Proposal: SCB + Feedback Cascade Adjustment

[Frenotx]

Proposal:

• SCBs
  • SCBs no longer function while the shield is up
  • Instead, SCBs can be used to accelerate the shield rebuilding process
  • The player would still need to wait for the shields to start rebuilding (16 second delay after shields fall)
  • SCBs would otherwise function as the do now: generate heat, consume an ammunition, and dump a bunch of MJ into the rebuilding shield to speed it up
  • Excess SCB charge after the rebuild is done is lost. I.E. if your shield is only 400MJ (200MJ to rebuild) and you use a 300MJ SCB, the shield will still only come up at 50% (100MJ wasted)
• Feedback Cascade:
  • Make feedback cascade come with the following stats: -50% breach damage, +400% damage vs. SCBs
  • Makes feedback cascade do less damage to most modules, but 200% "normal" damage to SCBs. Give you a good tool for limiting someone's SCBs, but requires you to hit the actual module to utilize it. Since SCBs now only work in the shield rebuilding phase, you will definitely get a chance to try and destroy your opponent's SCBs before / during their use. On the defending side, you can fit MRPs to intercept some the damage to your SCBs to protect them, but be warned- the MRPs will be taking a pounding if your opponent is successfully hitting your SCBs with feedback cascade rails (since they're intercepting double-damage rail attacks)

Why:

• Shields are not terribly fun to fight against. The hitbox is bigger (less aim needed), none of your damage sticks, and the entire module targeting / damage system is irrelevant. Slogging through the shield, only to watch all your progress get erased (over and over again) by an SCB is very frustrating. It feels like you're not making any progress, since you can't even see their SCB ammo going down.
• This proposal would make sure that all shield progress "stick". Tearing down someone's shield guarantees that you'll get at least 16 seconds to do some damage to their hull and modules. From the defending side, you only have to worry about 16 seconds or so of vulnerability before you can potentially rebuild your shield again with an SCB.
• Allows CMDRs to potentially counter SCBs even if they don't have that one special effect, by way of targeting and shooting the SCB module while the opponent's shield is down
• Allows CMDRs to defend against feedback cascade rails, by way of having MRPs and AFMUs, and / or by angling their ship to "hide" the module from fire. Big ships can reliably field SCBs against smaller faster ships, as long as they're prepared.
• This moves feedback cascade in line with the rest of the module targeting / damage / repair mechanics, instead of it existing as its own edge case
• Makes armour more relevant in general, even to a more shield-focused ship.

 

[Riverside]

You know what's more annoying than fighting to get a massive shield down?

Being attacked by some loony bent on causing grief.

You are over-complicating this.




Just get rid of SCBs all together, along with shield boosters, hull & module reinforcements and all special weapon effects.
There you go, more fun, PvP fights are shorter, and the PvE/PvP gap is closer.

 

[Deefrize]

Reposting :

I like this idea but.. i dont remember who post old concept for scb's


The idea was the following:
- Remove SCB completely and allow to recharge shields from SYS
- Depending on the size of the power distribution there will be a charge capacity (for example 1E = 60MJ , 1D = 70MJ , 1C = 80MJ , 1B = 90MJ , 1A = 100MJ and for 8A = 800MJ)
- Depending on the size of the power distribution it will have cooldown for X minute per press
- it still can be cascaded by rails
- it will also overheat ship after pressing button like SCB


So.. there will be no "Double banks" and "stacking banks" , cooldown and this still requires heatsinks.


Its not mine concept , i saw it 1-2 years ago , FD seen this but no one word about this..
sorry for my poor English.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Or, make heat a thing again-

A heat weapon hitting shields gets its effects magnified by the amount of shield reinforcement via booster stats. So if you have x8 boosters then you are going to be really hot compared to a basic shield.

In combat it might be that many drop shields, and that colossal octoboosted shield walls are a death sentence in certain cases, just as in others when they are virtually impregnable.

 

[CMDR BOSLEY]

This render feedback cascade redundant when you can just use a superpentrator or anything else and destroy any module you want quickly once the shields drop. There is nothing wrong with the current implementation, this just screams i want instant gratification quick kills with out stratedgy or skill.

 

[Konnivar]

Good idea, but I think it would be easier to implement more ways of countering the current way SCBs work then completely reworking SCBs themselves. Right now there's only one option to stop SCB charging: Feedback Cascade on Railguns. Adding Feedback cascade to another weapon, ex. Dumbfire missiles, would help with the problem.

Also, SCB spam is a symptom of the greater problem that is shield and shield booster stacking. I'm with the assessment that engineers have made both of these seriously overpowered and a soft and hard cap should be applied to the boost % that can be applied to a shield.

 

[Riverside]

You know what's more annoying than fighting to get a massive shield down?

Being attacked by some loony bent on causing grief.

You are over-complicating this.




Just get rid of SCBs all together, along with shield boosters, hull & module reinforcements and all special weapon effects.
There you go, more fun, PvP fights are shorter, and the PvE/PvP gap is closer.

