That's a good idea I really like your thinking, you are making too much commun sense.
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
In all honestly they need to rethink how shields work.
-Add +1MJ recharge speed for each RATING of powerplant (Powerplant 7 gives +7MJ/S)
-Add +1MJ for each PIP in SYS to increase recharge speed
-Add +1MJ for each shield BOOSTER to offset the fact that the shield takes longer to charge
-INCREASE the startup speed for the shield by +1 second for each shield booster AND shield rating (4 SB's and a rating 7 shield would add +11 seconds before the shield restarts.
So, once the shield is UP the recharge goes faster but once it's down the larger shield combined with even more modules need to synch more before a proper restart is possible.
-Move SCB's to UTILITY since it is a consumable like CHAFF or HEAT SINK
-Move Shield Boosters to internal compartments since it's like Hull upgrades
Now we get to the mechanics of the SCB's. While STRATEGICALLY useful they are right now a mess since they are like quaffing health potions.
-SCB's are basically BATTERIES injecting large amount of power into the system, creating excess heat. Treat them like weapons and take power from SYS whenever they are used. Add SYS recharge to the game just like ENG and WEA has when you wait for them to recharge or risk HEAT to the ship.
This way we also have a reson EXCEPT shield resistance to move power management to SYS to prepare to vent heat and "clear a path" for the energy surge to the shields.
-Add +1MJ recharge speed for each RATING of powerplant (Powerplant 7 gives +7MJ/S)
-Add +1MJ for each PIP in SYS to increase recharge speed
-Add +1MJ for each shield BOOSTER to offset the fact that the shield takes longer to charge
-INCREASE the startup speed for the shield by +1 second for each shield booster AND shield rating (4 SB's and a rating 7 shield would add +11 seconds before the shield restarts.
So, once the shield is UP the recharge goes faster but once it's down the larger shield combined with even more modules need to synch more before a proper restart is possible.
-Move SCB's to UTILITY since it is a consumable like CHAFF or HEAT SINK
-Move Shield Boosters to internal compartments since it's like Hull upgrades
Now we get to the mechanics of the SCB's. While STRATEGICALLY useful they are right now a mess since they are like quaffing health potions.
-SCB's are basically BATTERIES injecting large amount of power into the system, creating excess heat. Treat them like weapons and take power from SYS whenever they are used. Add SYS recharge to the game just like ENG and WEA has when you wait for them to recharge or risk HEAT to the ship.
This way we also have a reson EXCEPT shield resistance to move power management to SYS to prepare to vent heat and "clear a path" for the energy surge to the shields.
Yet another nerf thread.
Engage standard protocols:
1. Enter thread
2. Ignore nonsensical drivel
3. Skip to last page
4. Post, "Enough with the Nerf Posts already"
5. Disengage
Engage standard protocols:
1. Enter thread
2. Ignore nonsensical drivel
3. Skip to last page
4. Post, "Enough with the Nerf Posts already"
5. Disengage
Speaking for myself, I instinctively didn't like (and still don't) SCB stacking. "Potion to win" mechanics are lazy. I get what they've done for the PvP crowd, but I just think they're a poor solution and don't really fit into the ethos of the game.
At the same time, the issue can only be addressed in conjunction with a revamp of the way shields, armour and damage are handled.
Larger ships should be so heavily armoured and shielded that they can effectively ignore the smaller vessels by default - barring an unusual combination like a Eagle carrying torpedoes (but that would be pretty useless until the shields are down - but Eagle with a laser is really going to have to work hard and long to achieve that - hopefully you'll get the gist of what I'm driving at here).
At the same time, they'll struggle to get main guns to bear on a small manoeuvrable vessel.
At the same time, the issue can only be addressed in conjunction with a revamp of the way shields, armour and damage are handled.
Larger ships should be so heavily armoured and shielded that they can effectively ignore the smaller vessels by default - barring an unusual combination like a Eagle carrying torpedoes (but that would be pretty useless until the shields are down - but Eagle with a laser is really going to have to work hard and long to achieve that - hopefully you'll get the gist of what I'm driving at here).
At the same time, they'll struggle to get main guns to bear on a small manoeuvrable vessel.
this is right.
This. Here. Is a good all around solution and it is even logical.
I like the battery analogy that requires heat for energy transfer.
Sounds good. We already have most of the features necessary to accomplish this, such as armour. Those things just need to be tweaked and matter more.
I think we can see that nerfs are pretty pointless. The only way I could see this problem being solved with nerfing is if the SCB's are nerfed so hard that no one uses them, and then we might simply remove them.
The SCB's role in balance can certainly be discussed, but I think the main problem is how they affect the game itself, not that they are ''too strong''.
You're wrong about them not doing anything more though, judging from their responses in the streams, though it's hard to judge what the things they said means concretely.
