The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[Kyokushin]

Other anacondas.

Yepp. Only one true answer. There is no other ship on 600-700 mln range in combat build with a 20 mln rebuy. That's why this ship should survive much longer than a Vulture, Clipper or other cheaper ship.
High risk, high punch, high pay-off. No pain, no gain. In other cases, nobody would want to fly Conda and risk so much money, everyone would get a cheaper ship if he would have similar possibilities.
And thats why nobody flies Orca, Gunship and Dropship. There are just better ships with similar price range, but offering more. And in my opinion, still the best combat ship is Python, even with this sloweness it is a flying bunker, of course it is weaker than Conda, and should be (combat python ~200 mlns, a three times less than combat conda).

But, a SCB stacking is not a good way to make strong ships strong, this is just boring and turning all ships to flying batteries.

 

[Metalstardust]

Enough or Enerf of the nerf posts. Just because you don't like them does not mean you need to spoil the fun of people who do like them.

 

[possessed]

I barely even play the main game anymore, the only time I get on the main game is to fly my Python and do some trading. Every time I have an PvP encounter it comes down to who has the most SCBs, please at least look into giving us a counter to SCB stacks, so why even bother looking for conflict in open when you could do the same with CQC without the aid of health poison. Does anybody else agree? at least in a real world scenario you know the only way to counter a tank is hit it from the back or the top, at least give us that option to find a weak spot to give us more game-play options, like choosing between fast and agile or slow and strong.

go away from the game and forum be happy in life you selfish one ...

 

[Dbrn47]

Oh look, another person who's decided to jump on the nerf bandwagon because they can't cut the mustard.

Wait, you're telling me you can cut mustard?

 

[Kastor]

Shout out to all yal who understand the base concepts of game balance. Good work Kyokushin, keep it up Helgarth and looking good Defacto. You guys are restoring my faith.

To Soopyyy: You pvp much? Are you among the pros?

 

[Deleted member 102790]

Just a thought - in real life dog-fighting through WW2 many many planes and versions of planes would be "pointless" relative to some "great standout fighters".

An extreme example would be the defiant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant

Isn't the real point to take that plane and then beat the better ones? When I played Il-2 Sturmovik 1946 online that was what is was all about (it seemed to me). I saw some amazing pilots with far inferior planes defeat far better ones regularly. I got blasted once and just sat there watching some guy do loop the loops and figure 8s near the ground giving up all the height advantages and speed with his inferior plane and one by one they would dive on him....and perish! Wow that was amazing!

edited my last weird comment!

 

[Kastor]

Just a thought - in real life dog-fighting through WW2 many many planes and versions of planes would be "pointless" relative to some "great standout fighters".

An extreme example would be the defiant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant

Isn't the real point to take that plane and then beat the better ones? When I played Il-2 Sturmovik 1946 online that was what is was all about (it seemed to me). I saw some amazing pilots with far inferior planes defeat far better ones regularly. I got blasted once and just sat there watching some guy do loop the loops and figure 8s near the ground giving up all the height advantages and speed with his inferior plane and one by one they would dive on him....and perish! Wow that was amazing!

If the game was perfectly balanced it would be boring eg a > b > c > d > e so no point to fight at all?

more like a > b unless in this situation where b < a... unless c gets in the mix... wohoo. Boom was that a stealth attack from d, way to play to it's strengths, nice. Ah [expletive] sons, he comes an e, it may be tough but if we take out the escorts first, they are weak on their own.

A well balanced game is a varied game, a game where everything is fielded and no ship is left behind. Because each of those ships had hours of love put in to them by the devs, they each deserve to be powerful in their own special way, and for combat ships that means they need a combat role.

Currently ED combat has one common role "Tank".

Sure the pros can out maneuver anything and run stealth strikers. But the game has to be fun for the average joe too and currently when two mid tier players meet, you just get a vulture/python/conda vs vulture/python/conda slug and scb off.

In the real world yes some ships would be strictly worse. But in the gaming world a strictly worse ship is simply: "A waste of assets, capital and developer time".

Balance is variety. Variety is the spice of life and by logical extension... gaming.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

… I mean you wouldnt want a Learjet being able to down an F-22 would you.. of course not.. it would be utterly ridiculous.. hilarious for sure, but ridiculous... And you can apply the same logic here. Its like the learjet complaining the F-22 has chaff and flares while the learjet has... umm... coffee cups and towels...
…

Making the Learjet the better combat aircraft is exactly what SCBs do. The F-22 wouldn't have enough power and internal space to use SCBs. The Learjet would be able to carry a lot of SCBs and probably more weapons.

