The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
I totally agree with you. PvP tends to get all the attention because NPCs don't complain, but the way it makes PvE trivially easy is actually so much worse. I wonder how many people who bounty hunt in SCB stacked ships for hours on end burn out from boredom because they're never in any actual peril.
It also means FD can't balance based on risk (have risky high paying professions/missions) because everything is risk free to competent pilots thanks to SCBs
Last edited:
Think about it... earlier when your shields are perhaps ok... will the weight of fire continue?
You could waste the cell or be too late.
You still get a problem with balancing if we assume the balancing is meant the way it is currently implemented in the game. With only one possible shield cell bank you have one major problem: Some ships have enough spare energy and a high biggest possible slot to fit the best SCB as you describe it. These ships are not necessarily the same ships which profit the most from SCBs today -> new ship balancing required. I already gave you an example (FAS vs. FDL). So I will give you annother: Python vs. Anaconda. Both ships normally use a class 6 slot for their best SCB, but the Python often has very much power left. The result: The Python could fit a class 6A SCB without compromise (6,4 MJ? left with pulse lasers/multicannon loadout and full boosters) where the anadonda may only fit a 6B (4MJ left with 7 boosters, multis and pulses). So suddenly the Python tops the anaconda regarding SCBs. This must not be bad, but at least it's very hard to balance.
Hard to balance is better than the current situation (blatantly unbalanced)
Possibly you misunderstand, or my explanation is lacking?
If we consider my battle Python, it has (at least ) FOUR SCBs. Which are run in pairs at a time. For example four 5A SCBs.
My proposal is:-
1) We are only allowed one SCB module.
2) The existing modules (1E to 6A) are rebalanced such that they mimic a good cross section of the existing configs, say 1E to two 6As run in parallel, and even above.
3) Class 1 & 2 give you say one cell. Class 3 & 4 give two. And Class 5 & 6 give you three.
4) Each cell can only be used once per X minute. eg: 8.
So we may end up with my my Python might then be fitted with say a 5A SCB which for all intents and purpose used the same amount of energy, and replenishes my shields the same, as my current TWO 5A SCBs. So no change there at all, except for maybe mass? And definitely less cargo space used!
I'd maybe get 9 ammo with that module, so not a lot of difference there either.
The big difference is, I cannot now use more cells at a quick rate. In a 5-6 minute fight, I could only use three for example, instead of the current half dozen and counting.
So in summary, my proposed solution would result in little/no difference in energy use, shield regeneration... Simply reduce the amount of times you can use SCBs in a given time window..
I moved your solution to the front of this thread, hopefully FD will see it one day.
After mulling for a week...
I have to think it would make sense to require a power draw from SYS to power an SCB much like a weapon does. Bigger SCB, more drain to SYS.
That would add more functionality to SYS, which except for charging shields is sort of useless. Oh yeah, it powers chaff, but not really a noticeable amount of power.
How many are loaded would be irrelevant in a battle, since you would have to divert power from engines or weapons to power the SCB, so there is a balance there. Keeping the current trigger/reload delays, I think there is a suitable balance mechanism there.
A commander could decide strategically to have more than one, but the SYS battery charge requirement would mean one large or possibly two small ones could be fired at any one time before not having enough to fire another charge. Draw from the battery to do normal recharging of the shield means really 2 to 3 pips to sys to use SCB continuously. (Courier can chew up almost pips to SYS when shields are recharging, I am pretty sure it is not the only one).
That leaves very little power to run engines or weapons if you want to SCB tank. Much like running a Plasma or Railgun is hard if you are constantly draining the WEP battery with beams.
Recap:
1. No change to SCB mechanism.
2. ADD requirement for sufficient SYS battery to trigger SCB, just like a weapon.
Balance achieved by forcing tactical management of SYS/ENG/WEP and limiting damage output to run SCBs.
I have to think it would make sense to require a power draw from SYS to power an SCB much like a weapon does. Bigger SCB, more drain to SYS.
