I find SCBs ok. For me it's logical that a multipurpose ship uses it's internal space when it comes to pure combat loadout.
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
I find SCBs ok. For me it's logical that a multipurpose ship uses it's internal space when it comes to pure combat loadout.
Offense and Defense are both combat oriented roles. Why shove Multi-role ships into a combat exclusive role instead of making a defensive ship? Isn't that what the Federal Gunship is, in a way? All it does is take a beating and wait for it's opportunity to catch it's aggressor slipping. Make more of those, and leave multi-role ships as multi-role ships with no clear advantage in any one category, as they were intended.
Pythons will not lose their meaning in combat simply because SCB's are balanced or removed. They do just fine without them. Give it a try.
Dude that idea is the best I seen, I hope FD will look into.They're just overpowered. Mathematically overpowered. 1 A or B SCB module provides triple or more the effective HP of an equivalent armour module. The problem is the high number of charges for the higher rated ones giving 1000+ MJ per bank.
E rated SCBs are fine. 5E SCB gives 400 total MJ, compared to 240 extra hull strength of the 5D armour module. 1.5 times the strength is fair considering that SCBs need power and don't give all their HP at once.
However a 5B SCB gives 800 MJ, that's more than triple what armour gives. That is blatantly, mathematically OP.
Every SCB should give roughly the same MJ as what an E rated one does, only the higher rated ones should do it in fewer charges (5E = 5x80, 5D = 4x100, 5C=3x133, 5B=2x200, 5A=1x400).
That way you have to choose between fast regeneration but having to wait for the perfect moment, or constant use but vulnerable to high sustained damage.
That plus them losing their ammo charges when powered off would fix it.
Oh and Class 6 and 7 armour modules please
Doesn't look all that great to me. It favors loading cheaper SCB's that take less power and heat management then setting up macros to cycle through weapon profiles to spam them.
thats why it needs
- If more than one SCB fired (second fired when first is still in a process) it will multiply heat by 4 times, an so on.
Heat is a very minor balancing factor, especially now that armor protects modules. The possibility of you burning out a module during a fight with regular spikes into the 200% range is minimal, and heat sinks compensate for it well enough.
So to spam SCB player needs to use heat-sinks, and if it'll multiply heat by 4 times for each active SCB after the first one "spike to 200%" is guarantied. And if player fire weapons + boost it'll be more then just a spike, and I don't think heat-sinks will help it.
Yeah, heat as a standalone mechanic is very minor... but a lot of heat could do the trick.
And they go through all that effort to get a slightly better armour module that only works when you have shields up. I fail to see the huge problem
It's not effort though. I already set up macros for every ship I fly.
Button 8:
Fire button 2
Switch Weapon profiles
Or if you need two triggers for different weapon types....
Button 8:
Activate SCB
Switch to right panel
Switch to modules
Deactivate module X
Activate module Y
Leave right panel
Est. time for the macro is .08 seconds, repeat for the number of SCB modules you have. Given that I have 7 free buttons on my HOTAS, I can do this for any ship. Macro profiles take 5 minutes to set up, and you only set them up once.
- - - Updated - - -
I think you're overestimating how much heat SCB's introduce, and underestimating how quickly it dissipates. Unless you're running full PE's it's hard to overheat a combat fit ship of almost any type except the Courier and maybe Eagle with rails. Neither of which rely on SCB's in the first place.
If you deactivate an SCB while it's working, you lose the charge, so that wouldn't work
How do set up Micros? I have an X52 pro and voice attack, but I haven't used voice since I upgraded to Windows 10.
Assuming you have to deactivate the SCB that's working. When they're stacked 5 or 6 deep you keep 3 activated, the one that gets disabled is the third that is not being used or prepped.
Edit: Actually I didn't describe that correctly, I meant to throw in there a mentioning of groups. Let me try again.
Fire SCB 1 and 3
Activate and switch to SCB 2 and 4
Disable SCB 5 or 6, your higher ranked SCB's that you're saving for a good fight or get the hell out situation.
As long as you don't have an emergency and have to fire off two groups in rapid succession, you're good.
- - - Updated - - -
Voice attack is perfect for it if you fly one ship regularly. It takes a little more time to set up is the only reason I say that. I can't tell you how to use the X52's software, I use a Warthog and CH Pro Throttle. They all have widely different software.