It's pretty pointless to whine about ''whining'' too. You're probably not getting anywhere with that. The way you go ''next problem'' on a forum is to stop posting on the thread, which, if the issue has been discussed fully, will then die. You don't yell NEST PROBLEM in caps, this prolongs the life of the thread since you are posting in it.
Just for absolutely clarity - I personally don't have a problem with SCBs. It is believable that such a technology would exist in the game universe. The mechanics of use (in addition to other combat changes already mentioned) could do with some tweaks.
I have a problem with SCB stacking - it has too high an impact on the way the game works.
can you imagine what is going to happen to group pvp when you nerf scbs? When you focus fire on a ship, your shields melt. Fast. 4 players focus firing one guy now will kill them in like 10 seconds. Sure when you come up 1-1 in pvp against a ship with stacked shield cell banks, who by the way is fit for pure pvp, then its going to be a long fight.
But group fights are going to be so lame, when everyone is jumping out with 10 seconds of being fired on and the whole group fight is over in 2 minutes.
You probably hardly even engage in pvp and want it nerfed because its slightly annoying for you. I hope FD considers ALL the crap this will cause.
You wanna nerf something, nerf stacking of chaff. Or buff your skills. Or stop trying to take on another ship which is clearly specialized fit for PVP, with your all-rounder fit trying to prepare for everything, little pvp/little pve/little trade/little combat.
Which specialized fighter, that costs as much as the python is not as good as the python?
If you are suggesting that a VIPER, being a specialized fighter, isn't as good as a multi purpose ship because it can't fit as much shield banks, then if someone takes that as a serious argument, there's nothing that can be done to save this game. A viper 140k, vs 56 million for a python.
There's no specialized fighter ship which cannot do its fighting roll as good as any multi purpose ship specced for fighting. You can fit like 3-4 shield cell banks in a FDL, with over 1000 shields HP, and its faster than the python.
quote from you
"You are right and they going to keep poping up until they fix it, I don't understand how other people don't see a problem with SCB stacking? I play the game to be competive and to have fun not getting annoyed by broken mechanics. A multi purpose ship is stronger than a dedicated fighter because shields last longer, I have a problem with that."
What you play the game for is of no concern to anyone else. And no justification to fix anything.
The multi purpose ship is also slower, less maneuverable. So again which ship is the multi purpose ship better than? the Sidewinder?
Please show me which multipurpose ship is stronger than a dedicated fighter. Because the only dedicated fighter on par in terms of price is an FDL, and its as strong or stronger in all of its stats.
http://coriolis.io/outfit/fer_de_la...0404044a5d5d532h.Iw18aQ==.Aw18aQ==?bn=PVP FDL
It's got more utility slots. Also the internals on a python aren't all class 5 and 6, they go down to 2's and 3's.
It seems to me FD has struck a very fine balance, with such a wide variety of possible fits.
So which fighter? The Imperial Eagle? The Imperial Courier?
Are you saying that the FDL should be able to wipe the floor against a battle conda? Your argument has no merits, and merely a "its annoying for me so fix it".
When people pay 500 million to a-spec their ship, you better believe they want it to be able to survive accordingly. Otherwise shield values/recharge rates will need to buffed across the board.
But group fights are going to be so lame, when everyone is jumping out with 10 seconds of being fired on and the whole group fight is over in 2 minutes.
You probably hardly even engage in pvp and want it nerfed because its slightly annoying for you. I hope FD considers ALL the crap this will cause.
You wanna nerf something, nerf stacking of chaff. Or buff your skills. Or stop trying to take on another ship which is clearly specialized fit for PVP, with your all-rounder fit trying to prepare for everything, little pvp/little pve/little trade/little combat.
Which specialized fighter, that costs as much as the python is not as good as the python?
If you are suggesting that a VIPER, being a specialized fighter, isn't as good as a multi purpose ship because it can't fit as much shield banks, then if someone takes that as a serious argument, there's nothing that can be done to save this game. A viper 140k, vs 56 million for a python.
There's no specialized fighter ship which cannot do its fighting roll as good as any multi purpose ship specced for fighting. You can fit like 3-4 shield cell banks in a FDL, with over 1000 shields HP, and its faster than the python.
quote from you
"You are right and they going to keep poping up until they fix it, I don't understand how other people don't see a problem with SCB stacking? I play the game to be competive and to have fun not getting annoyed by broken mechanics. A multi purpose ship is stronger than a dedicated fighter because shields last longer, I have a problem with that."
What you play the game for is of no concern to anyone else. And no justification to fix anything.
The multi purpose ship is also slower, less maneuverable. So again which ship is the multi purpose ship better than? the Sidewinder?
