The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[Vek17]

I have no idea why everyone is saying the FDL needs buffs, that ship has been the most used combat ship in Kaushpoos for a reason. Wing fights have been dominated by Conda's and FDL's with FDL flying as chase and alpha and Conda's heavy tank and heavy alpha. barely any Pythons have been showing up.

 

[KellyR]

Nerf this, nerf that. STOP THE MADNESS ALREADY!!!

I understand the thinking here, but this is a very slippery slope. Where does it end?

 

[Commander Biscuit]

The devs have already announced they are going to slap crush them with the nerf bat, so stop crying please.

Hopefully the nerf doesn't happen like this:

Number of charges in SCBs is reduced. So stacking SCBs becomes more important than before. Those in big ships with like 8 SCBs will still take forever to kill. Small ships that have room to fit 1-2 are more affected by the nerf.

I think an SCB counter module/weapon would work better, that way we can keep pvp balancing from nerfing pve.

If missiles were reworked to be medium/high-module damage with low hull damage, and also allowed to pass through shields, it would let players punish SCB stackers by targeting shields first to open the way for their other (less expensive) weapons. Missiles would effectively become an SCB soft-counter.

We have a winner!

 

[Bokugo]

What if missiles just passed through shields, à la FTL:Faster Than Light? Or am I attracting pitchforks with that idea?

If missiles were reworked to be medium/high-module damage with low hull damage, and also allowed to pass through shields, it would let players punish SCB stackers by targeting shields first to open the way for their other (less expensive) weapons. Missiles would effectively become an SCB soft-counter. Would Missiles become too powerful? They themselves, of course, have their own counters, and I wouldn't be against a missile mobility nerf to compensate. Once upon a time in Battlefield 3, a smart jet pilot could evade a missile by flying at it and pitching up last second (assuming he knew where it was coming from). Those missiles would still be able to follow a jet from behind with no issues, so the launcher had to pick a good moment to fire.

This is becoming more about the missiles than the SCB. I suppose the point is, if missiles were balanced properly, could they be allowed to negate shields and thus become an answer to SCB stacking?

Well weapon crafting could add modularity to weapons/missiles. Like give a missile a high speed-low range rocket with an emp warhead to disrupt shields or a dumbfire rocket that "evades" PDT and basically a magnet warhead to mess with sensors, etc.
There might be quite a few ways to get past SCBs in the future with new weapon possibilities.

 

[Kastor]

Hopefully the nerf doesn't happen like this:

Number of charges in SCBs is reduced. So stacking SCBs becomes more important than before. Those in big ships with like 8 SCBs will still take forever to kill. Small ships that have room to fit 1-2 are more affected by the nerf.

I think an SCB counter module/weapon would work better, that way we can keep pvp balancing from nerfing pve.

Not so keen on a specific counter, feels a bit paper scissors rocksy. The point of balance is to improve variety, forcing players to take a specific item is what started all this.

Definitely agree that a purely numerical balance change wouldn't help in the slightest though. There needs to be either a slot change or a considerable downside to using them. (such as them burning out your shield gen).

 

[kofeyh]

The calls to nerf SCBs are more about how people seem to combat, than actually SCBs themselves.

The Dev's are already looking to change the mechanic. But since we just can't seem to have useful modules like ammo dumps (why the hell can't I just take ammo from a repair module? It's right there!) not to mention the god-awful slow recharge, people are always going to find solutions. Class 7 are bad, above that it's just criminal.

You can probably jump to Sag A in the time it takes a class 7 or 8 to refresh. SCBs resolve a game mechanic that needs to be there (with greater shields comes great responsibility) but it's still a 10 second cool down.

Overwhelming force solves SCBs. So does ramming. 4 pips to shields and tally ho. Once the shields are down those SCBs become dead weight. And if you are going into a fight and not knowing what the other person has, it's probably not a good fight to get into.

Moving SCBs to utility is of course the preferred solution - for fer-de-lance drivers. So I'm not surprised that has come up.

But I think FD have suggested they are looking at the risk/reward situation (so making them a bit more risky to use) is a reasonable step. They exist because oh god have you seen recharge times of a class 7 or 8? It's pretty bad.

I think fooling with SCBs sort of necessitates looking at how shields work and the power regulator. They are all now very much interlinked, so changing one really does mean adjusting the other two factors.

 

[Freshmango55]

EDITED: Post, it was WAY to sarcastic.

Main point was moving the SCB to utility mounts greatly decreases the sheer difference in health between ships. Sure the annaconda can mount more but it'll need to fire multiple of them to regen it's shield.

