Shield Cell Bank Limit

[NeilF]

See the other thread... ah I will copy paste.. here:
.
Well, my concern for this is not to do with a 1 on 1 situation. It is more to do with group PvP and how long a tank orientated ship can last as a tank in battle. I think at this point, it all comes down to how long do you think is ok. Limiting SCB usages ofcourse reduces this time. It will probably come down to personal taste as to how long a fight should go for and is still considered desirable. Personally a long fight or short fight is all the same to me. But if you reduce this time too much, the usefulness of a support ship is reduced to the point that perhaps no one would consider using it. And so an aspect of PvP is removed.

Consider this... You want to do some minor cargo related missions in your Python. WIth the current mechanic, and your very own suggestion, the fact you've got cargo space (100T) not used for SBCs means you are basically at a disadvantage to any similar CMDR in a Python who's gone down your SBC fill-your-boots mentality? Is that a good thing? You can't compete/fight back on an even footing just because you want to retain a few dozen tons of cargo space for something?

Should another CMDR have an advantage just because they've mindlessly filled their cargo space up with SBCs?

With my suggestion, you can do that (some minor cargo missions). You can choose to use a large lump of cargo space for your (single) SBC module, knowing full well that that doesn't mean you have to run whenever you meet another Python who's simply turned up with more SBCs.

As regards your duration question - My proposal is an SBC will charge up over X minutes, so over a long time frame, say fighting in a combat zone against NPCs, you'll be able to probably fire off a cell (you'll have 3-4 of them) every few minutes on average, with no ammo concerns. The current alternative is you run out of SBC ammo, and have to go back to a station. I'd say my system should be able to be balanced (timing wise) so it still allows a reasonable usage in such areas, while offering the benefit of not running out of ammo of course.

I think it will change such situation, but not make them any worse. If you come under heavy attack at the moment, you could just pile through all your SBC supplies... In my proprosed solution, your have say 3-4 charges to use over a short period. So if the heavy assault lasts a while, you'll be in trouble - Your 3-4 consecutive charges will not be enough. Is that a bad thing? If you've gone through in effect 3-4 fully charged shields in a few minutes, should you still be immune with yet more SBC charges to hand?

Edit* Thinking about this a bit more, it also restricts the choices that you can make when loading out such a ship. If you cannot use more than 1 SCB at the same time, well, all that power will just go to weapons, and these ships will only be gunboats from now on. There isn't much choice anymore with this SCB arrangement.

To the contrary. You yourself have admitted there is almost no downside (powerwise) at the moment to the mindless fill-your-boots approach. With mine, a large (say 3-4 charge) SCB module will use far more energy (& space) than small modules. So if you wish to free up energy from your large SCB, use a smaller one (give you less consecutive uses) and use that energy elsewhere. ie: You decide, using a tactical choice rather than the defacto standard of "fill every spare bit of cargo space with SBCs".

Want a Python that simply can last a little bit longer in combat but has loads of energy available for modules? Use a small SBC module (eg: just 1 consecutive shield charge). Want a Python than can sit in combat for a longer time, then use a large SBC module (eg: 3-4 consecutive shield charges), but you are penalised by have less energy available.

 

[Derath]

Exactly... It just highlights the utter crudeness of the mechanic.

So now both Pythons have their cargo area full to the brim of SBCs to get on an even footing. How does that help the game? Why should that mentality be good thing? How do them both having 20 SCB charges help the game over them instead, via a simpler (better) mechanics both have 3 (or 4-5) for example?

And if one of them has simply happened to have used half their ammo in the past few hours? All of a sudden they're no longer on an even footing?



So, we have two proposals, the current mechanic where our two Python CMDRs both filling their ships to the brim with SBCs, because there is basically no disadvantage in not doing so, and infact they mindlessly have to really... or my proposal where:-
- They've both fitted a Large SBC so both have 3 (or so) charges (over X minutes).... Now the SBCs are more of a tool and less of a decider.
- Or one has made a tactical choice to go with a smaller module, with less charges, but is using the saved energy elsewhere. He's used his brain to make a tactical choice!

