Yes PvE'ers always love their exploits vs NPCs (and since NPCs rarely use cells it is a defacto exploit).
Scrap or redesign shield cell modules, they are too overpowered and trivialize PvP.
- Thread starter KazumaKat
- Start date
Yes PvE'ers always love their exploits vs NPCs (and since NPCs rarely use cells it is a defacto exploit).
You build a ship based on what you want it to do. But you have to make choices, you cannot have everything. People who choose to go with nothing but shield cells are committing their ship to combat. There is nothing wrong with this and if you as a CMDR also build your ships in the same fashion then neither pilot will have any advantage over the other. The better pilot will win. Think of shield cells as the combat spec, that is basically what they are. Sort of like choosing Warrior over a Rogue in a fantasy RPG. You play a rogue you have certain advantages the warrior does not get but you must also answer to the warrior should he challenge you in combat.
I've not read all of this thread, but I'll summarise my thoughts on the whole shield cells thing.
Right now, with the rest of the weapon balance as it is, shield cells are fine as they are. I like the idea of them. And the reason is that the weapon balance is way off, and has been ever since late Alpha/early Beta when gimbals and fixeds were mucked about with. So at the moment, shields can disappear in an INSTANT... yes, I mean that, in a matter of less than a second I can be watching my shields and see them go offline in no time at all - probably down to net lag, I don't know, but all it takes is someone to turn up with a gimballed beams and they disappear in no time at all. Likewise, more than one ship shooting at you, you can wave your shields goodbye pretty quickly (especially if you don't have 4 pips into them).
If shield cells were removed or nerfed without the rest of the weapon balance changing, I can safely say I'd be pretty frustrated with the game pretty quickly.
If the whole power around gimbals was reduced (I'd still like to see the things removed completely but I appreciate that will never happen), one-shotting, etc. then shield cells could be included in the re-balance. But right now they have a cost to them, they take up a slot, they have an ammo limit - and these are all good trade-offs to keep them in check. Maybe just limit them to 1 shield cell unit per ship though, or make it such that the benefit of stacking them is reduced the more you add.
In summary, I don't think shields cells are the original evil they are perceived to be... they've come about as a necessity to poor weapon balance and simplified flight model changes that make combat a simple point-and-shoot exercise where he who fires first (with the biggest guns) invariably wins. I've said it before back in alpha but no-one is listening... G-effects, stealth, so many other ways that combat could be made more interesting. Spaceships in a vacuum with all pretty-much-the-same capabilities and pretty-much-the-same powered weapons does NOT make for entertaining gameplay. Yes, I'm talking from experience - like fixed beams being no more effective than gimbals, and Anacondas managing to maintain pointy-end forwards on a boosting Cobra at 400m/s+....
Right now, with the rest of the weapon balance as it is, shield cells are fine as they are. I like the idea of them. And the reason is that the weapon balance is way off, and has been ever since late Alpha/early Beta when gimbals and fixeds were mucked about with. So at the moment, shields can disappear in an INSTANT... yes, I mean that, in a matter of less than a second I can be watching my shields and see them go offline in no time at all - probably down to net lag, I don't know, but all it takes is someone to turn up with a gimballed beams and they disappear in no time at all. Likewise, more than one ship shooting at you, you can wave your shields goodbye pretty quickly (especially if you don't have 4 pips into them).
If shield cells were removed or nerfed without the rest of the weapon balance changing, I can safely say I'd be pretty frustrated with the game pretty quickly.
If the whole power around gimbals was reduced (I'd still like to see the things removed completely but I appreciate that will never happen), one-shotting, etc. then shield cells could be included in the re-balance. But right now they have a cost to them, they take up a slot, they have an ammo limit - and these are all good trade-offs to keep them in check. Maybe just limit them to 1 shield cell unit per ship though, or make it such that the benefit of stacking them is reduced the more you add.
In summary, I don't think shields cells are the original evil they are perceived to be... they've come about as a necessity to poor weapon balance and simplified flight model changes that make combat a simple point-and-shoot exercise where he who fires first (with the biggest guns) invariably wins. I've said it before back in alpha but no-one is listening... G-effects, stealth, so many other ways that combat could be made more interesting. Spaceships in a vacuum with all pretty-much-the-same capabilities and pretty-much-the-same powered weapons does NOT make for entertaining gameplay. Yes, I'm talking from experience - like fixed beams being no more effective than gimbals, and Anacondas managing to maintain pointy-end forwards on a boosting Cobra at 400m/s+....
Yes and no... Next time you build a ship for combat/bounty hunting, look how many internal spaces you have left, which probably are still sitting as cargo. Some players simply putting Shield Cells in these spaces too. Why? Because with two or more shield cells you can most likely out-tank (last) a player with just one shield cell.