Moving the SCBs to utility would actually be a good idea, it would divide the meta.

 

[Jmanis]

So, missiles used to be able to glass-cannon a ship, but lo and behold, we got them nerfed (just like the countless list of other cool things we got in the game, and then had nerfed by threads like this)

So here's a thought. How about a Energy Weapon Cell Booster. Increases (maybe as much as doubles) the ROF of energy weapons for a short period per charge (or doubles the DPS in the case of beams). Drawback is obviously that it's going to overheat your weapons much faster, but it'll sap shields in a pinch. Lets face it, SCBs are useless once the target's shields are down, and the whole problem is that you can't deliver damage fast enough to counteract the effect of the SCB. This could also be a stealth-boost for armour reinforcement, as it'd become much more important if your opponent (possibly) has the (optional) ability to drain your shields in a snap.

Would this be balanced straight off the bat? Of course not. What about Ballistics, should there be a similar mod for them? Maybe, who knows, but hell, deal with that when it comes, because at least it's fixing something by adding to the game rather than taking away. Because lets face it, content in this regard is already a bit thin on deck. Missiles and mines are already useless and in dire need of fixing (more so than SCB's being OP, but again, Missiles used to be a fix for that. Funny what happens when you just nerf stuff eh?)

 

[kofeyh]

It seems to be a simple axiom for this community. I don't know how to deal with something, so please nerf it.

It's an endless game of jenga that removes difference and variety in the almighty goal to make everything the same as everything else; confusingly believing that is somehow "better".

- - - Updated - - -

Moving the SCBs to utility would actually be a good idea, it would divide the meta.

This is a massive gain for Anaconda and FDL, both of which have larger utility counts. I wonder how many people suggesting this, happen to have either?

Changing where they are doesn't really change the problem; people don't know how to deal with them.

 

[PixelatedDonkey]

While we are at it let's half the armor for pythons and type 9s. Tired of spending half my ammo to kill them. I am in a viper and it's not fair that I have to buzz around, take no damage from them but have to spend so much time and ammo to kill them. In fact let's just make all ships with equal armor and shields. Screw tactics and skill. Let's just give them all water pistols and a comic book text "pew pew" when shooting, and a big "boom" text box when someone explodes.

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

Ahh yes, the cobra does only have two utility mounts. My mistake. That does make it a bad example. But most ships bigger have 4 utility mounts so it still holds true for them.

However the rest of what you said is irrelevent. SHIELD POTENTIAL takes into account the capacity of each SCB. The anacondas class 6 and 5 scbs are far better than the Cobra's class 3 and 2s. So it's twice as many STRONGER shield cell banks.

I got it partially wrong, but not "EXACTLY backwards".

It would really help things along if you went and researched things before you posted.

9150 / 2750 = 3.3x not the 5X you claim.
Or, as you said:
"Seriously, the Anni would only have a bit more than twice as much shield potential as the cobra rather than the 5 times+ it has now."

3.2 is a bit more, and definitely not the 5x you pulled out of thin vacuum.

I will say it again: the proposed move to Utility will brake it the way you THINK it is broken today, and remove the balance you say you want, which it has today by being in hull slots.

So clearly you are not equipped to discuss balance, as your maths still suck, and your knowledge of ships and game mechanics is equally bad.

Leave it to the Devs, I am sure they got the maths right.

 

[digitalscream]

A vulture can't beat a python like this when that python know to use backwards thrust in combat.

Not exactly like that, no, but it can still beat a Python flying backwards; at full reverse thrust a Python is travelling at roughly the same speed as a Vulture using full vertical thrust, so there are plenty of other moves you can use to manage the job.

 

[Muetdhiver]

I understand the thinking here, but this is a very slippery slope. Where does it end?

It ends up with everyone in sidewinders with the same weapons and modules :/=

 

[myrr mac]

simple and elegant solution would be to differentiate the internal slots.

think orca already has that in 2 of its slots? Have to be cargo currently, presumably passengers when thats implimented.

expand on that idea.

combat ships could get equal number of combat utility internals as same-weight-class multirole.

more elegant than just making them be utility mounts imo, and would require less rebalancing. For instance if its made into utility-mounts, then conda would be even more supreme than now, and python would be <edit: bad word apparently...> for its price and maneuverability.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Oh no the dedicated heavy fighter and the easy to hit warship will be the toughest vehicles in the game WOE IS ME!!

