As a AD&D player (and presumably GM if you know blance well) you should know that requiring kryptonite solutions for common enemies is non-optimal to the players gameplay experience. Especially when that solution restricts the players choices in other areas. Keeping a bottle of blade silvering with you is one thing but forcing all players to carry only full silver weapons is another. In elite the ships needed to take down a Condas shield quickly need to be very specialized and likely have little defensive power themselves.
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
As a AD&D player (and presumably GM if you know blance well) you should know that requiring kryptonite solutions for common enemies is non-optimal to the players gameplay experience. Especially when that solution restricts the players choices in other areas. Keeping a bottle of blade silvering with you is one thing but forcing all players to carry only full silver weapons is another. In elite the ships needed to take down a Condas shield quickly need to be very specialized and likely have little defensive power themselves.
Very good point.
It's not often I see such a jealous defensive post on these forums.
Your stance is also open to intepretation. Here let me "FTFY"
That's not how I feel, but someone less charitable than me might think that about you.
You should take it up with the OP - see the claim below which Bortas was responding to. Apparently SCB-stacking is the only reason why Jesse would lose with a Viper against a Python. Yeah, right.
I am 'on about' how we become so used to using one tool that, when we try another, it can seem strange.
Yeah, As to , especially if your used to As can feel a bit weird. I prefer mostly as, after much rampant ramming with As, I found various modules busted when down to 25-35%. I have two friends using a similar setup, one swears by As and carries shield cells and a generator. The other runs Full-Metal-FAS like myself - both prefer to stay at range. Personally I swap in A thrusters for more ramming goodness, along with the Frag Cannons and beams.
Last edited:
Again, all I want are more meaningful choices, with regards to fighting loadouts.
Currently we have 1 (stack cells/banks) and 2 novelty setups (stealth and full-metal/hull tanks).
A few more choices, not a bucket load, so I at least have to use some brainpower to anticipate a target's setup, please.
Currently we have 1 (stack cells/banks) and 2 novelty setups (stealth and full-metal/hull tanks).
A few more choices, not a bucket load, so I at least have to use some brainpower to anticipate a target's setup, please.
Basically this. I have Prismatics on both my builds. Without them a cell build is not that effective because the base shield fails faster than the cell discharge time under focused fire.
And having cells not active - switching off a plassie or 2 to fire the cell - isnt great because you don't have the time to around with such a weak base shield.
I think the ship works best as a high risk high reward big alpha brawler, you are gonna win some lose some. At the end of the day it's great fun to fly and is fast enough to keep up and that's what matters most for me.
Keep in mind that SCBs will get changed in 1.5. So armor tanking can be somewhat viable in the future but that depends on the SCB change.
I have seen tanker FAS and I have to agree that it gets molten quite quickly compared to other tankers, e.g. Anaconda.
This os because of this passive resistance against some hardpoint seizes. The Anaconda has a resistence to nearly everything, Python to small and medium HPs and FDL and FAS apparently just against small hardpoints.
This is the deciding factor wheather or not a ship is a good hull tank or not. I have tried the Python in 1.3 as a hull tank and it works perfectly. But since you can have like twice the amount of HP in shields with this uber PP and SCB stacking, why bother having armor?
This. A game like this needs diversity. With SCBs being the main way to absorb damage, all shields regenerating at 1mj/s (so mobility > raw shield strength), Hull tanking almost always a bad PvE choice (HRPs not helping with SS protection etc.) , and turrets doing something like 2.5 times less damage than their gimballed counterparts we are forced to play a select few ships and load-outs. That or we sacrifice a great deal of defense/offence just for the novelty of it. That and it is silly imo that multi-role ships almost always out perform their "fighter" counter parts due to almost always having a better power plant and much more room for SCBs. I'm not calling for a nerf to them, that would be silly, but the whole system does need to be reworked.
You should take it up with the OP - see the claim below which Bortas was responding to. Apparently SCB-stacking is the only reason why Jesse would lose with a Viper against a Python. Yeah, right.
Perhaps his issue is more that the Python can outright ignore the Viper, rather than the Viper can't beat it.
Consider the idea of escorts, lots of people want to have and want to be escorts, current pay systems (and lack there off) stop that from being a viable job, but consider if it happens.
Situation: 1 T7 with 1 Viper escort against one Python, in an optimum game the Viper should be able to try and slow down the Python, force the Python to deal with the escort before the target. But right now the Python has time and health to make demands and blow out the cargo hatch regardless of what the Viper does. Once the cans are floating he can kill the viper and take the loot at his own rate.
If SCBs where gone, weakened or limited the Python couldn't risk the Viper getting constant damage on him and would have to deal with the pest, giving the trader some chance to flee.
So perhaps the problem isn't the one on one strength, it's the ability for the smaller ship to at least have some prompt effect on the target while it interacts with a third party.
Last edited:
This:
And also this:
I am for keeping SCBs as a defensive option. But I would rebalance them a bit so that they dont make the multirole ships too powerful. An idea someone brought up -and which I like quite a bit- is to keep SCBs almost as they are but when they are activated they completely drain the WEP capacitor for an extended period of time (about a minute maybe?).
That way SCBs would still be useful as a defence weapon (traders could still use them to run away or hold out while their escort deals with the pirates) and they can be used outside of combat to replenish shields without having to wait FOREVER. But a ship that constantly uses SCBs sacrifices all of its offensive capabilities. This would also give Shield Boosters a better place in the meta: People who want a powerful attack craft will need to use Boosters, people who favor a defensive playstyle can continue to stack SCBs..
And also this:
I am for keeping SCBs as a defensive option. But I would rebalance them a bit so that they dont make the multirole ships too powerful. An idea someone brought up -and which I like quite a bit- is to keep SCBs almost as they are but when they are activated they completely drain the WEP capacitor for an extended period of time (about a minute maybe?).
