[RFC] Shield Booster mechanics rebalance

[lenna]

[RFC] Shield Booster mechanics rebalance (adding balanced trade-offs)

Ok, I have raised this idea in several places and it seems some are opposed and some support the idea so I thought a thread dedicated to discussing the pros and cons of the idea (and possible alternatives) would be a good idea.

N.B. I apologise in advance for the length of this OP but I feel my ideas need to be spelled out in order to avoid any misunderstanding about the overriding intent.

Overview
I think there is a general consensus that having shield strengths at very high levels relative to ship size can result in rather unbalanced and OP gameplay even when engineering is not taken into consideration.

The only approach to this that I have heard of ever being trialled in a Beta is essentially to try and introduce an artificial ceiling to the effect of boosters so that over a certain level of boost the additional boosters provide a lesser boost effect. This seems to have been thoroughly rejected by many parts of the community.

My alternative idea which I believe has never been tried (please correct me if I am wrong) is to reduce the absolute shield regen in some proportion to the amount of boost provided by shield boosters.

Detailed Baseline Proposal
Currently the maximum number of Shield Boosters you can have fitted to a ship is 8 Class A boosters which provide a baseline shield boost percentage of 160% so based on this builds of this type without engineering should still be reasonably feasible. Given this, I put forward a proposal to reduce the absolute shield regeneration rate by half the cumulative percentage shield boosters provide. This would mean that with 8 non-engineered Class A shield boosters fitted the shield regeneration rate would be reduced by 80% meaning the absolute regeneration rate would be reduced to 20% of what the baseline shield would be capable of without shield boosters.

Now with L5 engineering, I believe the maximum total potential shield booster percentage is 320% (or the equivalent of 16 boosters), this leaves us with a problem because using the shield regeneration penalty I have outlined above would lead us into negative shield regeneration rates (in theory). However, I have not disregarded this potential situation, and propose that all natural shield regeneration be cancelled out for the shield boost levels in the range 200% to 320%.

The above would mean that CMDRs would become almost completely dependent on SCBs for shield regeneration when shields are boosted to triple the base level and beyond. Given this, it is also proposed that SCBs also have their effectiveness reduced in proportion to shield booster percentages but this should not be too punishing and still feasible. Given this, I also propose that SCBs have their effectiveness reduced by a quarter of the cumulative shield booster percentage.

Using the above guidelines the following examples would be the case:-

1. No shield boosters - shield regen and SCBs at maximum effectiveness
2. 1 Class A shield booster (+20% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 90% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 95% effective
3. 2 Class A shield boosters (+40% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 80% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 90% effective
4. 3 Class A shield boosters (+60% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 70% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 85% effective
5. 2 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters or 4 Class A shield boosters (+80% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 60% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 80% effective
6. 5 Class A shield boosters (+100% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 50% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 75% effective
7. 3 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters or 6 Class A shield boosters (+120% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 40% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 70% effective
8. 7 Class A shield boosters (+140% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 30% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 65% effective
9. 4 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters or 8 Class A shield boosters (+160% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 20% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 60% effective
10. 5 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters (+200% shields) - natural shield regen would be negated, and SCBs would be 50% effective (2 SCB charges required to provide the baseline benefits of 1 SCB charge)
11. 6 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters (+240% shields) - natural shield regen would be negated, and SCBs would be 40% effective
12. 7 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters (+280% shields) - natural shield regen would be negated, and SCBs would be 30% effective
13. 8 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters (+320% shields) - natural shield regen would be negated, and SCBs would be 20% effective (5 SCB charges required to provide the baseline benefits of 1 SCB charge)

The above proposal is my preferred solution but I do have a more lenient alternative proposal to be considered...

Alternative Proposal
Given the maximum theoretical Shield Booster multiplier is 320% the shield regen rate could be reduced by a quarter of that and SCBs would remain as-is.