It that a fair comment one aspect of the problem we face with shield cells (currently)?
Have you ever witnessed an NPC using a Shield Cell? A lot of the NPC I find are too dim to even buy shields!
Last edited:
Protecting yourself against gimbaled weapons is pretty easy, just use chaffs.
Players who use gimbaled are poor at aim and as such they are Elite:Harmless. Pilots who use fixed weapons are your real threat, because we do not miss our targets. We can target sub systems while traveling at ridiculous speed and still disable them no matter what ship we are fighting against.
Yes, in some cases (only PvP combat, with the attacking side using weapons efficent at stripping shields against ships that have weak enough shields in relation to the attacker's firepower, with the defender probably not putting full pips in SYS) shields can get stripped pretty quickly.
The thing is, I don't think that this really changes anything. As you say, however, it's probably wrong to point at SCB's as the cause of every problem in combat. There's more, and I've seen myself from changes like the Beta 1 FA Off speed thing, how a moderately significant change to how a system works can result in enormous changes to the entire core of how the game is played!
Luckily, there's going to be beta testing, and I hope that we in the future might use this beta server to test how changes to things like flight model and SCB's will affect combat before the changes move to the main server.
Agreed. I've been doing the same. Even in engagements where the foe isn't a large ship the battle drags on for so long, and I in effect have to defeat them half a dozen times (compared to the pre-shield potion builds), I just get bored with it and jump away.
Combat used to be swift and decisive. Now it's a dull grind through eachother's shield potions. If the shortness of the way battles used to be is of concern to FD then address that by giving the ships a durability boost, across the board. (Or in a more targetting fashion if FD have concerns about small ships having the 'right' to take down any big ship.)
Anyhoo, these things are in the spotlight and I believe that the final solution will be the correct one. It's just a matter of how long I need to wait before I can change my sig...
NPC's are garbage, they will get better over time or so I hope.
Hello Commander Johnny Spaceboots! and Commander Defacto!
Argh, just saw this as I was turning stuff off in the office! Must... Reply... (don't worry, that just means I enjoy the conversation).
Don't worry, we don't have to agree! And also, you may be right!
Sure, cells keep your shields up, but in my experience, when I'm taking a lot of hits from a ship I can't hit very well, having more shields doesn't help me destroy them...
Although at it's heart there will always be a whiff of the restorative about shield cells (because, well, they're consumables), it has always been the intention to involve timing skill in their use: this is why there is a delay when using a cell before the regenerative effect kicks in.
When the tweaks roll out, Commanders will have less of them, using them will be more expensive, and potentially they might have to alter or mess with their power plant settings to carry them.
If this proves to have little to no effect (and honestly, the jury is out for me at the moment, I will look forward to seeing the results) then we'll go further.
My first line of thought runs to some additional negative effect that triggers if a cell is used and the shield is not badly damaged, coupled with a longer delay between triggering a cell and receiving its benefits. In theory, this would mean that you would need to use a cell within a window of opportunity or risk A) leaving it too late and having the shield break or B) using it too soon and having something bad happen (like damage to your shield generator, or no benefit of the cell, etc.)
But, one step at a time.
And now, really for real this time, have a great weekend!
Shield cells on its own is a fine concept. They maybe a tad overpowered as it is, but I must agree with Sandro on his points.
Limiting the capacitors to one per ship is also a great idea.
One more thing: Sometimes nobody wins. And thats ok too.
Just because 5 ships attack a Python its not equal to the Pythons demise. In something like EVE it WOULD have been since you can lock down ships, but ED allows people to run. This, in my humble oppinion increases the chance of combat. Because if something goes wrong, you have the option to make a run for it.
I second Brumster as well:
Brumster said:
Yeah, try that against an NPC
I don't find that at all. I was quite adept with fixed weapons back in the testing phases but got continually frustrated by the compromises I had to make in how I played the game - control choices to make yaw effective for aiming (for example). I stubbornly played fixed because that's the way I wanted to play it. I then tried gimbals and found myself frying NPCs and RWPs in no time at all, and I was quite deflated by this. But I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face, particularly in Open game, so I now play with gimbals... not because I can't use fixeds, but because it is just a mad decision not to. I'd be equally frustrated by death because I didn't have an advantage in combat. With gimbals I can keep hammering away at an opponent even when he's half off the screen above me.
On the topic of escape:
You all do know that Cobras and Vipers currently do not slow the FSD of a Python, right? They can just poof away at will. It would take quite a lot to defeat a Python even without shield cells.