^^ How does that not made SBC a more subtle and infact more intelligent tool?


And as I've stated, the added benefits are:-
- No ammo.
- NPC will have the same approach to the module as CMDRs. At the moment I doubt NPCs "spam" SBC modules as CMDRs would ironically complain about it.

I've read lots of back and forth here on these and my only comment to add is while you can indeed fill your python to the brim with SCBs once you've used up the paired higher tier ones you are unlikely to actually survive because of the lower ones. So going back to your discussion here

A) An A6 and A5 SCB
B) an A6 and A5 SCB + more SCBs.

the way I always fought in pvp if I ran out of the A6 and the A5, i was clearly outclassed (Its never happened), so the comparison for me was

A) An A6 and A5 SCB + Fuel scoop + Limpet controller + Cargo space + High class Interdictor + AFMU
B) an A6 and A5 SCB + more SCBs.

less of a why not fill up with SCB and more of a why fill up with SCB.

Still like your ideas, If FD are writing them down they should have a list by now of 98 different solutions all better and more fun than their own lol though they don't seem too interested in addressing it currently.

 

[NeilF]

I can't support you in any way because I play game in heavy roleplay style, I do not stick myself in just one play style, so SCB and SCB need to stay like they are, and not adjust them on the way to kill others better or faster, I want to be game be relaxed and chill, I like when game give me time to decide what and how will react in some forced situation.

Thank you

Confused - How would my proposal affect your gameplay style for the worse? - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=150794

Maybe you can give a more clear example of a problem you see?

If you're worried sticking yourself in "one play style" I'd propose my solution is more condusive to that. No longer would simply having more SBCs be the rule of thumb. Indeed, choosing a small or large one would be your tactical choice depending on your desired play style. No longer would someone simply turning up with more SBCs be a deciding matter. (EDIT: See Deraths post below for that exact reason )

On a side note, ask what would happen if NPCs used the same mechanics players do, and simply filled their cargo space with SBCs so when you attached a ship, it simply fired off a dozen charges one after another? Doesn't that highlight something?

- - - Updated - - -

the way I always fought in pvp if I ran out of the A6 and the A5, i was clearly outclassed (Its never happened), so the comparison for me was

A) An A6 and A5 SCB + Fuel scoop + Limpet controller + Cargo space + High class Interdictor + AFMU
B) an A6 and A5 SCB + more SCBs.

less of a why not fill up with SCB and more of a why fill up with SCB.

Still like your ideas, If FD are writing them down they should have a list by now of 98 different solutions all better and more fun than their own lol though they don't seem too interested in addressing it currently.

EXACTLY! You are immediately at a disadvantage just because you *shock horror* want to use some of your cargo space for something other than SBCs

With my solution:-

A) An SCB + Fuel scoop + Limpet controller + Cargo space + High class Interdictor + AFMU
B) An SCB.

And that SCB can either be a power hungry large one with numerous consecutive charges over X mins... Or a smaller less power hungry one, with less consecutive charges.

SCBs would then just become another tactical tool to use in combat, rather than a defining matter!

 

[random_tangent]

One solution to support ships in large engagements needing bigger shields is variants or specialist ship classes which have a big shield at the expense of other modules, or perhaps a huge class of SCB as per NeilFs suggestions, which has a great many more charges. There must be a way to avoid SCB stacking being a necessity for PvP loadouts whilst at the same time not wrecking large engagements.

 

[NeilF]

One solution to support ships in large engagements needing bigger shields is variants or specialist ship classes which can fit a big shield at the expense of other modules, or perhaps a huge class of SCB as per NeilFs suggestions, which has a great many more charges. There must be a way to avoid SCB stacking being a necessity for PvP loadouts whilst at the same time not wrecking large engagements.

Indeed, a very large SCB module taking up 128T for example, offering 6-8 (?) consecutive charges over the X minutes (6?) but with very very high energy use?

The proposal would seem to fit a variety of approaches/uses I'd suggest... While all the time meaning just a single module is required so SBCs don't mean filling up your entire ship with them to be competitive.

