields of big ships so tanking can be easier but seriously 1v4 it should at least be very afraid if it doesn't leave directly.

ah apologies if I've drawn conclusions prematurely. I have had conversations with multiple commanders who think that SCBs should say the same because of the wing focusing issue

EDIT Plus I think I replied to the wrong commander, I meant to reply to the person you were responding to. D'oh

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

we need a module that makes shields temporarily super resilient at the cost of offensive abiliy, not regenerates them

Don't need a module for that, we already have something called pips that do exactly what you describe. You may recognize them in your avatar.

When SCB's get put on the same level as Chaff, ECM and point defense turrets they'll be where they need to be.

 

[raok]

If a ship has huge price vs other ships, why it should not be able to tank multiple ships?

I just hope that they understand, to leave corvette and cutter to the same price range as Anaconda is atm. I know Braben said differently, but I do not agree that, that would not be smart. 3 big competitive end game ships is far better option, than 2. Then balance the ships. + panther clipper I assume.

They did not create any roles for the ships. I do think that was a big mistake. They have to make big changes if they want that the cheaper ships, and smaller, do have any role in the end game.

But if FDL or Vulture can destroy Anaconda, why would someone buy Anaconda in the 1st place? That is why they should build roles, instead of just balancing the ships 1vs1.

As I said before... They could make the big ships so slow that Anaconda with fixed weapons wont be shooting Vultures. I suppose this would create depth to the game. I am sure that everyone can imagine all kind of scenarios from this kind of change, and those are most probably, nice looking scenarios.

As long as all the ships are in the same role, as 1vs1 fighters -> The more expensive ship should be better than the cheaper ones. Else it would not really make sense.

 

[Kowboat]

If a ship has huge price vs other ships, why it should not be able to tank multiple ships?

I just hope that they understand, to leave corvette and cutter to the same price range as Anaconda is atm. I know Braben said differently, but I do not agree that, that would not be smart. 3 big competitive end game ships is far better option, than 2. Then balance the ships. + panther clipper I assume.

They did not create any roles for the ships. I do think that was a big mistake. They have to make big changes if they want that the cheaper ships, and smaller, do have any role in the end game.

But if FDL or Vulture can destroy Anaconda, why would someone buy Anaconda in the 1st place? That is why they should build roles, instead of just balancing the ships 1vs1.

As I said before... They could make the big ships so slow that Anaconda with fixed weapons wont be shooting Vultures. I suppose this would create depth to the game. I am sure that everyone can imagine all kind of scenarios from this kind of change, and those are most probably, nice looking scenarios.

As long as all the ships are in the same role, as 1vs1 fighters -> The more expensive ship should be better than the cheaper ones. Else it would not really make sense.

Isn't this game supposed to heavily reward skill? There's nothing skillful about grinding for a bigger ship and then pushing a button to not die.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

If a ship has huge price vs other ships, why it should not be able to tank multiple ships?

I just hope that they understand, to leave corvette and cutter to the same price range as Anaconda is atm. I know Braben said differently, but I do not agree that, that would not be smart. 3 big competitive end game ships is far better option, than 2. Then balance the ships. + panther clipper I assume.

They did not create any roles for the ships. I do think that was a big mistake. They have to make big changes if they want that the cheaper ships, and smaller, do have any role in the end game.

But if FDL or Vulture can destroy Anaconda, why would someone buy Anaconda in the 1st place? That is why they should build roles, instead of just balancing the ships 1vs1.

As I said before... They could make the big ships so slow that Anaconda with fixed weapons wont be shooting Vultures. I suppose this would create depth to the game. I am sure that everyone can imagine all kind of scenarios from this kind of change, and those are most probably, nice looking scenarios.

As long as all the ships are in the same role, as 1vs1 fighters -> The more expensive ship should be better than the cheaper ones. Else it would not really make sense.

Because price is only mildly relative to performance in combat?

All you need to run off an Anaconda is a Viper and a competent pilot, SCB's or not. Price has nothing to do with that. When you buy a multi-purpose ship you're paying for it's multi-purpose features, not it's combat features.

Simple concept.

 

[raok]

Isn't this game supposed to heavily reward skill? There's nothing skillful about grinding for a bigger ship and then pushing a button to not die.

