The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[Muetdhiver]

Armor tanking is at the moment just good enough to have a chance to leave.
Some exception is the FAS, which can tank for a while and even fight with the powerplant down with good power management.

However, if your thrusters get downed, its over.

IMO when speaking about SCB's nerf, one should speak about armor buffs, repair (AFMU) and retaining partial thruster capacity when they reach 0%.
The combat would be more interesting if shields could go down/up/down in a combat and if you had to repair stuff in battle.

not just fight => shields down => flee

^^ I think snarfbuckle and me have slowly converging opinions somehow

 

[raok]

carefull, if you overbuff hull it's getting dangerous in terms of shipbalance. because any ship not having enough hardpoints to laod a variety of Lasers and ballistics.will suddenly be extremely inefficient.because they need a huge amount of time to get through shields AND a huge amount of time to get through hull. While a ship able to carry more guns than its Weap energy can supply will simply carry a shieldbraker and hullbreaker set of wepaons and switch to the needed configs. And this ship will then have it easy vs shields and easy vs hull.

Every ship has at least 2 hardpoints?

If "energy vs hull" and "kinetic vs shield" would be more radical -> That itself would make ships to last longer. True.
A ship that can change configs, has easy vs shield and easy vs hull -> Would still split its dps to 2 set of weapons -> ~dps/2.

And btw. there are shield, hull and modules. While it could take longer to break the hull, the modules might go down rather fast. Fatal damage could be done far before the hull is down to 0. -> Shield protects from everything, hull does not.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Armor tanking is at the moment just good enough to have a chance to leave.
Some exception is the FAS, which can tank for a while and even fight with the powerplant down with good power management.

However, if your thrusters get downed, its over.

IMO when speaking about SCB's nerf, one should speak about armor buffs, repair (AFMU) and retaining partial thruster capacity when they reach 0%.
The combat would be more interesting if shields could go down/up/down in a combat and if you had to repair stuff in battle.

not just fight => shields down => flee

^^ I think snarfbuckle and me have slowly converging opinions somehow

Yeah drive sniping needs to be looked at. Completely taking them offline is a bit too much like killing someone (though good for piracy)

They definitely shouldn't be able to fight back properly, but some degree of at least rotational control (perhaps bringing your ship to an emergency halt as well?) Would make it a bit less drives down=dead

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

The "if SCBs were removed, CMDRs would just leave when their shields went down" argument is flawed.

Now that armour tanking isn't destroyed by module sniping, the reason commanders leave is because of SCBs: they know that however strong their hull, it doesn't compare to the strength of SCBs and they will get whittled down.

If SCBs were removed, then coming back when you have no shields is much more likely and people would stick around and fight to the death more

true, and instead of leaving when shields are down, they could now still leave when shields are down after SCB's are drained. So SCB's just delay the time to run, but not entirely change this behavior. and I you know the opponent has just 3x as much shields as you within his shieldbanks, a short "taste" of the battle will already tell you if its your or his shields going down first. And there is no need to pointless enlenghten a battle if you are on the side of the one that SCB's are empty first.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

^^ I think snarfbuckle and me have slowly converging opinions somehow

Well, I dont want SCB's to go away and neither should boosters - they feeel like a ham-handed approach and need a lot of fine tuning.

But I did not realize that Armour costs were so skewed between ships - I did know it's was silly that I had to pay TWICE for my ship to get any good armour which in itself is stupid.

Armour
-Expensive
-Repair costs
-Arbitrary pricing compared to modules
-HEAVY
-Impacts Mobility
-Modules take damage even IF you have armour

Armour should be damn cheap with all the above drawbacks but an Anaconda wanting proper ballistic protection have to pay around 500 million just for HULL+ARMOUR.

Thats INSANE.

Armour should be a miniscule cost in comparison to shields with all those drawbacks.

 

[Muetdhiver]

Yeah, and then you have to consider that an anaconda with military hull is not able to bounce MC rounds.
These should just glance harmlessly on it. Same for C1 cannon on reactive armor, or small lasers on a large mirrored hull.

And yeah, SCB's need some delicate tweaks, along with armor and stealth to make the combat gameplay more complex/interesting.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

Every ship has at least 2 hardpoints?


A ship that can change configs, has easy vs shield and easy vs hull -> Would still split its dps to 2 set of weapons -> ~dps/2.

.