Infact I've added your suggestion to my main/dedicated post on the matter. Thanks! - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=150794

 

[persephonius]

Consider this... You want to do some minor cargo related missions in your Python. WIth the current mechanic, and your very own suggestion, the fact you've got cargo space (100T) not used for SBCs means you are basically at a disadvantage to any similar CMDR in a Python who's gone down your SBC fill-your-boots mentality? Is that a good thing? You can't compete/fight back on an even footing just because you want to retain a few dozen tons of cargo space for something?

Should another CMDR have an advantage just because they've mindlessly filled their cargo space up with SBCs?

With my suggestion, you can do that (some minor cargo missions). You can choose to use a large lump of cargo space for your (single) SBC module, knowing full well that that doesn't mean you have to run whenever you meet another Python who's simply turned up with more SBCs.

As regards your duration question - My proposal is an SBC will charge up over X minutes, so over a long time frame, say fighting in a combat zone against NPCs, you'll be able to probably fire off a cell (you'll have 3-4 of them) every few minutes on average, with no ammo concerns. The current alternative is you run out of SBC ammo, and have to go back to a station. I'd say my system should be able to be balanced (timing wise) so it still allows a reasonable usage in such areas, while offering the benefit of not running out of ammo of course.

I think it will change such situation, but not make them any worse. If you come under heavy attack at the moment, you could just pile through all your SBC supplies... In my proprosed solution, your have say 3-4 charges to use over a short period. So if the heavy assault lasts a while, you'll be in trouble - Your 3-4 consecutive charges will not be enough. Is that a bad thing? If you've gone through in effect 3-4 fully charged shields in a few minutes, should you still be immune with yet more SBC charges to hand?


To the contrary. You yourself have admitted there is almost no downside (powerwise) at the moment to the mindless fill-your-boots approach. With mine, a large (say 3-4 charge) SCB module will use far more energy (& space) than small modules. So if you wish to free up energy from your large SCB, use a smaller one (give you less consecutive uses) and use that energy elsewhere. ie: You decide, using a tactical choice rather than the defacto standard of "fill every spare bit of cargo space with SBCs".

Want a Python that simply can last a little bit longer in combat but has loads of energy available for modules? Use a small SBC module (eg: just 1 consecutive shield charge). Want a Python than can sit in combat for a longer time, then use a large SBC module (eg: 3-4 consecutive shield charges), but you are penalised by have less energy available.

This does not apply to how I play the game, I have multiple ships for multiple roles. I have an Anaconda and a Federal Dropship to run missons and trade, and a Python and Fer De Lance armed to the teeth for combat. The cargo concern to me is irrelevant.

 

[persephonius]

Indeed, a very large SCB module taking up 128T for example, offering 6-8 (?) consecutive charges over the X minutes (6?) but with very very high energy use?

The proposal would seem to fit a variety of approaches/uses I'd suggest... While all the time meaning just a single module is required so SBCs don't mean filling up your entire ship with them to be competitive.

Infact I've added your suggestion to my main/dedicated post on the matter. Thanks! - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=150794

This is getting to be just about the status quo of how SCB currently are. It will allow someone to stock internals up with bulkheads and have the SCB's though, so you are allowing simultaneous armour and shield tanking. Maybe I am ok with this, I have to think about it.
.
Well I would be ok with this change on the following the conditions:
1) There is no delay on subsequent charges, but more pips to systems has to do something. Such as shortening the recharge time of the SCB after charges are spent. The reason for this is that even after shields are down, and you are hull tanking, there is a reason for the tank to devote power to systems instead of just weapons and engines. The tank is still tanking with more bulkheads now, so there should still be the desire to have a defensive power configuration with your capacitor, and bring your shields back online before you hull gives out with maybe 1 charge extra after you used them all before as you had more pips to shields to allow a charge to come back of CD faster.
2) The power cost is equivalent to multiple shield bank usage now, otherwise ships with it will have no teeth at all.
3) You need to dock to do something. There is a gameplay mechanic at work in group PvP where after you force someone out to dock, there is a 'finisher' that interdicts these guys one at a time as they head back for repairs. There should be a decay factor with the SCB module that requires docking.

 

[Daffan]

limit to 1