Using the modified guidelines the following examples would be the case:-

1. No shield boosters - shield regen and SCBs at maximum effectiveness
2. 1 Class A shield booster (+20% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 95% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 100% effective
3. 2 Class A shield boosters (+40% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 90% of the base regen rate (shields would take about 11% longer to regenerate), and SCBs would be 100% effective
4. 3 Class A shield boosters (+60% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 85% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 100% effective
5. 2 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters or 4 Class A shield boosters (+80% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 80% of the base regen rate (shields would take about 25% longer to regenerate), and SCBs would be 100% effective
6. 5 Class A shield boosters (+100% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 75% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 100% effective
7. 3 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters or 6 Class A shield boosters (+120% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 70% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 100% effective
8. 7 Class A shield boosters (+140% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 65% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 100% effective
9. 4 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters or 8 Class A shield boosters (+160% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 60% of the base regen rate (shields would take about 60% longer to regenerate), and SCBs would be 100% effective
10. 5 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters (+200% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 50% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 110% effective
11. 6 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters (+240% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 40% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 100% effective
12. 7 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters (+280% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 30% of the base regen rate, and SCBs would be 100% effective
13. 8 Max L5 High Capacity Engineered Class A shield boosters (+320% shields) - shield regen would be reduced to 20% of the base regen rate (shields would take about 5 times as long to regenerate), and SCBs would be 100% effective

I am guessing that this alternative proposal would be easier for FD to implement since it is a purely linear approach to rebalancing. I am also guessing that most people would probably find this alternative proposal more palatable since no current builds would end up with shield regeneration being completely negated.

Summary
Overall, the above proposals are intended to not be too harsh to existing builds while still addressing the OP nature of shield stacking meta-builds.

I should add I am not after any credit, praise, or other form of kudos for presenting this idea for consideration. I just ask that the idea be subjected to a fair and reasonable discussion, with perhaps the most viable and acceptable proposal resulting from this discussion given at least a chance in one of the Betas. Due to the nature of the change, perhaps it could be included in one of the public open betas.

@ Community: Now I am pretty sure the above ideas will be not be popular with at least some people but I ask you to keep an open mind and propose a viable alternative that might be widely acceptable. I believe we can rule out capping shield strength and removing engineering upgrades would not address the underlying OP baseline meta-build concept. I fully expect the above to make some of my builds a bit more challenging but I suppose that is the overriding idea, none of us should feel like we are some kind of god even when playing PvE - although personally, I do find even my limited shield booster usage almost god like at times and fun to me because of it.

 

[Earth Ultimatum IV.]

This wouldn't change anything. The MJ stackers already have no regen (come on, who is going to wait two hours for your cutter to recharge? not your friends and not your enemies) and SCBs are only used as a backup and not important already.

In PVP the MJ stackers basically fight until shield percentage is getting low and then they highwake. A static meatshield, your idea does not change anything about it. In PVE, NPCs are so bad that you'll get tired and run out of ammo before the shield percentage drops down noticably, and reboot/repair is used to bring them back to 100% between fights.

 

[lenna]

come on, who is going to wait two hours for your cutter to recharge?

Reducing the regen rate as I have proposed would make matters worse for those that overly stack shield boosters and that is the point. It becomes a real consequence for using the OP meta-builds. There is currently always a natural level of shield regeneration, it is just the shield boosters can make it seem inconsequential when overly stacked.

In PVP the MJ stackers basically fight until shield percentage is getting low and then they highwake. A static meatshield, your idea does not change anything about it.

It would reduce the amount of time they could stay in the fight and perhaps the low level of regen would make at least some think twice about using such builds.

You could also add a shield regeneration heat penalty that is significant at the higher boost levels but barely noticeable at the lower levels? However, I think that might be a bit too punitive.

If reducing shield regen and adding a shield regeneration heat penalty is not enough, then perhaps also reduce the damage resistance?