It's all right that every fight isn't to the death, but I think something is wrong when maybe 80% of the fights do not even last until any participant loses their shields, maybe 19% ending in 50%-ish damage, and perhaps the last percent ending with one participant exploding.
Even without shield cells, and even when you don't fly a large enough ship to not be affected by your opponent's mass, escape is still pretty easy.
You all do know that Cobras and Vipers currently do not slow the FSD of a Python, right? They can just poof away at will. It would take quite a lot to defeat a Python even without shield cells.
It's all right that every fight isn't to the death, but I think something is wrong when maybe 80% of the fights do not even last until any participant loses their shields, maybe 19% ending in 50%-ish damage, and perhaps the last percent ending with one participant exploding.
Even without shield cells, and even when you don't fly a large enough ship to not be affected by your opponent's mass, escape is still pretty easy.
No i am just lazy and for the record i have 2 Fixed weapons on Board a Railgun and a Beam Laser
Yes in fact I have 2 Shield cells and 2 Chaffs as well because many Players use Gimballs even if they try to do PVP
Can I ask why you have two shield cells? Why not just one?
You can pop more and don't share cooldowns (but I may be wrong on that). ED is not a game of twitch skills, it's a game of wits.
I've played MMO's for way too long and if there's one thing I've learned is there are two types of reactions when faced with adversity like potions/shield cells etc.
One type heads for the armoury and the practice field. The other heads for the forums.
Sorry? "You can pop more"? Do you mean rather that just 6 shield cells to deploy, you instead have 12? Or do you mean you're using two at a time?
If it's the former, if you're staying out in the field (eg: bounty hunting) then it would be a pain to have to return to a station to refuel a shield cell so I can understand why you'd then carry more than one, but do you find during a single engagement (fight) you then use more than one?
I'm really conflicted now on this, on Thursday I was all for a rebalance but after yesterdays altercation with what now appears to be 3 - 6 Asps - Clippers I'm undecided. Shield cells are pretty much the last (and only) chance you have as someone who has found themselves in a situation against multiple adversaries who's sole intention is to kill you for the sole reason that you were there at the time.
I dont think its as simple as trying to prevent the "war of attrition" until the cells run out and I think that to reduce their effectiveness is probably the wrong way to deal with it. Increasing the cost is almost a moot point for most people who would use them unless they were significantly increased.
I wouldn't mind exploring the possibility of increasing the bay size requirement for them as then they become an item that is used at the sacrifice of something quite important, space. They are after all batteries. Alternatively what about if they took a hard point spot (or 2), although from a game law point of view Its difficult to explain why. They would however then become an a functional element that reflected their form and defined their use, which would be as within a defensive build.
Just a thought.
I dont think its as simple as trying to prevent the "war of attrition" until the cells run out and I think that to reduce their effectiveness is probably the wrong way to deal with it. Increasing the cost is almost a moot point for most people who would use them unless they were significantly increased.
I wouldn't mind exploring the possibility of increasing the bay size requirement for them as then they become an item that is used at the sacrifice of something quite important, space. They are after all batteries. Alternatively what about if they took a hard point spot (or 2), although from a game law point of view Its difficult to explain why. They would however then become an a functional element that reflected their form and defined their use, which would be as within a defensive build.
Just a thought.
Last edited:
vonvonbraun
Banned
Please keep shield cells as they are
Thanks
Thanks
I agree theres a problem, but I would say its a case right problem - wrong solution. I would make hulls more durable generally especially for smaller ships (say 25% better for sidewinder/eagle, 20% better for all cargo ships and corbra/viper) and couple shield recharge rate to sys pips much more (i.e. make it so that with 4 pips in sys you get recharge at about double the current rate) so it was less of a case of "game over" when your shields went down and make it a bit easier for a small ship to escape a larger one and/or multiple assailants.
According to Sandro this "survivability" increase is the intended aim of cells but what they actually do is subvert the power management tradeoff allowing increased overall defense+offence capability. They also allow sacrificing of cargo space for a key combat capability which again is fundamentally flawed in my view as it makes them proportionately more advantageous to larger ships. They practically remove hull strength as a tactical parameter and emphasise alpha strike capability over general offensive capability. Really they distort everything about combat in ED is a bad way IMO.
I feel we need to "back to basics" and actually address the core survivability problem in a more cohesive way that doesnt subvert all the other nicely though out and evolved tactical tradeoffs in ship design and loadout.
Last edited:
Some well thought out points there...
Because everone else has them too its the same with chaffs.
If you all think they such a Gamebreaker then remove them all that includes Chaffs ECM and Point Defence or let it the way it was on ALL Alppha, Beta and Gamma why you start wining now?