And did I say something that disagrees with that?

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

And did I say something that disagrees with that?

Yes. You said I have credits so I don't have to fly. I just have to chug potions until you make enough mistakes for me to catch up.

 

[raok]

Because price is only mildly relative to performance in combat?

All you need to run off an Anaconda is a Viper and a competent pilot, SCB's or not. Price has nothing to do with that. When you buy a multi-purpose ship you're paying for it's multi-purpose features, not it's combat features.

Simple concept.

Well, there is no sense to create a very expensive ship and then trash the stats.

Did I not just say that they should make roles for the ships, and not just balance 1vs1? Simple concept?

Yes. You said I have credits so I don't have to fly. I just have to chug potions until you make enough mistakes for me to catch up.

Maybe you should read again.

 

[Kowboat]

And did I say something that disagrees with that?

... your entire post, yes.

 

[kofeyh]

Don't need a module for that, we already have something called pips that do exactly what you describe. You may recognize them in your avatar.

When SCB's get put on the same level as Chaff, ECM and point defense turrets they'll be where they need to be.

When shield regen is actually tied to the size of its class, the capacitor and generator combined, then you might have a point. In the mean time it's a horrible cludge that sort of works but is a bit busted.

Boosters are already in the same class as chaff, ecm and what not. Issue isn't where the module(s) sit, it's the underlying cause of why they exist that would benefit most from attention.

 

[raok]

... your entire post, yes.

Pls, read the post again.


I really do hope it is not that hard to get the point. If it is, read my earlier posts in this thread.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Well, there is no sense to create a very expensive ship and then trash the stats.

Did I not just say that they should make roles for the ships, and not just balance 1vs1? Simple concept?




Maybe you should read again.

^ See above. Majority vote.

Nobody said anything about changing the Anaconda. It's just fine. This is a thread about SCB's and has been for 680 posts.

What role are you going to play in a game where you're alone 99% of the time? Are we balancing the game for NPC wings now?

- - - Updated - - -

When shield regen is actually tied to the size of its class, the capacitor and generator combined, then you might have a point. In the mean time it's a horrible cludge that sort of works but is a bit busted.

Boosters are already in the same class as chaff, ecm and what not. Issue isn't where the module(s) sit, it's the underlying cause of why they exist that would benefit most from attention.

And shield boosters should be in direct competition with SCB's no? You can choose to either have more shield capacity, or to be able to recharge them briefly when they start to fall. Apples and Oranges for Fellows and.... Damnit nothing rhymes with Oranges.... You get the idea...

 

[kofeyh]

SCBs fix the slow shield gen that is exacerbated by the linear charge and boosters used to improve shield stats.

So, working backwards - you start with the cause. Review the methodology and adjust to scale it's outcome; this has an immediate knock-on affect to everything else as a consequence.

"Nerf SCBs" is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
"Correct the shield mechanics" is the fence added to the ridge above.

Won't stop people jumping. But it helps improve something that desperately needs attention and potentially makes other modules more valuable over SCBs as their inheriant value is demimished.

 

[Helgarth]

ah apologies if I've drawn conclusions prematurely. I have had conversations with multiple commanders who think that SCBs should say the same because of the wing focusing issue

EDIT Plus I think I replied to the wrong commander, I meant to reply to the person you were responding to. D'oh

Ok no problem, In Fine we are on the same board!

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

What role are you going to play in a game where you're alone 99% of the time? Are we balancing the game for NPC wings now?

Hey now, those ships that stop and spin are dangerous targets. I'm sure the fender benders have sent many commanders to the ship destroyed screen.

 

[Kastor]

SCBs fix the slow shield gen that is exacerbated by the linear charge and boosters used to improve shield stats.

So, working backwards - you start with the cause. Review the methodology and adjust to scale it's outcome; this has an immediate knock-on affect to everything else as a consequence.

"Nerf SCBs" is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
"Correct the shield mechanics" is the fence added to the ridge above.

Won't stop people jumping. But it helps improve something that desperately needs attention and potentially makes other modules more valuable over SCBs as their inheriant value is demimished.

A strange analogy. I feel it almost work though.
I definitely understand your basis though an I will agree that SCBs are a band aid to a broken shield system.

So in a different analogy, I feel we should rip of the band aid to see how bad the wound truly is.