Not true!!! many ships can wield more guns than their wepaon energy can support. Thise ships do then not half their dps. They will just take the set of guns being most efficient vs the current opponents defense. Thats why this system is bringing a heavy imbalance, since every ship that has not a huge exceed in ahrdpoints cna not do so. They will in first palce have to wield shieldbreaking weapons or never be able to break the first barricade. and then have a pointless choice of weapons for the second barrier. and when with a low amount of hardpoints, they mix, they will just take long for both barriers.
Also, Hauler afaik has only only hardpoint.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Yeah, and then you have to consider that an anaconda with military hull is not able to bounce MC rounds.
These should just glance harmlessly on it. Same for C1 cannon on reactive armor, or small lasers on a large mirrored hull.

And yeah, SCB's need some delicate tweaks, along with armor and stealth to make the combat gameplay more complex/interesting.

Yea, it seems all ships have ABLATIVE armour that simply shaves off in pieces instead of hardened armour.

But making armour a LOT cheaper should add a bit more options to tanking and might make some shield tankers stay on the field WHEN their shields go down.

But I really do not think the most expensive armour should cost more than the most expensive shield the ship can fit.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Not true!!! many ships can wield more guns than their wepaon energy can support. Thise ships do then not half their dps. They will just take the set of guns being most efficient vs the current opponents defense. Thats why this system is bringing a heavy imbalance, since every ship that has not a huge exceed in ahrdpoints cna not do so. They will in first palce have to wield shieldbreaking weapons or never be able to break the first barricade. and then have a pointless choice of weapons for the second barrier. and when with a low amount of hardpoints, they mix, they will just take long for both barriers.
Also, Hauler afaik has only only hardpoint.

Actually, this would restore the intended balance IMO.

The Vulture, for instance, is meant to be limited by only having two hardpoints. In practice this is not much of a limitation because two pulse lasers are all you need to get through shield, and still are decent vs hull.

The Federal Gunship by contrast, currently has too many hardpoints than it can effectively use with its power distributor. Compared to the python(a multirole) this combat specialist is at a disadvantage.

However, if hull and shields were more equally balanced, then having more hardpoints for greater weapons flexibility becomes more important, and the intended balance is restored

 

[NeilF]

Sandro Sammarco reply to SCB issue https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=179079&p=2762176&viewfull=1#post2762176

So we get:-

...one idea I'm personally quite interested in is the concept that cells overcharge your shields to unsafe levels, beyond the generator's normal capacity, potentially damaging your shield generator (and thus causing malfunctions/destruction) if during the time the cell is active the shield *doesn't* receive enough damage to drain it down to below the generator's normal maximum. We haven't checked all the angles on this idea (and there are others), but at face value it seems potentially cool to me.

...so rather than just addressing the main issue that SCBs can happily be used so out spam another player (eg: bring 5 along to simply out SCB a CMDR with crazily only 1), we get some other convoluted mechanic?

Just allow one SCB, which only allows 1-3 uses over a short'ish period depending on size. And can have a reasonable amount of ammo (eg: 6-10)? eg: - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=150794

 

[Alexander the Grape]

So we get:-



...so rather than just addressing the main issue that SCBs can happily be used so out spam another player (eg: bring 5 along to simply out SCB a CMDR with crazily only 1), we get some other convoluted mechanic?

Just allow one SCB, which only allows 1-3 uses over a short'ish period depending on size. And can have a reasonable amount of ammo (eg: 6-10)?

As happy as I am that a balance change is likely, I think that Sandro and his team are over thinking it somewhat. A complex solution could work, but complex solutions always have workarounds. For instance, you can turn off SCBs mid-recharge preventing damage to yourself.

Frankly I think they just need to compare the total maximum HP given by each set of SCBs compared to equivalent armour, and balance accordingly.

SCBs aren't a fundamentally flawed mechanic, they are just too strong, MJ wise

 

[NeilF]

As happy as I am that a balance change is likely, I think that Sandro and his team are over thinking it somewhat. A complex solution could work, but complex solutions always have workarounds. For instance, you can turn off SCBs mid-recharge preventing damage to yourself.

Frankly I think they just need to compare the total maximum HP given by each set of SCBs compared to equivalent armour, and balance accordingly.

SCBs aren't a fundamentally flawed mechanic, they are just too strong, MJ wise

Just limit them down to one SCB module per ship at the very least, and adjust their charges accordingly...

Question: Do we see NPC Pythons with 5 SCBs units?

 

[Muetdhiver]

But I really do not think the most expensive armour should cost more than the most expensive shield the ship can fit.

This. especially considering the vast difference in effectiveness.