Last edited:
Right now, every ship in battle has one role. The stats mean how good those are in that one role. What if there would be multiple roles? Maybe Anaconda would have difficulties to hit Viper, and Viper could destroy modules from it. Maybe Viper is not able to destroy the Anaconda, or maybe breaking the canopy etc.
Then Anaconda will need someone against the Viper, because it does not want to lose the modules.
In my opinion, Anacondas should be armed with turrets, and with fixed only able to shoot other bigger ships. Else the PvP is always about fixed weapons, and is not in balance. Anaconda should be way slower and less Agile. Clipper should probably be less agile as well, it might be op
Balancing wing vs wing, not just 1 vs 1. Rock-Paper-Scissors. More variety to the game play. And if you ask from me, it would be far more realistic, far less MMORPG than the current system we have. None tries to destroy a tank with a rifle, right?
You can continue thinking the possibilities from this. I think there are plenty. Still, I am not really hoping too much for this kind of idea. I think it would be better, it is just that it would need huge changes -> So probably not going to happen, and so we will probably always have this ~arcade model.
CQC is a bit better in teams, not as chaotic. But true, disengaging is very difficult.
Open play... You are probably right in this. SCB are too strong atm. and hull is too weak.
SCB in general is a good idea. You are losing internal space for stronger shield. Right now there is nothing competitive vs SCB -> So everyone must have SCB stack.
SCB should not be defining the battles, as those are atm.
If you want to make a pirate ship, you are definitely going to have hard time against bounty hunters. Because you simply need your internals for cargo and possibly for other nice things to have. This should be considered when balancing.
Hull should be the one that takes far more beating than the shields. But already said, and probably in multiple places.
For me it feels like that Python is not competitive in PvP? Speed is normally rather important and it does not have much? There is no way to escape? No Masslock either? I have not tried with assist off to be honest, that is enough to make it a good one?
For PvP pirates, clipper vs python? I think that all would pick the clipper, no?
Clipper with maxed thrusters is probably a bit too agile atm. Could take a hit from a small nerf-hammer
Small ship for pirating, cobra?
Large ship for pirating, Clipper?
Medium ship for pirating, there is none? It would be nice to have here one, or am I missing something?
I admit that I might be wrong, but... For me Python is very multi-purpose, because it has so huge flaws as well. Python is probably the only multi-purpose in the game that is actually a multi-purpose
Not really good in anything, but not bad either.Right now, every ship in battle has one role. The stats mean how good those are in that one role. What if there would be multiple roles? Maybe Anaconda would have difficulties to hit Viper, and Viper could destroy modules from it. Maybe Viper is not able to destroy the Anaconda, or maybe breaking the canopy etc.
Then Anaconda will need someone against the Viper, because it does not want to lose the modules.
In my opinion, Anacondas should be armed with turrets, and with fixed only able to shoot other bigger ships. Else the PvP is always about fixed weapons, and is not in balance. Anaconda should be way slower and less Agile. Clipper should probably be less agile as well, it might be op
Balancing wing vs wing, not just 1 vs 1. Rock-Paper-Scissors. More variety to the game play. And if you ask from me, it would be far more realistic, far less MMORPG than the current system we have. None tries to destroy a tank with a rifle, right?
You can continue thinking the possibilities from this. I think there are plenty. Still, I am not really hoping too much for this kind of idea. I think it would be better, it is just that it would need huge changes -> So probably not going to happen, and so we will probably always have this ~arcade model.
CQC is a bit better in teams, not as chaotic. But true, disengaging is very difficult.
Open play... You are probably right in this. SCB are too strong atm. and hull is too weak.
SCB in general is a good idea. You are losing internal space for stronger shield. Right now there is nothing competitive vs SCB -> So everyone must have SCB stack.
SCB should not be defining the battles, as those are atm.
If you want to make a pirate ship, you are definitely going to have hard time against bounty hunters. Because you simply need your internals for cargo and possibly for other nice things to have. This should be considered when balancing.
Hull should be the one that takes far more beating than the shields. But already said, and probably in multiple places.
For me it feels like that Python is not competitive in PvP? Speed is normally rather important and it does not have much? There is no way to escape? No Masslock either? I have not tried with assist off to be honest, that is enough to make it a good one?
For PvP pirates, clipper vs python? I think that all would pick the clipper, no?
Clipper with maxed thrusters is probably a bit too agile atm. Could take a hit from a small nerf-hammer
Small ship for pirating, cobra?
Large ship for pirating, Clipper?