That way SCBs would still be useful as a defence weapon (traders could still use them to run away or hold out while their escort deals with the pirates) and they can be used outside of combat to replenish shields without having to wait FOREVER. But a ship that constantly uses SCBs sacrifices all of its offensive capabilities. This would also give Shield Boosters a better place in the meta: People who want a powerful attack craft will need to use Boosters, people who favor a defensive playstyle can continue to stack SCBs..
Last edited:
Question about SCBs
I havent used a lot of SCBs in my ED life, but i have a question as i am not sure if it is a bug or if it is the way they are supposed to work.
I use a mouse keyboard to activate SCB and i equipped 2 different SCBs (different size and rating) but i just realized that when i hit the key (in my case, mouse button 5) all my SCB activate at the same time, so i get a big boost to shields (they go from almost 0 to full sield) but i consume one charge from all the banks.
I noticed that deactivating a SCB prevents the use of the charge, but it is pretty boring to switch them on/off every time (and requires checking if there are charges left in the active bank).
Is there a way to force them to activate in sequence one after the other, when the first one is exhausted?
Thanks in advance!
I havent used a lot of SCBs in my ED life, but i have a question as i am not sure if it is a bug or if it is the way they are supposed to work.
I use a mouse keyboard to activate SCB and i equipped 2 different SCBs (different size and rating) but i just realized that when i hit the key (in my case, mouse button 5) all my SCB activate at the same time, so i get a big boost to shields (they go from almost 0 to full sield) but i consume one charge from all the banks.
I noticed that deactivating a SCB prevents the use of the charge, but it is pretty boring to switch them on/off every time (and requires checking if there are charges left in the active bank).
Is there a way to force them to activate in sequence one after the other, when the first one is exhausted?
Thanks in advance!
Sounds like you have all your scbs active in the same fire group.
I have it set up this way as well, but I only have one scb enabled at a time in the module menu. My ships just dont have enough juice to run with 3-4 scbs active at a time.
So when I hit the scb key it tries to fire all three but only fires the one which is active. No way to automate the sequence I think, maybe it can be done third party but not sure if that's legal or not.
I have it set up this way as well, but I only have one scb enabled at a time in the module menu. My ships just dont have enough juice to run with 3-4 scbs active at a time.
So when I hit the scb key it tries to fire all three but only fires the one which is active. No way to automate the sequence I think, maybe it can be done third party but not sure if that's legal or not.
They are actually in NO fire group, just a key set in the option menu. Anyway i think the problem is just tat, all the SCBs seems to be linked to the same group
I admit that allowing sequenced activation would push player to carry more and more SCBs making the matter exploitable
thanks for your reply!
Why is it so hard for you to be believe? Are you one of those who needs prove of everything?You should take it up with the OP - see the claim below which Bortas was responding to. Apparently SCB-stacking is the only reason why Jesse would lose with a Viper against a Python. Yeah, right.
How FAoff is making this possible? I thought you still need to stay on that optimal speed, to make optimal turn? I also understood that FAoff does not affect to any turning rates etc.? Have I misunderstood something?
I have Anaconda with SCB stack atm. I think it is not balanced with hull strength. I also think that Viper should not have even tiniest change against Anaconda, even against bad Anaconda pilot.
...
Direct idea for SCB issue. What if the cells could be used after you lose your shields? Those could be only used to return your shields faster?
You can lose and return shields with faster interval. Pips in shields would be once again more meaningful.
edit...
I would actually be even more extreme with balance changes.
Viper fanatics say that their Viper should be able to destroy a ship that can be more than +200 times more expensive, even ~300 times.
This kind of gamey balancing where HP bars are dropping is . In Elite I can shoot down Anaconda with a rifle if it comes to that. Because it makes 0.00001 point of dmg! Yes, rather many shots it needs indeed.
I think that military grade anaconda should take 0 damage from C2 cannons. It just could not penetrate the armor. Create more role for the ships, instead of having all in the same bucket.
And yes, Vulture with C3 cannons could do damage to Anaconda. Get a right ship for the right task, and stop this competition that I should be able to pea shot a planet with my Sidewinder.
Last edited:
FAoff does not improve my pitch rate, however, I do have more freedom of movement to pitch my nose without affecting my direction, neither do I have to adjust my speed every time I want to maneuver, I only slow down to optimal speed if I want to use lateral and/or vertical thrusters. I didn't say FAoff give me an advantage, however, it does provide a different approach how to maneuver in combat not possible with FAon. That's my opinion others will disagree.
FA Off doesn't increase turning speed. It increases apparent turning speed. With either of them, when you turn you pivot. With FAOn, your main thruster will continue it's burn and the front top or bottom thrusters will fire as well. The nose thruster might fire intermittently to keep you at your set speed. With FAOff, only the front top or bottom thrusters will fire. The main engine won't. Therefore you will pivot while traveling in the same direction at the same speed as before. Pivoting by itself takes less time than describing a semicircle which is why there is an apparent increase in turning rate.
With FA On, I can't keep most of these NPC's in front of me unless I use reverse thrust. They do their best to stay on my tail (which is sound combat tactics if you can pull it off). But with FA Off, they have no chance of pulling it off, because I can always get them back in view. Once I do that, I re-enable flight assist and begin laying into them.
only thing bad of scb(use them myself , not all ships tho) is the price , its way too cheap.<---- ammo that is.
doesnt have to be torpedo expensive but more as it is now.
doesnt have to be torpedo expensive but more as it is now.
I dont think that would solve anything. Increasing the price wont make the fundamental balancing problem go away.
Besides, the players who can afford to fly a battle Python/Conda are usually filthy rich. They would not care even if an SCB refill cost a million credits.