Gap? When something is a light year wide might need a term that expresses it more meaningfully.
Mind the Gap. How about mind the gulf, void, abyss or chasm.
Let's Fix: SCBs
- Thread starter Frenotx
- Start date
Gap? When something is a light year wide might need a term that expresses it more meaningfully.
Mind the Gap. How about mind the gulf, void, abyss or chasm.
Hope you don't mind if I don't use your condescending, biased description, but you have a point. It's really a combat build vs non-combat optimal build gap.
So how would you bring them closer?
Last edited:
Here is my take on it :
Why is it good : less combat slog working through ennemy cells, and allow for small vulnerability periods where one can try to damage ennemy modules before the cells bring it back up.
IMO that would enrich combat quite a bit and make it more tense / fun. Stuff like missiles / superpen will need some tweaking but this is possible to do. Running a shield tank with a supercharged
PP with low heat efficiency will be dangerous with feedback and lower PP integrity.
Also, 1 cell per SCB with recharge through sys cap overflow would limit spamming them in a short amount of time while avoiding to force players back and forth to the stations for extended PvE sessions (i.e. win-win)
As an aside : one could imagine a similar module for weapons to refill the cap very fast and allow for maximum burst damage during a small period of time. A bit like the heat sink on beam SLF's.
- SCB's only carry one charge.
- Can only be used shield down to boost recharge. 50% progress to reform shield for an equivalent level SCB (i.e. 6A cell will reform 50% of a 6A shield).
- Cannot be used on active shields.
- Once depleted will use sys capacitor overflow to refill slowly.
- Use A/B/C/D/E for variations : more charge but slower, less charge but faster, lighter and heavier variants, maybe also more or less heat efficient.
- Feedback now works as follow : for each MJ of damage done during an SCB use, the amount of damage MJ done is substracted from the ongoing charge and an equivalent amout of heat is applied to the ship, weighted by the PP efficiency. Maybe damage the cell a bit as well.
Why is it good : less combat slog working through ennemy cells, and allow for small vulnerability periods where one can try to damage ennemy modules before the cells bring it back up.
IMO that would enrich combat quite a bit and make it more tense / fun. Stuff like missiles / superpen will need some tweaking but this is possible to do. Running a shield tank with a supercharged
PP with low heat efficiency will be dangerous with feedback and lower PP integrity.
Also, 1 cell per SCB with recharge through sys cap overflow would limit spamming them in a short amount of time while avoiding to force players back and forth to the stations for extended PvE sessions (i.e. win-win)
As an aside : one could imagine a similar module for weapons to refill the cap very fast and allow for maximum burst damage during a small period of time. A bit like the heat sink on beam SLF's.
Last edited:
Good thread Frenotx, was considering raising such a thread myself.
For a very, very simple tweak that might actually be accepted over a larger mechanics change: why not just flatten the curve for SCB gains across classes, and then reduce the effectiveness of feedback rails? It's well established that low class SCBs are pretty much useless, making them little more than dead weight on small ships, where they are absolute MJ churning monsters on high class SCBs.
How about we just reduce the curve so they aren't so massively inflated at higher classes? Reduce the MJ they heal while affecting smaller ships less. I'd say go as far as to actually increase the healing at lower classes but really, we don't need effective shield healing iCouriers...
And for the (slightly) more imaginative option: again keeping the change simple, simply change SCBs from insta-heal to longer term regeneration, e.g. instead of healing over a period of a few seconds they have to heal over half a minute to a minute. This scales with SCB class: lowest class SCBs would see little difference to now, cutter with C8 SCBs can expect to receive its healing over a minute or so. FB rails can "delay" the regen, meaning once hit the regen is put on halt for a moment.
This means that with a suitable alpha attack you can still break through SCBs, and it limits your ability to use multiple SCBs within a short timeframe, as you're simple refreshing the timer on the regen rather than actually adding any more healing. While active ship speed could be reduced to prevent over evasive healies, or running away to heal.
For a very, very simple tweak that might actually be accepted over a larger mechanics change: why not just flatten the curve for SCB gains across classes, and then reduce the effectiveness of feedback rails? It's well established that low class SCBs are pretty much useless, making them little more than dead weight on small ships, where they are absolute MJ churning monsters on high class SCBs.
How about we just reduce the curve so they aren't so massively inflated at higher classes? Reduce the MJ they heal while affecting smaller ships less. I'd say go as far as to actually increase the healing at lower classes but really, we don't need effective shield healing iCouriers...
And for the (slightly) more imaginative option: again keeping the change simple, simply change SCBs from insta-heal to longer term regeneration, e.g. instead of healing over a period of a few seconds they have to heal over half a minute to a minute. This scales with SCB class: lowest class SCBs would see little difference to now, cutter with C8 SCBs can expect to receive its healing over a minute or so. FB rails can "delay" the regen, meaning once hit the regen is put on halt for a moment.
