Indeed! And actually the game promoting that approaching to piracy. Either the victim paying up (easily) or the pirate disabling the shipforcibly extracting cargo. But death is penalised (heavily).
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
Indeed! And actually the game promoting that approaching to piracy. Either the victim paying up (easily) or the pirate disabling the shipforcibly extracting cargo. But death is penalised (heavily).
I'm OK with Hauler, Type-6 and Type-7 getting a bit pointless in battle (I'm not saying fully pointless but a bit pointless nevertheless). I mean, if you choose to buy a Hauler, a Type-6 or a Type-7, you should be aware that you're not buying a combat ship and, for the price, you shouldn't expect them to do much if you unfortunately get into combat. They are trader ships, with minimum combat ability.
Last edited:
Yeah I can't count the number of times I've accidentally popped a T6 or 7 after missing the drives. They all have massive hull mass, some of that should be converted to armour
IMO traders and multipurpose should have weak shields but strong hull: less good in a sustained battle but more survivable on the defence/running away
Good God, not another SCB thread! I really wish you people would stop crying about them. They don't need removed or nerfed. If you are unable to defeat an opponent who uses SCBs then you need to rethink your weapons load out strategy.
As has been pointed out countless times, they don't make you invulnerable and they take a while to come online so just keep hammering the shields. Remember they are useless once the shields are down.
I can and do defeat SCB spamming pilots on a daily basis. This is not a whine thread. This is a discussion about how SCBs are unhealthy to the game as a whole
From the Suggestions Forum, where I looked at the larger issue:
First let me say that the armor info posted at the end was done my by "Guild" mates, not me. But that info, plus discussions on shields and shield batteries, the nerfing of torpedos, etc, triggered the following observations.
Under the current system, armor plays little if any role in combat. Losing the shields means for most commanders a quick exit from combat. This is surprisingly unsatisfying, and results in an over reliance on shield batteries.
Moreover, missiles and torpedoes, which are only effective if shields are down, are not a very smart choice for the majority of CMDRs. Some adjustment must be made to make them useful.
Lastly, the removal of insta-death on power plants highlighted the problem of the uselessness of targeting individual modules, even though this ought to be the hallmark of a good commander, picking the right subsystems to disable.
So I would recommend the following tweaks:
That means for a pilot without torpedoes they are going to have to take out subsystems to cripple the ship before destroying it. This puts subsystems back on the menu for methods of destroying larger ships.
It also makes armor types much more critical, see below on results of testing existing armor types.
The consensus from the testing is that small ships may want to run Mirrored armor, since energy weapons track them better than projectile. Likewise, large ships are likely to get hammered by projectile weapons and Torp/missile, so Reactive armor is probably better.
Middle of the ground ships are going to have to decide if their style keeps them protected from projectile, like in an FDL, or if they need to protect against energy weapons as well because of their size, like a Clipper. For mid range ships, Military might be the best option.
Recap:
Fix shields so that they are not the end all of combat.
Buff armor so that weapon type is more important.
Also buffing armor makes subsystems more critical for some weapon types.
Reactive and Mirrored become clear options and not afterthoughts. Right now armor is so weak all it does is protect you while trying to jump out.
Here is the raw data from armor testing:
First let me say that the armor info posted at the end was done my by "Guild" mates, not me. But that info, plus discussions on shields and shield batteries, the nerfing of torpedos, etc, triggered the following observations.
Under the current system, armor plays little if any role in combat. Losing the shields means for most commanders a quick exit from combat. This is surprisingly unsatisfying, and results in an over reliance on shield batteries.
Moreover, missiles and torpedoes, which are only effective if shields are down, are not a very smart choice for the majority of CMDRs. Some adjustment must be made to make them useful.
Lastly, the removal of insta-death on power plants highlighted the problem of the uselessness of targeting individual modules, even though this ought to be the hallmark of a good commander, picking the right subsystems to disable.
So I would recommend the following tweaks:
- Major buffing of the armor. Ships should be able to soak much more damage than the currently can. I would suggest a 4 to 10X buffing of armor.
- Reduction of shield battery effectiveness. There are many ideas out there, pick one.