Seriously, the Anni would only have a bit more than twice as much shield potential as the cobra rather than the 5 times+ it has now.

Technically he Anaconda is a MULTIPURPOSE craft, not a dedicated warship.

It is merely the amount of internal modules and utility slots that allows it to become a massive TANK.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Here's my idea for a solution that would also add a little more to energy management.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=195141

 

[Rocky-451]

We don't have a problem with traders using one or two slot for SCBs after all the more you use the less profit you make. The problem lies on those who stack them like the pirates or bounty hunters obviously they don't need a lot of cargo space.

You don't have a problem with traders using a little SCBs, but have you considered the negative impact of your suggestion to remove/nerf SCBs on these traders, some in starter ships? Not everyone has a Python like you.

And that's your problem - you think the game should suit YOU right now, while you're trading in a python. As a trader you combat-equip your ship only up to a certain level, i.e. without SCBs, and you want to artificially impose this limit on other pilots, those who are into combat and want to combat-equip their ships to the max. Sorry, but the game isn't just about you or traders with Pythons. Elite is a combat game as well. If you want to get in fights with combat pilots who have better equipments like SCBs, that's your choice, but when you lose don't complain and ask for such equipments to be nerfed just to give yourself a better chance at combat while carrying a load of cargo. You want to have your cake and eat it too. I have a Vulture and don't trade at all. How would you feel if I decided to start trading in this little ship with just 8Ts of cargo, and complain about how it's unfair that you in a Python could carry so much more cargo than me, and hence cargo bays should be nerfed? I propose that cargo bays should go in the utility slots. Like the idea?

 

[DarkseeD]

The OP makes as much sense as a miner who, after losing a fight to a pirate, says "I lost only because he has stronger guns. All Class 3 guns should be removed or nerfed to the level of the mining laser. Otherwise it's so unfair!"

Would you moan if someone killed you with mining laser, because they out stacked you with SCB's?

You don't have a problem with traders using a little SCBs, but have you considered the negative impact of your suggestion to remove/nerf SCBs on these traders, some in starter ships? Not everyone has a Pythons like you.

And that's your problem - you think the game should suit YOU right now, while you're trading in a python. As a trader you combat-equip your ship only up to a certain level, i.e. without SCBs, and you want to artificially impose this limit on other pilots, those who are into combat and want to combat-equip their ships to the max. Sorry, but the game isn't just about you or traders with Pythons. Elite is a combat game as well. If you want to get in fights with combat pilots with better equipments like SCBs, that's your choice, but when you lose don't complain and ask for such equipments to be nerfed just to give yourself a better chance at combat while carrying a load of cargo. You want to have your cake and eat it too. I have a Vulture and don't trade at all. How would you feel if I decided to start trading in this little ship with just 8Ts of cargo, and complain about how it's unfair that you in a Python could carry so much more cargo than me, and hence cargo bays should be nerfed? I propose that cargo bays should go in the utility slots. Like the idea?

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, the OP is a combat pilot and want's trading ships like the Python to stop being used to stack SCB. So your comments are looking a bit silly.

 

[hunvagy]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, the OP is a combat pilot and want's trading ships like the Python to stop being used to stack SCB. So your comments are looking a bit silly.

I would hardly call a ship with 3 large and 2 medium hardpoints a trading ship. If you compare the Python with the FDL (they are in the same price range), the Python has more internal, the FDL has more utility. Same goes for the Cobra and the DBS which are on the same level. The combat oriented ships all seem to have more utility then internal, and the multirole ships have better internal options so you can configure it to cargo/bounty hunting/mining/combat as you see fit. The fact that this setup makes some ships ideal for stacking SCBs doesn't matter squat.

Anyway, on to the topic, SCBs in themselves aren't a bad thing, it's a nice "oh " button for trader and fighter alike, when the excrement hits the fan. But it's not a magic win button, because some weapons are specifically designed for high alpha damage, and no amount of SCB will save you, if they rip off your shields before they engage. That said, I would up for giving it more drawbacks, but not nerfing it. And as mentioned before the problem is not the SCB, but the time it takes for a high rated shield to recharge. After some point bossters don't even matter anymore, you can finish War & Peace by the time an A6 or A7 recharges.

 

[Muetdhiver]

trading ships like the Python

This is where it went all wrong. Python is both an armored trading/mining ship xor a tanky combat ship. You can fit it for one or the other, but not both.
The combat python costs ~60-70% more than a fully fitted FDL, while only being a bit stronger (at tanking, agility and speed is worse).