For the sake of clarity (and to bump the actual suggestions thread rather than the announcement thread) the game, the Devs, and the playerbase overall are as happy as they could reasonably be expected to be with the current ratio of defence vs offence.

If the defence is reduced, offence needs to be too, such that both come down by the same percentage. If we (for example) halve both the offensive and defensive potential of all ships & loadouts, we maintain the status quo as far as the meek feeling safe is concerned, while also reducing TTK in PvP. TTK in PvE is a red herring, the AI can be adjusted, or the OP can find a different challenge (eg alien stuff) where there are no SCBs.

 

[Hooplah]

Duplicate thread per Lets Fix SCBs. What you did't post enough in the other one? Time to close this one.

 

[Frenotx]

Duplicate thread per Lets Fix SCBs. What you did't post enough in the other one? Time to close this one.

This is my specific idea / suggestion. The point of that thread was to try and get people thinking about other possible solutions, and encourage them to post said ideas here. Unfortunately, people seem far more keen on arguing than actually discussing game design ideas.

 

[Riverside]

Unfortunately, people seem far more keen on arguing than actually discussing game design ideas.

That this is a surprise to you, is a surprise to me It's your thread, manage it.

But I guess there's no such thing as bad publicity, right? People are talking about it, ideas are generally being gathered along with the various desires & concerns, a pattern will emerge. I have a different view on how to approach these kind of problems but I support the general idea of bringing PvP & PvE optimal builds closer together, and this does go in that direction.

 

[Frenotx]

That this is a surprise to you, is a surprise to me It's your thread, manage it.

But I guess there's no such thing as bad publicity, right? People are talking about it, ideas are generally being gathered along with the various desires & concerns, a pattern will emerge. I have a different view on how to approach these kind of problems but I support the general idea of bringing PvP & PvE optimal builds closer together, and this does go in that direction.

I'm glad you appreciate the importance of closing the gulf of difference between PvP and PvE fits. This, honestly, is one of the biggest things holding back combat balance right now- nearly everything else is just a contributing factor to that one core problem.

As far as managing my own thread goes- that's hard to do when I'm asleep. That's also hard to do when I don't feel like staring at the forums endlessly. Contrary to how it may seem at times, I DO have other things I do in life. People talking on the thread is helpful to some degree as the topic is at least on people's minds, but unless people start actually thinking in a productive and creative fashion, it won't really help. A bunch of people just screaming "Nerf SCBs!" (which is not what I want), and a bunch of other people screaming, "SCBs are fine!" doesn't get anything done. Until people open their minds and actually start thinking, "how can SCBs be adjusted to be more satisfying for all parties?" (and then post said ideas to the suggestions forum), we're not going to accomplish anything productive.

I want this game to be the best it can be. That's why I spend so much time coming up with ideas, discussing game design, and considering different balance approaches. Even parts of the game that are "ok" can likely be improved in some way. The whole thing is one big complicated and engaging jigsaw puzzle; It annoys me when people have no interest in doing anything other than bickering over whether this one piece is "scarlet" or "crimson", and how much that piece should cost.

 

[Riverside]

I want this game to be the best it can be. That's why I spend so much time coming up with ideas, discussing game design, and considering different balance approaches.

After reading your latest post on the other thread my overriding conclusion was that the scope is too narrow, SCBs are just one part of the bigger hurdle. If you start a thread canvassing for opinions on how to close the gap between PvP & PvE optimal builds I'd be happy to help where I can. If you prefer I can start a thread laying down the scope & manage it, but I don't want to step on your toes, and you have a better handle on the issues from both side than I do. Stuff like this SCB proposal can become a part of the wider holistic solution rather than a stand-alone thread(s).

 

[Hooplah]

So engineer feedback cascade so that they take out SCBs faster.
Then make sure the enemy cannot recharge the shields for 16 seconds.
Now just fire engineered kinetic and explosive weapons to destroy the enemy in 10 seconds. Even more time since they cannot get their SCBs to activate.

This is the problem created when those who 'want to make this game the best it can be' don't think it through. It's seems all about PvP looking for a way to kill the Big Boss at the end of level 17 instead of actual balance of two highly engineered ships with experienced pilots ending in the proper stalemate. This is not a Big Boss game. Taking away SCBs and making shields easy to take out also effects every other play style in the game making the learning curve even more difficult for newer players. Balance is about every play style in all three modes. Concentrate on one ignoring the other and it's not going to happen.

 

[Riverside]

Concentrate on one ignoring the other and it's not going to happen.

This kind of thread tends to end up focusing on raw stats & edge case min/maxed hypothetical fights, and the crowd that understand the root causes tend to be the ones that are really good at the game. So yes, their suggestions favour the capable pilot.

I deliberately avoid writing anything down (I have a couple of spreadsheets to help with basic stuff like module sizes) and fly by the seat of my pants. Sometimes I lose a ship but I don't try so hard to explore every minutiae because that path leads only to frustration ime (I've done it in other games).

Any idea is going to have flaws, whether those flaws can be considered an acceptable compromise is up to FDev, not us. But if we can point out those flaws decisions can at least be made based on the best information available.

