The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[vindicator jones]

Personally I have no problems with SCB's or even SCB stackers.. They can easily be overcome if you use proper tactics.. but fine, that argument has been done to death...

If you really want to fix SCB's them make them a singular Capacitor, and you can only load one. The larger the Slot size, the more capacitance you get.

but the differences are these

-The Capacitor can recharge from your ships SYS power output. The more pips set to SYS, the faster it recharges (recharge time would need to be balanced of course). No more stupid Ammo.. it never made sense
-You can discharge the capacitor once it reaches 75% capacity at anytime, but will only get the current capacitor level directed towards your shields
-When you activate the capacitor, your heat levels spike A LOT..
-Each charge activation is significantly more powerful than a single charge activation from a current SCB.
-Each time you land, your capacitor and shields are fully recharged

The whole idea is so those farming rez or cz to be able to recharge their shields much more easily without having to resort to multiple SCB's in order to stay in a zone. You will have to be far more tactical when activating an SCB as you cant just use it every 5 seconds. Also it will add another dimension to combat, of how many pips should you put into sys instead of weapons and engines. You could put full pips to shields, shield tank and hit your shield capacitor more often, but at the expense of having very limited weapons power and maneuverability. An anaconda being swarmed by light fighters would then have much more protection but at the cost of firepower..

Just my idea on how things could be changed, without compromising others who have a legitimate reason for using SCB's

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

The Python isn't actually multi-role. It's a heavy fighter that can trade. People can spin it anyway they want, but you don't stick that many class 3 hard points on a trading ship; the same with the Anaconda. They are designed to be self sufficient. That means they can be purposed into a tank.

That people use it for combat, is because FD designed it to be that way. Look at the jump range, the size of the power plant. They nerfed some aspects but left the large hardpoints and giant power supply. If it was only ever designed to be a multi-role then it's shields would be weaker and at least one of those hardpoints would be removed.

You cannot claim this thing was designed to be anything else other than a heavy fighter, or an armed security truck. It's designed to be a brute. People will turn anything into a combat ship, regardless though.

The Federal Drop Ship is lethal in a wing. It's not self-sufficient though. Which is quite clearly alluded to in it's description. FGS partly answers that. FAS is the Ferrari version. I'm all for game balance. Not just random changes to a specific module that doesn't address why it exists in the first place.

They're oddball's compared to the real combat ship's then. Both have 1 key thing no real combat ship has, power! I literally couldn't get my Python to struggle powering itself, no real combat ship's have that luxury.

 

[kofeyh]

Makes a damn fine miner too, making sure that 160 plus tonnes of Panite, Palladium and Gold make it to the refinery.

So yeah, it is a multirole ship: a small capital ship, a secure transport and a hazardous duty miner.

I am not arguing that it doesn't make a fantastic multi-role ship. I'm suggesting that, at its core, it's primarily a heavy fighter. The large power, 3 large weapon points. That's not by accident.

Agree though. I have a Python. It has two SCBs, so not at all the Duracell that is basically all SCBs. The fact that you can even do that, points once again to the fact that Python is a equally as much a heavy fighter, than a trader that can do a bunch of other tasks as well.

The thing is, if you have a ship that is capable of being a heavy fighter, people will use it as such.

 

[kofeyh]

They're oddball's compared to the real combat ship's then. Both have 1 key thing no real combat ship has, power! I literally couldn't get my Python to struggle powering itself, no real combat ship's have that luxury.

The reduction in power for combat ships is tied to their agility.

Python isn't agile. With a bunch of SCBs it's a heavy truck that drives likes a tub full of water. Amusingly, the nerf to its speed has almost certainly created a direct correlation with SCB stacking.

One cannot run from a number of combat ships, in the Python. So the choices are die, or tank damage and pop SCBs like candy. Unless it's another CMDR and they ram you to solve the problem (yeah, they will take damage, but now all those SCBs mean exactly squat).

I just don't see the point of stacking SCBs, though. Sure, I can. But do I want to? Not really.

Which is also, related, why I don't really use it for RES sites now. It's buy-back is expensive, it's slow as hell (so forces at least some SCB use to stay at any combat zone or resource site) and can be used for a lot of other purposes instead (it's a fantastic mining ship for example).