This means that with a suitable alpha attack you can still break through SCBs, and it limits your ability to use multiple SCBs within a short timeframe, as you're simple refreshing the timer on the regen rather than actually adding any more healing. While active ship speed could be reduced to prevent over evasive healies, or running away to heal.
Last edited:
I really like the thought of one "charge", but with the ability to refill via spare SYS power. I've never really liked the ammunition approach, as it gives a big advantage to a "fresh" combatant, and makes balancing between PvP (where all the charges will be used in one fight) and PvE (where CMDRs need to stretch their resources over several fights) awkward. I'd like the relative "in a given fight" utility of a module to remain consistent across all forms of combat.
Make sure you make a post in the suggestions forum, if you haven't already!
While some good could potentially be done by tweaking certain numbers up and down, that wouldn't address the problem of SCBs just not being fun to fight against, or of them being countered so severely by feedback cascade. I'm not a fan of super hard counters coming from weapon choice /special effects, and things being ultra strong when not hard countered. I believe polarized balance situations like that are bad for gameplay. I want more counterPLAY, and less counterBUILD.Good thread Frenotx, was considering raising such a thread myself.
For a very, very simple tweak that might actually be accepted over a larger mechanics change: why not just flatten the curve for SCB gains across classes, and then reduce the effectiveness of feedback rails? It's well established that low class SCBs are pretty much useless, making them little more than dead weight on small ships, where they are absolute MJ churning monsters on high class SCBs.
How about we just reduce the curve so they aren't so massively inflated at higher classes? Reduce the MJ they heal while affecting smaller ships less. I'd say go as far as to actually increase the healing at lower classes but really, we don't need effective shield healing iCouriers...
Agreed, hence my second suggestion. I just feel that baby steps is the answer. IMO the ideal solution is for shields in their entirety to only reduce incoming damage with a further decrease to weapon penetration depth, but good luck to that happening lol.
I entirely agree that reducing the rock/paper/scissors aspect of combat is essential though.
Re single charge SCBs: a good idea, but I feel there should still be a reason to use multiple, or you drag everyone towards the same build with inflated shield AND hull HP because everyone now just sacrifices one SCB slot. Perhaps the SCB recharges over a lengthy period of time, meaning multiple banks are required for easy successive use? Either way infinite charges per bank does concern me that more players would approach a "run away repeatedly to regen" tactic.
You mean something like :
- 3 rings, 100% absorbtion by shields
- 2 rings, 75% absorbtion, 25% bleedthrough with quarter pen lenght
- 2 rings, 50% absorbtion, 50% bleedthrough with half pen lenght
As per single charge SCB's :
Of course there is invective to use several : Either you use 2x in chain to fully recover shields ASAP, or you keep one for next time you're shields get knocked down. (Because the first one will probably not be refilled yet).
Even more so if say the C rated one give only a third of the charge but much faster => pack two and recover 2/3 of the shield in record time, lessening chances of feedback shenanigans.
I think partial scaling mitigation shields as you suggested would be a MASSIVE positive turn for Elite. I've suggested it a few times over the years, but many people are simply horrified by the very idea of ever taking a single point of damage- this includes even before 2.1. Yes, though it's hard to believe considering how people react to any mention of shield related engineering getting nerfed, it was entirely possible to shield tank hard enough to never get a scratch before engineering, too.
If FDev ever decided to go the direction of shields SUPPLEMENTING defenses via damage mitigation (instead of just being a big wall in front of all the actually interesting combat / damage mechanics), I would be BEYOND delighted. Incredibly surprised, too, but extraordinarily pleased.
I would be delighted too. Partial shielding with fast up/down shields make for a much more intense and tactical combat than slamming the SCB key each time a ring is lost.
Note that this is more of less what we have with thargoids and if makes for a much tenser/better fights.
As for the pve farming backlash: allow AFMUs to slowly repair HRPs. Done, problem solved.
This would move the combat toward a style close to IW2, which would be a good thing.
Note that this is more of less what we have with thargoids and if makes for a much tenser/better fights.
As for the pve farming backlash: allow AFMUs to slowly repair HRPs. Done, problem solved.
This would move the combat toward a style close to IW2, which would be a good thing.
Don't even need to change AFMU behavior. Hull repair limpets already exist, and AFMUs can already fix MRPs. The only things you can't fix are the power plant, or a totally blown out canopy.