I'd very much like to try some 4v4 combat scenarios with all manner of ships, no SCBs allowed. See if a Anni can successfully run from 4 vultures for example.

 

[kofeyh]

It's pretty easy, class 7 shields take ~5 minutes to recharge to a single ring; it's nearly 11 minutes back to full shields. A class 6 takes like best part of 3 minutes; and another 2-3 to reach 3 rings. shield boosters only make the problem worse.

5 minutes is long enough for more than one fight to start and end, let alone 11 minutes. A competent wing can do a huge amount of damage over that time. If the shields are hit again and go down, there's yet another 5+ minutes.

It is ludicrous to think that a 43-45 million credit A class shield has the same charge rate as a much smaller A class worth barely a million. But that is where we are. It takes an age because the size of the power plant, regulator have zero bearing.

The children's paddling pool and the Olympic swimming pool feed by the same size hose.

In a 1v1 scenario then it comes down to hull and jousting/ luck; symmetric versus asymmetric battle are two very different beasts.

SCBs exist and are used because of the linear nature of shield regeneration; fix the cause, rather than try to box with shadows (fix the symptoms).

 

[Abbadon]

Fd could change the SCB modules to a single... some kind of Deflector what absborbs the damage and converts it into energy to the shields. This tech does not work with ammo, it just needs time to recharge so you can use it again. It would require more skill and the amount of recharge would be based on the amount of dmg done while the deflector is active, so if you clever you can stop shooting and the poor guy wont get energy to the shields.
From E to A rating the efficency could change, and later they could even make more variant, like one is more effectve against lasers the other is better against kinetic dmg, or one could even bounce back the incoming missiles/lasers/bullets, but would not charge the shield...

I feel this mechanism is easier to ballance and even more fun to play

 

[Yokoshima]

If what you say is true, then that is a serious problem, which I think should be solved first by (temporarily or permamently)

Big ships do kinda suck. You get hit. A lot more. An absurd amount more. 3-4x as much, easily in 1v1 or 1v2 situations. All shields regenerate at a measly 1mj/s. From a point of view from the power distributor a 5A regenerates 4.3 wep/s with 4 pips. A condas is 7.2. On paper that is 67% more potential damage. But since it has a tonne of hard points it can use more kinetic weapons, so it's even better. On paper. However due to the maneuverability, save fighting other large ships, you spend a small amount of time comparatively hitting things. To make matters worse most gimballed weapons dramatically lose accuracy/damage if the target is over 1.3km. As a result the conda will do far less DPS than mid-tier ships vs. fast/maneuverable targets. And not by a little. Fly a python in a combat zone, then an IC/vulture/FAS/a clipper. And the python is a pretty agile ship for the large ones. Course there are turrets. The only downside is they are trash against small ships as they can't hit unless you keep them on point, and at that point why bother with them? Even if they DID have god like accuracy their damage is abysmal. Something like 2+ times weaker than their gimballed counterparts. They can bring an insane amount of DPS on large ships, but agile ships can bring them down just as quick if they target the PP as the can easily stay with in 800m and with an advantages angle. Right now the only real reason to fly a large ship is they can soak up a lot of damage and store a lot of SCBs so they are good for 1v3 and 1v4 PvE encounters. You can actually win, though it will cost you and those situations are rare. So why pay 550 million for an A rated conda when you can kill just as fast and for longer in most situations for 50-90 mil? I don't like SCBs as they are now, but its the only thing making big ships worth anything other than novelty, rare combat situations, and support when you have agile PC wing members. That and trading.

- - - Updated - - -

It is ludicrous to think that a 43-45 million credit A class shield has the same charge rate as a much smaller A class worth barely a million. But that is where we are. It takes an age because the size of the power plant, regulator have zero bearing.

It is a bit absurd.

 

[Yokoshima]

It's amazing how some people assume that more credits = less risk.

More credits = more financial risk if something goes wrong. If more credits didn't = less risk of dying, why not get rid of credits and just make everything free? If skill is the one and only thing that matters, then why should ED have one ship be harder to get if its supposed to be about the same as most other ships?


If a ship cost more money, it should be worth it. A conda pilot of the same skill as a viper pilot should destroy him with ease. If its not any easier, why ever buy another ship?