Of course it will not change much in at least some circumstances, but it is possibly a step in the right direction at least.

 

[Vingtetun]

there is a far easier solution. up the power requirements for shield boosters.
then it is a choice of what you run - stack by all means but there would be consequences.

 

[PulsarShark]

It would reduce the amount of time they could stay in the fight

No, it wouldn't.

There are only two ways shields can regenerate in combat:
SCBs
Engineer effects on a wingman's lasers

If you don't have either of those going, and your shields have been hit in the last few seconds, then your shields are not regenerating at all.

 

[lenna]

there is a far easier solution. up the power requirements for shield boosters.
then it is a choice of what you run - stack by all means but there would be consequences.

The problem with doing that is that it could break some existing builds, and we would not want some explorer stuck out 1000+Ly from the nearest dock with power management issues. In addition, I think the existing levels of power requirements are bad enough as it is. Also, I feel it would be less well received than either of my proposals in my OP. Not a bad concept though.

 

[lenna]

There are only two ways shields can regenerate in combat:

That is a complete fallacy, shields do have a natural regeneration rate (even when under fire) and it tends to be really noticeable if you use Bi-Weave shields and you manage your pips properly (like I do). Even standard shields and prismatics can regenerate in a combat environment, but it might not be quite as noticeable.

The regen rate of Bi-Weave is 1.8/s versus 1.0/s for standard shields. But I think that is just the baseline regen rate with 2 pips... not sure about the exact maths behind how the number of pips affects regen but it does.

For comparison purposes:

If a single turreted Class 1 pulse laser does 4.0/s and baseline thermal resistance is -20% that probably means an effective shield damage rate of 4.8/s which after regeneration gets reduced to 3.8/s (3.0/s if using bi-weave). Of course, add a second pulse laser and you incur the full additional 4.8/s for a grand net total of 8.6/s (7.8/s if using bi-weave).

A gimballed Class 1 multi-cannon on the other hand does 6.8/s but the baseline kinetic resistance is 60% which probably means an effective shield damage rate of around 2.3/s which after regeneration gets reduced to 1.3/s (0.5/s if running bi-weave shields. With bi-weave that effectively means a single multi-cannon can be almost completely negated. The net shield damage of 2 multi-cannons would be around 3.6/s with normal shields (or 2.8/s with bi-weave).

After doing these maths, perhaps Thermal resistant engineering upgrades to shields is not such a bad idea.

 

[PulsarShark]

shields do have a natural regeneration rate and it tends to be really noticeable if you use Bi-Weave shields and you manage your pips properly (like I do)

Perception bias. You're either getting breaks in the combat that allow actual regen to kick in, or you're just fooling yourself.

Broken shields behave differently. The shield energy is not actually being projected, so the shields can't be hit; that allows them to regenerate.

 

[TuxedoSteve]

That is a complete fallacy, shields do have a natural regeneration rate (even when under fire) and it tends to be really noticeable if you use Bi-Weave shields and you manage your pips properly (like I do). Even standard shields and prismatics can regenerate in a combat environment, but it might not be quite as noticeable.

If they did not regenerate under normal combat circumstances shields would not probably never rebuild from being broken.

When shields are online, after taking any damage there is a 2 second delay before shields begin regenerating.

The regeneration on the only shields worth HD booster MJ stacking (prismatics) is extremely low, and you'll be taking more damage because you're heavier and have to dedicate more pip to SYS. In an actual combat scenario, it's negligible and might as well not be there at all. So no, your idea really doesn't change anything in those regards.

 

[kofeyh]

To be fair, frontier tried to lower shield impact, and increase hull to compensate. They were told to, in essence, sod off. So I think it's probably wasted effort to kick the hornets nest over again. No-one here will agree on anything.

It's up to Frontier, as to whether they have the determination to make changes, regardless of protests, to shift the defence strategy from a single highly effective strategy (shields) to more than one layer. That they are now looking at core mechanics, I hope they do. Because the current situation can only go one way at this point, without (forced) intervention. Downhill.