- Adjusting of Torpedoes, such that several could take out a small capital ship like the Python or Anaconda. 4 to 6 for the python, 9 to 12 for the Anaconda. based on the relative armor strength of each with Military Grade armor. That works out to about 200 to 250 armor damage per Torp.
- Missiles to get same relative boost in strength. It would take an ungodly amount of of them to take out a large ship with missiles, they would be better for knocking an Asp or FDL down to size.
- Leave other weapons the same. This means destroying a large ship with just direct fire weapons would be a significant task. Daunting, even, given the size of the new ships coming in 1.5/Horizons.
- Ramming may need to be looked at. Given a big buff in armor it won't be effective as it is today. That may or may not be a good thing.
- Hull needs to be better protected by armor, although that might happen automatically if you buff the armor as I am suggesting.
That means for a pilot without torpedoes they are going to have to take out subsystems to cripple the ship before destroying it. This puts subsystems back on the menu for methods of destroying larger ships.
It also makes armor types much more critical, see below on results of testing existing armor types.
The consensus from the testing is that small ships may want to run Mirrored armor, since energy weapons track them better than projectile. Likewise, large ships are likely to get hammered by projectile weapons and Torp/missile, so Reactive armor is probably better.
Middle of the ground ships are going to have to decide if their style keeps them protected from projectile, like in an FDL, or if they need to protect against energy weapons as well because of their size, like a Clipper. For mid range ships, Military might be the best option.
Recap:
Fix shields so that they are not the end all of combat.
Buff armor so that weapon type is more important.
Also buffing armor makes subsystems more critical for some weapon types.
Reactive and Mirrored become clear options and not afterthoughts. Right now armor is so weak all it does is protect you while trying to jump out.
Here is the raw data from armor testing:
Ok, what should I expect from them? They can't even exceed in their tader job. Thats why they are pointless in general.
Oh nice, so its fine that the meta is just who cna spam more SCB's? hows that any kind of:
fun? balance? tactic? It's none of them.
True, not all ships would be suffering from two weapon setups. Still, not sure if this would be a balance killer. Not sure, if so extreme solution would be even needed, that it is must to have both weapon types.
Shooting drives.. I have always been wondering, why ships with multiple engines are stopped when you shoot one engine. Could it be done so that each engine is separated, and for example; if one engine is shot down, the ship continues with half speed? And is easier to masslock?
Shooting drives.. I have always been wondering, why ships with multiple engines are stopped when you shoot one engine. Could it be done so that each engine is separated, and for example; if one engine is shot down, the ship continues with half speed? And is easier to masslock?
Your very response shows the problem - "If you are unable to defeat an opponent who uses SCBs then you need to rethink your weapons load out". So you turn up to a fight, and simply because you're weapons are geared towards situation A, now you're stuffed because you need a different load out for situation B. Fight already over?
Pit two similar CMDRs against each other say in Pythons, one with a single SCB (or even two) and the other with five, and who would you put your money on? How is that good for the game? ie: The defacto standard becomes (mindlessly) load up on SCBs.
Ultimately it just makes fights longer and more drawn out, and rewards mindless spamming of SCBs. I've actually got so board during one fight, with the two of use simple SCB'ing over and over, I ended up flying off (shields at full of course and SCBs left). Just felt stupid.
No one is suggesting losing them. Simply limiting their effect/usage so that they become less of a fight decider. eg: In effect limit them to 1 unit that's been rebalanced to take that into consideration.
ps: Please stop using loaded terms against folks like "crying". Unnecessary.
Last edited:
Remove the means to tank in the main game and you end up with another version of CQC. While I understand the frustration in 1v1 encounters it is needed for large wing battles unless you want each fight to end in 30 seconds. When you become the focus of 4+ players you need a way to tank it for more than 5 seconds so your wing can react and peel off you. Again I get the frustration, when someone is difficult to crack open. However there NEEDS to be a mechanic that allows players to absorb large amounts of incoming damage. The fact that shield cells need to be activated and managed is also a bonus. As it takes away from just mindless "my ship has the better build so it wins". I honestly can't think of a better way.
Another issue that would arise the second you removed SCBs would be gank squads. A squad of 4 could rip apart single ships before they had a chance to high wake. I can just see the forest fire on the forums now.