Big thing about repair limpets : it uses two slots, controller and cargo. If you add an AFMU to fix internals and MRP's it starts to add up to a lot for prolonged sessions. If you need too much modules, then
SCB's will still be the default "goto" option. Think of it, what is better : 3 single use rechargable SCB's or 1 AFMU, 1 Cargo rack and 1 repair limpet controller ?
AFMU vs SCB will be closer to equilibrium in term of hull tanking vs shield tanking. This is why I suggest the ability of slow repairs of HRP's with AFMU vs fast repair with limpets (ideally).
Edit : about bi-weaves, maybe in addition to charging faster, make them faster at using SCB's, in the same way that they charge faster (1.8 vs 1.0), i.e. say an SCB pours 10MJ/s in a regular shield,
then make so that with a bi-weave it can pour 18MJ/s. What it would mean is that biweave can use SCB's to recharge more (since they are equivalent to a D shield) and faster (1.8x), compared to
an A shield. In other words : they would be weaker but allow for smaller window for internal sniping and feedback cascades.
Last edited:
Something like that. I'm on the fence as to whether I'd personally implement scaling absorption or a flat absorption while shields are up, but that is very much the thrust of the idea, ideally supplemented by a few exceptions -e.g. far higher resistance to missiles.
The only reason I question whether multiple SCB builds would be viable were they to have infinite ammo is that players have proven themselves more than willing to drag a match out to extremes by running away in a fast ship, waiting for whatever they need to heal to happen, then coming back. It sounds yawn-fest worthy to me, and yet it's exactly what we had with reboot/repair - a few mechanics had to be put in place to make it less feasible to just run away mid battle to reboot/repair your shields to 50% whenever they drop.
Biweaves still regenerate faster than regular shields while up. It means your shield stretches further if you're good at evading fire here and there in the fight. They'd also still be helpful for when you're out of SCBs, or you don't want to use a cell.
Considering the only other combat modules are MOAR HEALTH (mrp, hrp, scb) and possibly an interdictor, I see this as a good thing. Gives an alternative to health stacking, and reduces the single-fight performance gap between a strictly-killing-stuff ship and literally any other profession.
Appart from giving large ships very long range weapons, I don't really see what can be done against such shenanigans ^^
Reboot/repair giving 50% shields is a just a little bit silly IMO.
About limpets : What I hope is that when FDev introduces the multiple limpet controler with slots, they put the option to replace one or more of the controler slots by limpet racks.
Somthing like : Either 2 limpet control units, or a limpet control unit and 8t of limpets if you see what I mean.
But yeah, less binary choices would be good. Also, multiple SCB's are power hogs, and if they lost charge when unplugged, it would limit the invective to fill the ship to the brim with them.
Basically : only take as much SCB's as you can afford to power on.
Last edited:
Aye, we should also not forget that such defensive measures should come with drawbacks. Bi-weaves are already considerably lower power consumption than standard shields, and with the power requirement of SCBs etc. on top you do already end up doing more power juggling - it's just that the gains are quite inflated thanks to resistances and, as you say, unengaging.
You could also have SCB actually fry the shield generator, on top of generating heat. Might slightly be over the top.
They should just be removed from the game.
SCB-spamming effectively makes the size of your shield irrelevant and allows you to put all your boosters into resists and run a bi-weave with much more regen.
A bi-weave's lower capacity and heavy-duty boosters are irrelevant when your SCBs contain 70-90% of your shield capacity. With ludicrious resistances (65-75%) each MJ of SCB is worth 3-4x normal and you're probably going out with 10-15 charges across 2 or 3 SCBs.
Having SCBs countered by feedback rails is no different to countering mega-shields with RC torps. If you bring scissors to a rock fight you're always going to be at a disadvantage, but that's because you're hunting paper most of the time.
There's a huge problem/disparity between shielded combat and hull-tanked combat. FDev need to fix this at a much higher level than just looking uniquely at SCBs, in my opinion.
SCB-spamming effectively makes the size of your shield irrelevant and allows you to put all your boosters into resists and run a bi-weave with much more regen.
A bi-weave's lower capacity and heavy-duty boosters are irrelevant when your SCBs contain 70-90% of your shield capacity. With ludicrious resistances (65-75%) each MJ of SCB is worth 3-4x normal and you're probably going out with 10-15 charges across 2 or 3 SCBs.
Having SCBs countered by feedback rails is no different to countering mega-shields with RC torps. If you bring scissors to a rock fight you're always going to be at a disadvantage, but that's because you're hunting paper most of the time.
There's a huge problem/disparity between shielded combat and hull-tanked combat. FDev need to fix this at a much higher level than just looking uniquely at SCBs, in my opinion.
And I think that's quite in line with what Frenotx is looking into - but he's doing so quite correctly by investigating each part.
If we refused to look at individual components because there are also other mechanics that are unbalanced, then hell, ED would never get updated