Let's Fix: SCBs

[Frenotx]

Rail guns bypass mrp's protection and amored powerplant ship builds are generally less combat effective than their overcharged counterparts.
I honestly expected you would say that, you strike me as someone who would be more than happy to revert combat and ship outfitting back to 1.0

Rail guns are subject to MRPs just like any other weapon. The only things I can think of that bypass MRPs are reverb cascade vs. shield generators specifically, and possibly feedback cascade vs. SCBs under the right circumstances.

I actually like a lot of the options created with engineering. I've had a ton of fun mixing and matching different weapons and special effects. I'd be quite sad to lose all that. I'm not a fan of the myriad balance issues created by the outrageously poorly balanced blueprints, but that's its own issue.

As for overcharged, that particular one I'm not a fan of. Power draw has always been an important balance lever, and overcharged just throws it out the window. One of the big disadvantages, lower integrity, is largely made moot by the absolute protection provided by shields. Building a super-strong shield takes a lot of power, but... with overcharged power plant that isn't a problem. Since the heat efficiency drawback only affects your base heat (heat produced by the power draw of your modules), it's not that big of a deal either. On the subject of it being required for an effective build, yeah, I'm not so sure about that. You can already get a massive +17% power output with armoured + monstered. That is an enormous amount of power vs. stock. I'd much rather see overcharged get replaced with lightweight (lower integrity, but much lower mass, and possibly slightly worse heat efficiency)- an option that is glaringly missing from the options.

 

[Muetdhiver]

I think overcharged is indeed detrimental to outfitting hard decisions to say the least.

However, if the heat efficiency penalty was increased from +25% to say +100% at G5, it would introduce some interesting things and heated discutions
about how to best use it

 

[Frenotx]

I think overcharged is indeed detrimental to outfitting hard decisions to say the least.

However, if the heat efficiency penalty was increased from +25% to say +100% at G5, it would introduce some interesting things and heated discutions
about how to best use it

That certainly could get interesting. That, or find a way for such a powerplant to multiply heat generation from ALL sources, instead of just power generation. That would require some new mechanics though, on be a little weak on the logic side.

 

[V'larr]

Where do you get the rest of the energy from?

A stock 8A Power Distributor has a 48MW Systems Capacity and a stock 6A Shield Cell Bank delivers 349,6MJ per charge that is a delta of 301,6, so where do you get the rest of the energy from? fuel could work I guess... or just old fashion handwavium.

I don't follow. I don't see why it'd be a concern? If you use the hold-down-continually method, you don't even have to worry about an SCB having a total charge number to begin with. It's basically just drain as much as you want & can supply, and that's what you get, with bigger SCBs giving a higher charge rate.

__

Rail guns bypass mrp's protection and amored powerplant ship builds are generally less combat effective than their overcharged counterparts.
I honestly expected you would say that, you strike me as someone who would be more than happy to revert combat and ship outfitting back to 1.0

1.0 combat in all honesty was far better balanced than the quagmire we currently find ourselves confronting here...

 

[Frenotx]

I don't mean any hostilities or offence by this;

But didn't you recently take out a Cutter in a Viper, while taking fire from other ships and pretty much succeed?

Someone else bullied a Corvette owner (admittedly they didn't seem to know what they were doing as much as you Pro-Pilots but still) in a Sidewinder just recently...

Personally I don't think small ships should have an easier time against larger ships than that, it's comparable to a Humvee taking on a tank. Excellent piloting has been proven to be able to take on lesser skilled pilots in larger and tankier ships. So you're looking for insta-kill? Group ganking would be made even easier.

16 seconds is enough to annihilate modules, even with 3 MRPs (need some HRPs), even annihilate hull. There would be zero point in SCBs if they could only be used as a bandage instead of a preventative.

For what it's worth, I PVE only, I prefer Medium ships and don't prioritise use of SCBs. I own a Cutter, a Corvette, and I've used SCBs of course, hell I have one on my Chiefy as a pure backup incase things get hairy.
I'm just airing my opinion on how this will affect everyone, from my perspective.

If bigger ships with bigger shields are the issue, (this is something I was thinking about recently, hearing all the polava everywhere) then simply make the boosts they receive from Boosters and SCBs diminish the higher the size, small ships still have protection they need, bigger ships aren't as OP.
However, it's already been shown how little these mean to experienced pilots with the right tools, so.

I just get the impression that things like this are because PVPers want quicker and easier kills, are fed up of their prey running or taking too long to kill etc. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean, you can't synthesise SCB ammo, so they're gonna run out sooner or later, if they've got more then they've opted for Shield Tanking instead and will be pretty much royally fluffed when their Shield drops.

What about some extra ability of a KWS to display how much Countermeasures your opponent has, like Chaff/HS and SBC ammo and sizes? That way it's not a guessing game for a viable Hunter, and you can plan your tactics and strategy accordingly.

This gave me a good chuckle and I was thinking the same thing after watching the OP kill a deadly ranked Cutter in a wing with his Viper IV and the recent Sidey/Corvette video.
I almost hate to say this, but with the recent requests to nerf reverse thrusting and now SCBs, it seems some commanders want an "I win" button against big ships.
I also noticed the OP conspicuously ignored your observations.

For the sake of demonstrating the massive difference between killing an "engineered" wing assassination target, vs. a player-driven cutter:
[video=youtube;cdv9tVunKn0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdv9tVunKn0[/video]

 

[Pauciloquent]

For the sake of demonstrating the massive difference between killing an "engineered" wing assassination target, vs. a player-driven cutter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdv9tVunKn0

Sorry but unless FA-OFF gets removed reverski is going to stay just like it is... I don't like it I really don't but I also don't want an artificial nerf to the reverse thrusters... So for me it's either remove FA-OFF < not going to happen + I don't think it should be, OR improve the performance of small ships < I like this more.

And this is the point I realise it's about SCB's and not reverski *sigh* errr okay . . . . . Ah not even kidding just thought of this one right now - okay so how about SCB's spin up gets delayed if the ship is under fire, not sure about the amount this should be maybe long enough to need two heat sinks if under constant fire and risk running out of heat sinks... or maybe it's just a stupid idea.

Don't forget about your other Let's Fix: Thread Frenotx I would like some feedback on the ideas I posted over there... otherwise it just feels like I'm talking to a wall.

EDIT: Oh just thought of another thing, so how about in addition to my other idea about the delay - that during SCB spin up the shield becomes weak and lets through a percentage of damage and modules can be damaged (like shield boosters).