The Devs have made hull tanking a real thing with 1.4. Even in wing fights I've seen some very interesting and successful hull tanking FASs and even gunships. these ships also have the bonus of being awesome ram ships because of the hull mass. A solid ram takes the shields clean out of the equation. Silent running builds have been around a while now.
TLDR: although it's not perfect I think combat is in a good place. If you were to get what this thread asks for you as a community would regret it, as gank squads sent you to the rebuy screen over and over again.
Another issue that would arise the second you removed SCBs would be gank squads. A squad of 4 could rip apart single ships before they had a chance to high wake. I can just see the forest fire on the forums now.
The Devs have made hull tanking a real thing with 1.4. Even in wing fights I've seen some very interesting and successful hull tanking FASs and even gunships. these ships also have the bonus of being awesome ram ships because of the hull mass. A solid ram takes the shields clean out of the equation. Silent running builds have been around a while now.
TLDR: although it's not perfect I think combat is in a good place. If you were to get what this thread asks for you as a community would regret it, as gank squads sent you to the rebuy screen over and over again.
Last edited:
And if in effect people were limited to just one SCB module (of varying sizes) which was rebalance to take that new mechanic into account?
Sheesh, just seems like another EASY BUTTON post. There are tactical ways to deal with SCBs, but people always want to nerf everything to THEIR liking. Basically wanting the full game to play like CQC. You form wings for a reason. If you run up against someone better equipped than you then so be it. Live and learn. Why even bother working to raise credits to get a good build for whatever occupation you want to persue? There's no definitive rule that says because one dude is flying a vulture should ALWAYS beat a cobra or ASP. Whatever happened to being tactical and using your head in combat to overcome your opponent? Sounds more like wanting Call of Duty in space vs learning to be a smarter fighter pilot.
The devs have said they are looking into changing a good deal about combat mechanics, but the team is split as to which direction to take. So 'till they can agree they are remaining silent.
I agree with STOP all these nerf posts, SCB's are just another tool to use, same as Chafs, do you think it would be any different in real world situations if such devices were real, well it would not be, learn to fight more tactically, if I spend millions of credits on a ship that can handle multiple chafs and SCB's that would help defend it against others hell bent on my destruction too right I would employ these tactics.
Please stop complaining and start fighting smarter.
and yes, like all games, they some will take full advantage of them, you don't need to win every fight and a good pilot knows when to fly away, but surely, knowing your opponents and their ship capabilities are just as important as knowing your own and your ships capabilities, these SCB and Chaff stacks can be defeated.
Please stop complaining and start fighting smarter.
and yes, like all games, they some will take full advantage of them, you don't need to win every fight and a good pilot knows when to fly away, but surely, knowing your opponents and their ship capabilities are just as important as knowing your own and your ships capabilities, these SCB and Chaff stacks can be defeated.
Last edited:
Can you at least read the thread please?
That is already the case. You can run with 4 beam lasers or two pulse. With the exception of a short bursts, DPS it determined by your thermal load. Two c3 pulse weapons pretty much drain all up to a class 7 with 4 pips. So 6 c3 pulse lasers is the same DPS of two. Most kenetic weapons have very, very low thermal load. So if you don't run with them your overall DPS is going to be comparatively crap, and by no small margin. Right now the main issue with SCBs is they are OP and necessary. Take a c5 HRP. I could get 240 armor, or 800 shields. Considering 240 shields is better than 240 armor its usually a no brainier. But thanks to turrets being crap, hull tanking being a bad idea to say the least, shield regen, and maneuverability/speed being vastly more important than anything else, the insanely OP SCBs are a necessary evil. At least in PvE, I can't comment on PvP.
Hi Helgarth,
I believe I did read the thread correctly hence my reply, which still stands, like most threads ref this particular issue, we always get "if I don't like something i'll scream to have it removed or nerf'd", would it not be better to have "Damn these SCB's & Chaffs, how do I go about or can anyone provide tactical advice on combating this threat".
The fact is that your last sentence has been said much much much times in this thread and has been discussed as much.
Why is it obviously our way to see things that are wrong and not yours? FD has stated that they will REWORK SCB anyway so... Event them seem to agree on that.