 

[lenna]

In an actual combat scenario, it's negligible and might as well not be there at all.

Not in my experience, but then I do not mega-stack shields typically.

I do find that if I do not sufficient put pips into systems then shield resistance/regeneration suffers (sometimes critically so). In addition, putting maximum pips into systems/shields does seem to increase damage resistance and regeneration even when under fire. While there may be an initial 2s delay, once regeneration has started I doubt it stops until shields are at 100% again. On that basis there would only be a 2s gain in overall damage.

 

[lenna]

To be fair, frontier tried to lower shield impact, and increase hull to compensate.

Please explain what you mean by lower shield impact, it does not actually sound like what I am proposing.

The proposal above is a core mechanics thing, and I believe my more moderate proposal is not entirely without precedent.

While I agree that not everyone will agree, I have noted at least a few in these forums that seem to be thinking along similar lines to myself (from both PvP and PvE factions).

@ All: So far, there has been only ONE constructive response to my proposal, ONE reasonably neutral response, and the rest just dismissive negative and non-constructive responses. The idea was to discuss the general principle and come up with possible alternatives or modifications to the overriding concept. We as a community should be able to do better than this...

 

[lenna]

Perception bias. You're either getting breaks in the combat that allow actual regen to kick in, or you're just fooling yourself.

Neither, but as I have already pointed out - when under sustained fire the regeneration effect may not be always noticeable as there would still be a net decrease in shields.

As for perception bias, I could say the same about your views.

 

[Phazon Xenomorph]

To be fair, frontier tried to lower shield impact, and increase hull to compensate. They were told to, in essence, sod off. So I think it's probably wasted effort to kick the hornets nest over again. No-one here will agree on anything.

It's up to Frontier, as to whether they have the determination to make changes, regardless of protests, to shift the defence strategy from a single highly effective strategy (shields) to more than one layer. That they are now looking at core mechanics, I hope they do. Because the current situation can only go one way at this point, without (forced) intervention. Downhill.

The reason they were told "sod off" (what does that even mean?) is because despite all the buffs to hull. PA's, Railguns (especially Super Penetrator), Cannons (high yield) made for easy module destruction, neither naturally buffed hull, reactive armor, hull reinforcements AND MRPs could do anything to stop module sniping on the Big Three that are the abusers (myself included) of insane levels of shielding. Without that level of shield our only choice against a foe is to high wake or suffer the re-buy screen... and with some builds getting almost to 50 million in rebuy (and that INCLUDES with the base ship price and all modules bought in li-yong rui space for 15% discount)... you really have no choice. Unlike more mobile ships that can strafe and win and be godly...even in the most mobile and combat capable of the Big Three, the Corvette, you really can't out manuever a skilled FDL, Python, FAS, Gunship, Vulture, etc.... you're nothing but a giant bullet sponge and god help you if they have high yield cannons and packhounds. The packhounds strip the external hardpoints including weapons in about 2 salvos, the cannon will destroy all the internal modules, leaving you helpless.

Plus with things like Cascade and Reverb effects on weapons like Torps you can make those big shields useless in a single attack.

 

[kofeyh]

Please explain what you mean by lower shield impact, it does not actually sound like what I am proposing.

Correct. Because all these suggestions are shifting deck chairs around the deck and, essentially, plea bargaining. I'll give you some shield boosters if you don't take my shields away.

Because in essence, this is the problem. Shields have far more importance than they should. Shields should be part of a defensive measure. Not the defensive measure. Because whilst HRM and MRM help, the game is now built around more resistance/ more mj is good.

Bi-weaves getting much faster regen is a start. That's the first positive move we've seen so far. But it doesn't go nearly far enough. Commanders are now over-reliant on shields and addicted to resistance/ strength.