That would add more functionality to SYS, which except for charging shields is sort of useless. Oh yeah, it powers chaff, but not really a noticeable amount of power.
How many are loaded would be irrelevant in a battle, since you would have to divert power from engines or weapons to power the SCB, so there is a balance there. Keeping the current trigger/reload delays, I think there is a suitable balance mechanism there.
A commander could decide strategically to have more than one, but the SYS battery charge requirement would mean one large or possibly two small ones could be fired at any one time before not having enough to fire another charge. Draw from the battery to do normal recharging of the shield means really 2 to 3 pips to sys to use SCB continuously. (Courier can chew up almost pips to SYS when shields are recharging, I am pretty sure it is not the only one).
That leaves very little power to run engines or weapons if you want to SCB tank. Much like running a Plasma or Railgun is hard if you are constantly draining the WEP battery with beams.
Recap:
1. No change to SCB mechanism.
2. ADD requirement for sufficient SYS battery to trigger SCB, just like a weapon.
Balance achieved by forcing tactical management of SYS/ENG/WEP and limiting damage output to run SCBs.
Last edited:
Thank you for taking the time to explain it, it's getting clearer now. The suggestion is not bad, I like the nice buff for traders, but my point is still valid. Let's assume your class 5A SCB is ok for the python now (maybe the same as before but with more time between the "main" charges), but is it enough to fill the shield of the anaconda as it was before? (and like I said, your new power restriction is more against the anaconda than against the python)
To make it clearer we can take two virtual ships before your new mechanics and afterwards. Ship one has 20* class 6 internals and ship two 2* class 7 and plenty of power available....
Last edited:
I really like this idea. Makes them less spammable but not removes them completely. It gets rid of what I tihnk is the main problem with them (spammable, can still fly extremely offensively)
now you can feel nerf too...
I just got nerfed?
Not sure where you have the idea that the Python has plenty of power to spare. I have an A-spec'd Python, currently 2 large gimbaled beams, 1 large gimbaled pulse and 2 medium gimbaled pulse. With 4 shield boosters, I'm just below the total power that the best power plant has to offer. It's not a combat Python, just a multi-purpose Python, like it was originally designed for. I only have one 3A shield cell bank. One 3A FSD Interdictor, one 4A fuel scoop, a 5A prismatic shield generator and the advanced scanner. That's it. That consumes 29.90MW of the total 30MW available.
Do I detect the work of a merge hammer?
I like it! Additional we should remove the possibility for constant chaff spamming and I'm happy.
OK... So if we assuming for example a new 5A SCB module = two old 5As in all matters, except the limit of three uses per X minutes?
Well, maybe a 6A is akin to something like having three 6As SCBs. ie: Over 600Mj of recharge, and the same energy requirement too (as having three current 5As or 6As). That's enough to fully recharge the most tanked up Anaconda's shields from empty to full. And it's basically not changing any behaviour other than using less cargo space/mass and limiting the player to three uses in X mins.
Indeed, if you want, offer a class 7E --> 7A version too with continues up the scale offering basically yet more energy usage and shield recharging combinations of current SCBs, and above it too! Or simply give the 7 version about the same performance as class 6, for with more energy usage, and with four cells (instead of three). ie: Four uses per X mins instead of three!
Last edited:
Greetings
SCB's should be limited to one per ship, they should release a more varied range of SCB's with more ammo slots and/or a rechargeable version that has one shot then as suggested needs to draw power from SYS to recharge.
SCB's should be limited to one per ship, they should release a more varied range of SCB's with more ammo slots and/or a rechargeable version that has one shot then as suggested needs to draw power from SYS to recharge.
That would happen by default.
If you drain SYS completely, chaff does not work.
So while you could... you could not SCB spam too. One would throw off the other.
This solves the problem without creating special cases like some of the others do. it uses current methods and limits and applies them consistently to all systems.
Last edited:
You're right, it only requires a fair amount of testing to figure out how much power should be drained for each SCB and also for chaff (since now I havn't even registrate that chaff drains power
). Nice!