That's what SCBs do in this game. They make multipurpose ships better combat ships than dedicated combat ships. SCBs are simply a bad/not enjoyable game element (in my opinion).

SCBs are, in my opinion, the wrong solution to the problem that the armor and shields mechanics are not good. A band-aid to quickly fix something. Removing SCBs now would just result in other problems. Removing SCB stacking isn't a solution as the basic problem that resulted in the introduction of SCBs isn't solved by that.

I guess we will have to accept the existence of SCBs until FD comes up with a better solution.

 

[Mephane]

But cellbanks are wrong way to do that.

QFT. It's already a sorry state of affairs how much the viability of the Corvette and Cutter basically depend on how many SCBs their internals and powerplant supports. However, nerfs are on the way, althought it may be a while until we see any such things implemented (Sandro btw repeated this idea in one of the recent streams, so this is not just some old brainstorming that's long since off the table):

We have been discussing them recently: one idea I'm personally quite interested in is the concept that cells overcharge your shields to unsafe levels, beyond the generator's normal capacity, potentially damaging your shield generator (and thus causing malfunctions/destruction) if during the time the cell is active the shield *doesn't* receive enough damage to drain it down to below the generator's normal maximum. We haven't checked all the angles on this idea (and there are others), but at face value it seems potentially cool to me.

 

[feldz]

I barely even play the main game anymore, the only time I get on the main game is to fly my Python and do some trading. Every time I have an PvP encounter it comes down to who has the most SCBs, please at least look into giving us a counter to SCB stacks, so why even bother looking for conflict in open when you could do the same with CQC without the aid of health poison. Does anybody else agree? at least in a real world scenario you know the only way to counter a tank is hit it from the back or the top, at least give us that option to find a weak spot to give us more game-play options, like choosing between fast and agile or slow and strong.

Absolutely support you here. For some reason they decided to make combat in main game super boring by introducing SCB mechanics and keep it like that for 1 year already. Devs don't see it as a problem. The reason for this I think is that no decision making devs are playing their own game on a good level. They spend about 15 minutes in it occasionally and then brag about it never forgetting to mention how crap they are in combat or piloting (and they are worse then harmless NPCs - i've fought them in game). It's a crime to make such a great and immersive flight model (no assist) and then destroy any reason to use it by introducing SCB into combat

But same people made CQC - and it's a great combat sim and it uses full potential of their amazing flight model. It just doesn't compute for me.

If only there was a way to escape constant network glitches during matches - maybe that's the reason they made main game combat so slow

 

[Deleted member 102790]

Thanks for the explanation Kastor and feldzr, I see the issue as more experienced players see it (especially with bigger ships eg not a cqc problem) better now.

edited another silly comment by me .

I will take a break, stressed to the max atm sigh...

 

[5thNovember]

Well, yeah. If you want to take on a Battleconda in a Vulture you might want a friend to help.
I have a Battleconda with A7 shields and the rest of the slots filled with SCB's. Why? Because I like to go into CZ's and stay there for hours. You can't do this without SCB's, especially when you have half a dozen combatants railing on you. If a lone Commander wants to pick a fight with me in an FDL, well... That's his poor life decision.

As someone who has attacked many a fully-SCB-fit Battleconda looking to settle into CZ's from both Vultures and FDL's, I can confirm this

 

[Apos]

''Adapt'' argument is pretty pointless... can be used with anything, no matter how broken.

Combat was good before SCB's. Combat is bad after SCB's. Has been discussed before, pointless to discuss again unless something new comes up, which I haven't seen in this thread. We've gone through all the viewpoints and perspectives of this discussion multiple times already.

FD are still looking on them and they will hopefully change in the future. They were nerfed once, but not much was changed. I think the solution lies in changing how they operate, not how strong they are. There have been multiple discussions on this subject with several good suggestions.

Combat was good before SCBs.

SCBs changed no variables on how combat is engaged, they only prolonged it.

???

My logic says that if something is enjoyable through and through, then prolonging it makes it better.

Why can't people admit that they want to overpower ships with their firepower of pulse lasers instead of having to learn how to PvP properly, like being able to ram efficiently or using proper guns for taking out shields instead of pulse lasers? Are people really that dense to think that their PvE builds will be effective in PvP?

 

[LameoveR]

Seriously, i remember that game before SCB's.

You have a good memory. Remember dumb AI too please.

Combat was good before SCBs.

SCBs changed no variables on how combat is engaged, they only prolonged it.

???

My logic says that if something is enjoyable through and through, then prolonging it makes it better.