 

[CMDR Kantos Kan]

From what I've read so far in this thread, it seems that the entire logic of ship hulls, shields, weapon damage and effectiveness against specific lines of defense would need a thorough analysis so that everything is re-balanced appropriately...

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Just limit them down to one SCB module per ship at the very least, and adjust their charges accordingly...

Question: Do we see NPC Pythons with 5 SCBs units?

NPCs do use SCBs (and I believe have no ammo limit) but are simply terrible at using them. I think they just have a threshold of shield damage before they pop one, and never use multiple at once or in quick succezsion

- - - Updated - - -

From what I've read so far in this thread, it seems that the entire logic of ship hulls, shields, weapon damage and effectiveness against specific lines of defense would need a thorough analysis so that everything is re-balanced appropriately...

SCBs have skewed the meta for so long that things will look very different if they're changed enough to make them less of a First Order Optimal Strategy. But considering the entire weapon system is due for an overhaul in 2.1 for looting and crafting now is the time to do it

 

[Muetdhiver]

From what I've read so far in this thread, it seems that the entire logic of ship hulls, shields, weapon damage and effectiveness against specific lines of defense would need a thorough analysis so that everything is re-balanced appropriately...

Indeed. And it is the correct way to approach the issue I think, rather than some of the Blunt SCB's nerfs proposed.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

 

[NeilF]

NPCs do use SCBs (and I believe have no ammo limit) but are simply terrible at using them. I think they just have a threshold of shield damage before they pop one, and never use multiple at once or in quick succezsion

Did you misread my point? Do NPCs use multiple SCBs? eg: Have five onboard a Python like a CMDR can?

I suspect not. And I suspect it's the same reason NPCs also didn't (don't) use the PowerPlant targetting nonsense, because FD realise how frustrating it would be to have it used back on us.

SCBs have skewed the meta for so long that things will look very different soon. But considering the entire weapon system is due for an overhaul in 2.1 for looting and crafting now is the time to do it

Fingers crossed then!

 

[CMDR Kantos Kan]

carefull, if you overbuff hull it's getting dangerous in terms of shipbalance. because any ship not having enough hardpoints to laod a variety of Lasers and ballistics.will suddenly be extremely inefficient.because they need a huge amount of time to get through shields AND a huge amount of time to get through hull. While a ship able to carry more guns than its Weap energy can supply will simply carry a shieldbraker and hullbreaker set of wepaons and switch to the needed configs. And this ship will then have it easy vs shields and easy vs hull.

Wouldn't the ship with less hardpoints be the smaller ships? I think it makes sense that they would become somewhat inefficient against much larger ship (Viper vs. Anaconda for example). Otherwise, what's the point in spending 400+ millions credit in a ship and outfit if the first schmock that comes around could just ruin your day?

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

Actually, this would restore the intended balance IMO.

The Vulture, for instance, is meant to be limited by only having two hardpoints. In practice this is not much of a limitation because two pulse lasers are all you need to get through shield, and still are decent vs hull.

The Federal Gunship by contrast, currently has too many hardpoints than it can effectively use with its power distributor. Compared to the python(a multirole) this combat specialist is at a disadvantage.

However, if hull and shields were more equally balanced, then having more hardpoints for greater weapons flexibility becomes more important, and the intended balance is restored

I don't see how intended balance is restored, because I juts need to compare some ships and teir amount of hardpoints to see many ships which do NOT have a purpose for combat anymore even if they are combat vessels. yes when taking the python vs FDG you may be right, but many other ships may simply slip though by this kind of balance., hauler, Type 6,7 they all just kinda get totally pointless in battle because they eon't be able to actually wield any threating weapons able to get through both barriers in a viable amount of time.

Wouldn't the ship with less hardpoints be the smaller ships? I think it makes sense that they would become somewhat inefficient against much larger ship (Viper vs. Anaconda for example). Otherwise, what's the point in spending 400+ millions credit in a ship and outfit if the first schmock that comes around could just ruin your day?

n my opinion, it would be better if every ship has more hardpoints. type 7 is hardpoitn starving at all. Surely its not mean tto be a combat vessel, but with those 2 mediums you don't even try to bring ANY guns at all, because aside suicidal no shield NPC's this ship yould get pointless in battle. It would thne be better to give the type 7 4 small hardpoints so it cna at least use 2 shieldbrakers and two hullbrakers. other ships have similar problems. So the current type 7 is not only inefficient vs arge ships it would also be inefficient vs EVERY ship.

 

[Muetdhiver]

More armor HP's for the transport ships would actually be a nice buff for pirates.

Less risks of blowing up the traders while shooting their modules down.