The only way to solve this, is to shift defence to be a layered approach, where shields are important, but not the only important factor. Until Frontier essentially forces the outcome, it's going to be the same argument, the same plea bargaining.

Because, although I am sure you mean well, it is plea bargaining. Offering up a thing, to keep another. Instead, I believe Frontier need to move the importance of shields. And they aren't being permitted to.

We are our own worst enemy.

 

[kofeyh]

The reason they were told "sod off" (what does that even mean?) is because despite all the buffs to hull. PA's, Railguns (especially Super Penetrator), Cannons (high yield) made for easy module destruction, neither naturally buffed hull, reactive armor, hull reinforcements AND MRPs could do anything to stop module sniping on the Big Three that are the abusers (myself included) of insane levels of shielding. Without that level of shield our only choice against a foe is to high wake or suffer the re-buy screen... and with some builds getting almost to 50 million in rebuy (and that INCLUDES with the base ship price and all modules bought in li-yong rui space for 15% discount)... you really have no choice. Unlike more mobile ships that can strafe and win and be godly...even in the most mobile and combat capable of the Big Three, the Corvette, you really can't out manuever a skilled FDL, Python, FAS, Gunship, Vulture, etc.... you're nothing but a giant bullet sponge and god help you if they have high yield cannons and packhounds. The packhounds strip the external hardpoints including weapons in about 2 salvos, the cannon will destroy all the internal modules, leaving you helpless.

Plus with things like Cascade and Reverb effects on weapons like Torps you can make those big shields useless in a single attack.

Keeping endless shields of +10 protection isn't the solution though. Frontier has to work on making shields part of the puzzle. Not the puzzle. And yes, the fact that the big three were quite vulnerable to sniping, is as a consequence of gigantic shields.

Frontier has spent a lot of time reorganising chairs for people, with varying degrees of success, rather than actually get traction on shifting how defensive module work.

Sniping, as it stands, is a consequence of epic shields. The two are interlinked, so short of overhauling the entire mechanics, I am uncertain of how much more the chairs can be moved around, without essentially rehashing the same problems.

Think it might be time for a circuit breaker. But it probably won't go down well.

 

[lenna]

The reason they were told "sod off" (what does that even mean?)

Try substituting "Sod" with certain more colourful swear words... I think you should understand my meaning

 

[lenna]

We are our own worst enemy.

Maybe, but I think there are certain very vocal segments of this community that are more intractable than the majority.

It may be plea bargaining of a sort, but that is what establishing game balance is about. Balance should be about establishing trade offs, you gain one thing but lose another. Some in these forums have been talking about a lack of sufficient consequences for our decisions... well altering how build balances work is certainly a good way to ensure there are consequences for our build decisions at least.

 

[Phazon Xenomorph]

Sniping, as it stands, is a consequence of epic shields. The two are interlinked, so short of overhauling the entire mechanics, I am uncertain of how much more the chairs can be moved around, without essentially rehashing the same problems.

Not really. Even before Engineers finding combat Anacondas in PvP was rare, and it was easily cannon and railgun fodder (granted that was also before Engineers, so railgun FDL's dominated). Big ships need big shields or the modules are sniper heaven, even without Engineers to make super shields.

 

[lenna]

Think it might be time for a circuit breaker. But it probably won't go down well.

No need for that IMO, there are plenty of ways the existing balance could be tweaked.

Shield regeneration being too high at higher levels of shields would make certain ships practically invulnerable to smaller ships. Arguably, that is a reasonable balance approach but FD may have skewered themselves with certain historic balancing decisions.

Overall, having shields in excess of 1500MJ is absurd given the current weapon and shield balance. It is largely unnecessary in the PvE setting, unless you plan on trying to solo fleets of ships in a fur-ball type combat environment.

We could perhaps go down the route of rebalancing everything but I would much rather see FD take the baby steps route and give people a sequence of gradual changes in order to give players a chance to adjust and adapt.