Why can't people admit that they want to overpower ships with their firepower of pulse lasers instead of having to learn how to PvP properly, like being able to ram efficiently or using proper guns for taking out shields instead of pulse lasers? Are people really that dense to think that their PvE builds will be effective in PvP?

Good one, imho.

Personally i do think they could do with a change. My preferred method would for them to require charging from SYS and drain SYS quite rapdily, so when used in combat, if you are running an SCB its also draining your SYS along with your shield when taking damage after using it. If you start popping multiple SCBs then what you will find is your shields will stop recharging along with your SCBs (they will be fighting for the limited reserve of SYS, so you are either putting 4 pips in SYS and reducing WEP and ENG or taking longer to recharge). The more a charges a SCB can hold, the longer it takes to fully charge, the more recover it gives, the longer it takes to recharge.

Another good one. IMHO it could be done like Shield Generators - ONE PER SHIP.

I see all the whine is about PVP, that someone in "COMBAT ONLY FDL" can't outperform someone in "MULTIROLE PYTHON", because of stacking SCBs.
Anyone remeber any BOOST to any weapon\system\ship recently? I don't. Maybe it would be good to boost FDL and balance other "only combat" ships?
Problem not in SCBs, i assure you.

 

[Heater]

This whole threads comes down too... "if you don't play the way I play" it should be changed!

The Dev's have stated they are looking at it etc... until then if you don't like it, don't play or go play in solo or in a private group. So long as the Boosters and Cell banks are in the game and unlimited people will use them like it or not!

Or learn to use rail guns and PA's problem solved!

 

[feldz]

I would love to be able to ovepower something like an ASP or Python (player controlled) in a nimble eagle or viper. It was possible before SCBs and I was good enough to pull it back then. But after SCB I don't see any reason to attempt this - you try to be amazing pilot by overcoming a very strong shield and not getting in the line of fire of very strong weapons; you keep at if for 3-5 minutes (hands shaking, palms sweating) and shield of your opponent is almost down and then he releases an SCB; and it's only one of 30 more he has; AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRR!
And then I see people telling me to drop the subject already and enjoy the game. And using silly logic that they've spent 15 millions more on a ship and it means they are entitled to be invulnerable to cheap Viper maniacs like me.

 

[Rowander]

As soon as you get to a bigger ship with bigger shields, you're forced to use SCBs. It's Ok in smaller ships, but the constant rate of shield regen means an Anaconda must spend MINUTES rebuilding its shields if they're blown out. That, in a combat zone, equals BORING gameplay.

You should learn to burn through the SCBs faster than they can be used, tricking the other player to use them earlier or late, but not moan about nerfing things that are NEEDED for some other area of gameplay.

 

[Bortas]

I would love to be able to ovepower something like an ASP or Python (player controlled) in a nimble eagle or viper.

I would love to be able to sink somthing like a battleship or aircraft carrier with my rubber dinghy. They should nerf armor steel and go back to wood, so I can chop a hole into their hulls with my handaxe.

 

[feldz]

I would love to be able to ovepower something like an ASP or Python (player controlled) in a nimble eagle or viper. It was possible before SCBs and I was good enough to pull it back then. But after SCB I don't see any reason to attempt this - you try to be amazing pilot by overcoming a very strong shield and not getting in the line of fire of very strong weapons; you keep at if for 3-5 minutes (hands shaking, palms sweating) and shield of your opponent is almost down and then he releases an SCB; and it's only one of 30 more he has; AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRR!
And then I see people telling me to drop the subject already and enjoy the game. And using silly logic that they've spent 15 millions more on a ship and it means they are entitled to be invulnerable to cheap Viper maniacs like me.

And then I decide to buy this 15 mil more expensive ship. Now I can beat these guys, but it still takes loads of time to get through their SCB wall. Only difference is now I can eventually get through it and I have my own SCB wall, so I don't have to pull amazing hands shaking maneuvers, just keep my finger ready to release another SCB. Avoiding being rammed is too easy in 1 on 1 pvp encounters - they were so much more interesting before SCBs - and these encounters are the ones we have more often than others.

- - - Updated - - -

I would love to be able to sink somthing like a battleship or aircraft carrier with my rubber dinghy. They should nerf armor steel and go back to wood, so I can chop a hole into their hulls with my handaxe.

Exactly this silly logic is what i'm talking about. Difference between Viper and ASP is a difference between fighter-jet and small bomber. Get that through your head

 

[Iskariot]

As far as I am concerned no nerf needed.
SCBs are fine as they are.

They are extremely useful for loners like me who have to face multiple opponents.
They are a godsend in CZs, because they enable me to have fun there for a much longer time.