Please show me which multipurpose ship is stronger than a dedicated fighter. Because the only dedicated fighter on par in terms of price is an FDL, and its as strong or stronger in all of its stats.
http://coriolis.io/outfit/fer_de_la...0404044a5d5d532h.Iw18aQ==.Aw18aQ==?bn=PVP FDL
It's got more utility slots. Also the internals on a python aren't all class 5 and 6, they go down to 2's and 3's.
It seems to me FD has struck a very fine balance, with such a wide variety of possible fits.
So which fighter? The Imperial Eagle? The Imperial Courier?
Are you saying that the FDL should be able to wipe the floor against a battle conda? Your argument has no merits, and merely a "its annoying for me so fix it".
When people pay 500 million to a-spec their ship, you better believe they want it to be able to survive accordingly. Otherwise shield values/recharge rates will need to buffed across the board.
Last edited:
IDEA: Possible (I said possible) solution to the scb staking/poor ammo/trader weakness issues.
Just kicking this idea around. Nothing more.
There is already a similar idea in game with regards to the Orca, so it can be done.
Military slots.
The top two slots in the ship are designated 'military/combat/advanced' slots.
In game reason, these are directly attached to the ships power and/or computer control where as the others are not.
These slots are then capable of fitting not only cargo and the other, normal modules but the following;
Shield Cell Boosters
Ammo Storage
Advanced shield boosters
Cargo
Laser accelerators
Advanced power capacitor
Therefore, you would be limited to only two of the above, you decide which fits your game style best.
Someone may want an all SCB but would not be able to fit extra ammo or have laser accelerators.
Another option would be to have laser accelerators and extra ammo but you would not be able to fit SCB.
A trader can still have max'ed out cargo space or fit two advanced shield boosters (which are adding 75% each to the shield) to give him/her more strength.
You get the idea.
A smaller ship would be limited to class 3, a bigger ship could go up to class 7 or 8. The modules would have the normal a-e ratings too.
This way, the argument of staking and so forth is nullified. Bigger ships maintain an advantage but it is now not a case of attrition only. Variety, tactics and skill will play a greater part.
It is just an idea, feel free to ignore, moan or (i hope) add further discussion.
Just kicking this idea around. Nothing more.
There is already a similar idea in game with regards to the Orca, so it can be done.
Military slots.
The top two slots in the ship are designated 'military/combat/advanced' slots.
In game reason, these are directly attached to the ships power and/or computer control where as the others are not.
These slots are then capable of fitting not only cargo and the other, normal modules but the following;
Shield Cell Boosters
Ammo Storage
Advanced shield boosters
Cargo
Laser accelerators
Advanced power capacitor
Therefore, you would be limited to only two of the above, you decide which fits your game style best.
Someone may want an all SCB but would not be able to fit extra ammo or have laser accelerators.
Another option would be to have laser accelerators and extra ammo but you would not be able to fit SCB.
A trader can still have max'ed out cargo space or fit two advanced shield boosters (which are adding 75% each to the shield) to give him/her more strength.
You get the idea.
A smaller ship would be limited to class 3, a bigger ship could go up to class 7 or 8. The modules would have the normal a-e ratings too.
This way, the argument of staking and so forth is nullified. Bigger ships maintain an advantage but it is now not a case of attrition only. Variety, tactics and skill will play a greater part.
It is just an idea, feel free to ignore, moan or (i hope) add further discussion.
Last edited:
Please don't question my skills without doing proper research it really offends me a lot, especially when I could hold my own. Also, you talk about Chaff nerfing but you forget to mention is under Utility mount in which SCBs belongs to. Enough said,
[video=youtube;ctboBgLQtDg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctboBgLQtDg[/video]
[video=youtube;ZgH3kbTKfOg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgH3kbTKfOg[/video]
Last edited:
Adds variety, makes room for further expansion, creates more tactics, balances SCBs and solves ammo issues with weapons like the Rail Gun. I like this idea.
I don't like it. As long as there's room, and the power for specific modules. I don't see a problem.
I have always wanted to have module add on slots, so your shield generator would have say one add on slot with it and you can add a shield cell bank or mabe a recharge booster or some thing.
Not all modules would have add on slots,
say a cargo rack could have a lead lining for double cargo scan times. Or life support for live stock, mabe a limpet scrambler or bummy cargo launcer for pirate defence.
I think some thing like this would masivly diversify the module selection with out having to increase the slot number for all the extra modules you could fit. They would still cost money and need power but you would have to make choices about what you wanted to focus on. And you would get one bank of your choice for your shield.
Not all modules would have add on slots,
say a cargo rack could have a lead lining for double cargo scan times. Or life support for live stock, mabe a limpet scrambler or bummy cargo launcer for pirate defence.
I think some thing like this would masivly diversify the module selection with out having to increase the slot number for all the extra modules you could fit. They would still cost money and need power but you would have to make choices about what you wanted to focus on. And you would get one bank of your choice for your shield.
Just do a Sir Robin and bravely run for it.
There's your counter.
There's your counter.