Medium ship for pirating, there is none? It would be nice to have here one, or am I missing something?
I admit that I might be wrong, but... For me Python is very multi-purpose, because it has so huge flaws as well. Python is probably the only multi-purpose in the game that is actually a multi-purpose
Personally I'll take the Python over the Clipper every time simply due to the hardpoints. I can't stand using gimballed weapons or being chaffed in PvP. Everybody knows that all they have to do to cut a clipper's damage in half is use chaff.
Regardless, maintaining one role for a single ship when it has no dedicated role is not a sufficient justification for leaving a module that affects balance game-wide unchanged. If the Python truly is underwhelming after SCB's are fixed, then the solution is to fix the Python, not bring SCB's back to save it.
Agreed. I also agree with an earlier post that the Python is a very excelent combat capable ship before you stuff it full of SCB's.
Last edited:
I am not an expert in Open PvP. Do not have much experience. What I can say is, that slow ships are often as good as dead, and fast ships are able to at least escape. Not sure to be honest in practice, but I have a feeling that Python is a slow ship?
Clipper can mass-lock, right? So not many are going to escape from it, and it can escape from most? Python is a medium ship, so it wont have this advantage? So basically, clipper can define when it wants and if it wants to have a fight. The speed feels to be important in PvP, and none of the medium ships has speed advantage over Clipper.
Anyway, I believe there must be a reason why so many play a clipper. But sure would like to have a medium class PvP ship as well. The python is the best?
Let's separate PvP and Piracy for the sake of not confusing details. If you're a Pirate speed is not as crucial as you would think at first glance, there are ways to get around being slow, such as hitting their engines with railguns if they try to run. Mass-locking isn't important because if you mass-lock someone they'll just high-wake out, you're better off disabling them if they try to escape. If you don't mass-lock them and they don't high-wake out, you have a better opportunity to interdict them a second time and try again, so in that respect it can be considered an advantage.
Turning radius is more important than speed in straight up PvP, if you've got a beefy ship like the Python, and there are plenty of tricks to keep even a Vulture in your sights. If you force your opponent to leave, you win. As a PvP player if I find someone who puts up a good fight I'm actually anticipating them returning sooner rather than later, so not sending them to the insurance screen is in some ways a plus, unless I have other motivations such as PowerPlay, something I don't like about their behavior or maybe I just want to end the night with a bang. PvP players hardly ever get an opportunity to snag good bounties and if you're bounty hunting you need to keep a wake scanner, because they're going to high wake out every time. No mass-lock comes into play.
Mass-lock can be a good way to get rid of players in CZ's, but the Clipper is a touchy choice for CZ's because you're often taking fire from multiple sources, and it's shields just don't hold up to that.
Haha, I love that you guys managed to move this thread onto arguing the best fix. PROGRESS! (fist pump)
Windscreen, Defacto and Jesse. You guys are great, you really get it.
roak... your recent posts seem to have a way different view to your previous ones that I argued with. Maybe they were just badly explained. I withdraw my previous judgement.
Windscreen, Defacto and Jesse. You guys are great, you really get it.
roak... your recent posts seem to have a way different view to your previous ones that I argued with. Maybe they were just badly explained. I withdraw my previous judgement.
What will happen is hundreds of trade condas, T9's and T6's will die faster and send another large batch of players to solo.
It will likely limit the use of "large" ships in pvp battles because when you are being focused you need to tank damage. If they whack SCB with the nerf bat they need to balance that with massive hull upgrades to bigger ships and massively reduce the damage class 1 and 2 weapons do to larger, A class shields.
It will likely limit the use of "large" ships in pvp battles because when you are being focused you need to tank damage. If they whack SCB with the nerf bat they need to balance that with massive hull upgrades to bigger ships and massively reduce the damage class 1 and 2 weapons do to larger, A class shields.
Last edited:
Limiting the use of large ships in PvP is fine by me, considering right now they're the vast majority of what I see people flying for the express purpose of fitting more SCB's. It's boring. Let's see some variety on the field, and some actual tactics come into play. The large ships may lose tank, but all ships collectively are losing tank, so the large ships should be able to push DPS off the field faster unless they're just in a bad situation they shouldn't be in to begin with. Disregarding that, if you take my suggestion that SCB's be moved to utility slots before being balanced larger ships won't be hit as hard as smaller ships.
Players willing to run to Solo don't need this as an excuse. Anything can be pointed to when you really want to point fingers and pass the blame.