But sometimes you just have to give it a go & see what happens

 

[Frenotx]

So engineer feedback cascade so that they take out SCBs faster.
Then make sure the enemy cannot recharge the shields for 16 seconds.
Now just fire engineered kinetic and explosive weapons to destroy the enemy in 10 seconds. Even more time since they cannot get their SCBs to activate.

This is the problem created when those who 'want to make this game the best it can be' don't think it through. It's seems all about PvP looking for a way to kill the Big Boss at the end of level 17 instead of actual balance of two highly engineered ships with experienced pilots ending in the proper stalemate. This is not a Big Boss game. Taking away SCBs and making shields easy to take out also effects every other play style in the game making the learning curve even more difficult for newer players. Balance is about every play style in all three modes. Concentrate on one ignoring the other and it's not going to happen.

In this proposal, feedback cascade rails would do double damage to the SCB module. They wouldn't not disrupt their operation at all, outside of potentially destroying the module. The defender can utilize MRPs, AFMUs, and angling to protect their SCBs and ensure they go off. This proposal would make SCBs potentially MORE reliable when faced by their counter (assuming the defender employs the above counter-counter tactics), instead of getting completely shut down by them.

For the bajillionth time, PvP play is not my primary activity in the game. I'm simply a proponent of good balance that would function in ALL combat situations. Finally, you may not agree with my assessments, but claiming that I don't "think things through" is just not fair. I spend a lot of time thinking about my suggestions, and how they would affect different mechanics and play styles. That's what I find so fun about this: the big complicated web that needs to be considered. Perhaps if more people thought that way instead of just making wild hyperbolic posts loaded with personal attacks, the forums would be a bit more productive.

 

[Frenotx]

This kind of thread tends to end up focusing on raw stats & edge case min/maxed hypothetical fights, and the crowd that understand the root causes tend to be the ones that are really good at the game. So yes, their suggestions favour the capable pilot.

I deliberately avoid writing anything down (I have a couple of spreadsheets to help with basic stuff like module sizes) and fly by the seat of my pants. Sometimes I lose a ship but I don't try so hard to explore every minutiae because that path leads only to frustration ime (I've done it in other games).

Any idea is going to have flaws, whether those flaws can be considered an acceptable compromise is up to FDev, not us. But if we can point out those flaws decisions can at least be made based on the best information available.

But sometimes you just have to give it a go & see what happens

I have been trying to work on a "holistic combat balance" thread for quite a while, but I struggle a lot with mental focus. Trying to hold all of that together in one place is very difficult for me. On top of that, it has been my experience that any thread I've started with a broader scope quickly devolves into discussion and / or bickering over one small component of it. Focusing on one thing at a time leads to more on-point discussions, and is easier for me to write about.

 

[Hooplah]

...For the bajillionth time, PvP play is not my primary activity in the game. I'm simply a proponent of good balance that would function in ALL combat situations...

I never said anything about your player activity. You are promoting a change that would enhance game play for Open PvP at the expense of other play styles, modes and less experienced players in smaller ships. When you come up with a solution for a Trader in his shiny new Type-6 not getting blown away by feedback cascade and engineered weapons that NPCs are using then maybe you will have something that will work for everyone. Try multiple scenarios then see what works.

 

[Frenotx]

I never said anything about your player activity. You are promoting a change that would enhance game play for Open PvP at the expense of other play styles, modes and less experienced players in smaller ships. When you come up with a solution for a Trader in his shiny new Type-6 not getting blown away by feedback cascade and engineered weapons that NPCs are using then maybe you will have something that will work for everyone. Try multiple scenarios then see what works.

The only NPCs that use engineered weapons are the main target in wing assassination missions. If you're going up against either of those in your shiny new T6 trader, then I have some bad news for you. A trader is likely not even packing SCBs to begin with as that would cut into their cargo capacity. If they ARE, and their ship is so fragile that it can't survive having its shields down for the handful of seconds it would take to restore them via SCBs (as per this discussion), then they're probably screwed regardless.

 

[Hooplah]

The only NPCs that use engineered weapons are the main target in wing assassination missions...

You're not even close on this one when effects are fired at my ship by single/multiple NPCs on a simple trading mission. Try coming up with a Cobra Mk III scenario and you can dismiss that as well as not important versus getting what you want.

 

[Frenotx]

You're not even close on this one when effects are fired at my ship by single/multiple NPCs on a simple trading mission. Try coming up with a Cobra Mk III scenario and you can dismiss that as well as not important versus getting what you want.

You may be getting confused by things like, "impulse attack detected", "Thermal attack detected; Gaining heat", and "Hull breach attack; Taking internal damage." These warnings are tied to (even stock) rail guns, plasma accelerators, and missiles respectively. They are not engineering special effects; they're just describing the way rail guns knock you around a little, plasmas dump a little heat into you, and missile damage modules. The only NPCs that use actual engineering special effects are ART and wing mission assassination targets. NPCs DID have engineered weapons for a little while during the 2.1 beta, but people freaked out and Fdev took away that ability. Knowledge is power. I suggest reading up on the various engineering special effects to avoid confusion like this in the future.