It drifts like a boss though, so at least there is some fun to be had. Having said that, it's seen less use now that I have a FAS and Clipper.

 

[Kyle Brennan]

Personally I have no problems with SCB's or even SCB stackers.. They can easily be overcome if you use proper tactics.. but fine, that argument has been done to death...

If you really want to fix SCB's them make them a singular Capacitor, and you can only load one. The larger the Slot size, the more capacitance you get.

but the differences are these

-The Capacitor can recharge from your ships SYS power output. The more pips set to SYS, the faster it recharges (recharge time would need to be balanced of course). No more stupid Ammo.. it never made sense
-You can discharge the capacitor once it reaches 75% capacity at anytime, but will only get the current capacitor level directed towards your shields
-When you activate the capacitor, your heat levels spike A LOT..
-Each charge activation is significantly more powerful than a single charge activation from a current SCB.
-Each time you land, your capacitor and shields are fully recharged

The whole idea is so those farming rez or cz to be able to recharge their shields much more easily without having to resort to multiple SCB's in order to stay in a zone. You will have to be far more tactical when activating an SCB as you cant just use it every 5 seconds. Also it will add another dimension to combat, of how many pips should you put into sys instead of weapons and engines. You could put full pips to shields, shield tank and hit your shield capacitor more often, but at the expense of having very limited weapons power and maneuverability. An anaconda being swarmed by light fighters would then have much more protection but at the cost of firepower..

Just my idea on how things could be changed, without compromising others who have a legitimate reason for using SCB's

The nerf kids won't like that either, they want it gone and with it will go players in large ships. I really think this whole cell thing is an argument from ignorance.

 

[Kastor]

The nerf kids won't like that either, they want it gone and with it will go players in large ships. I really think this whole cell thing is an argument from ignorance.

...

Bro his idea is solid. Limitation to one combined with a recharge mechanic is one of the optimum solutions, possibly the cleanest in fact. So Kyle, maybe you should stop presuming what we like.

 

[kofeyh]

Just my idea on how things could be changed, without compromising others who have a legitimate reason for using SCB's

Some interesting ideas. However the last sentance is based on the notion that SCBs exist for "legitimate reasons", misses the response that a few folks don't think they are legitimate.

I agree on the ammunition thing though. They are basically fixed-use capacitors; why the heck would they need ammunition rounds? (the answer is that they'd have to add a whole new class of consumable for it, so why not just use bullets instead).

- - - Updated - - -

...

Bro his idea is solid. Limitation to one combined with a recharge mechanic is one of the optimum solutions, possibly the cleanest in fact. So Kyle, maybe you should stop presuming what we like.

It is also based on some of the FD comments. And yes. It's not a bad solution. There are also people who just plain want SCBs gone. So it isn't a presumption. It's been repeated in this thread a number of times.

 

[Nitek [pl]]

Personally I have no problems with SCB's or even SCB stackers.. They can easily be overcome if you use proper tactics.. but fine, that argument has been done to death...

If you really want to fix SCB's them make them a singular Capacitor, and you can only load one. The larger the Slot size, the more capacitance you get.

but the differences are these

-The Capacitor can recharge from your ships SYS power output. The more pips set to SYS, the faster it recharges (recharge time would need to be balanced of course). No more stupid Ammo.. it never made sense
-You can discharge the capacitor once it reaches 75% capacity at anytime, but will only get the current capacitor level directed towards your shields
-When you activate the capacitor, your heat levels spike A LOT..
-Each charge activation is significantly more powerful than a single charge activation from a current SCB.
-Each time you land, your capacitor and shields are fully recharged

The whole idea is so those farming rez or cz to be able to recharge their shields much more easily without having to resort to multiple SCB's in order to stay in a zone. You will have to be far more tactical when activating an SCB as you cant just use it every 5 seconds. Also it will add another dimension to combat, of how many pips should you put into sys instead of weapons and engines. You could put full pips to shields, shield tank and hit your shield capacitor more often, but at the expense of having very limited weapons power and maneuverability. An anaconda being swarmed by light fighters would then have much more protection but at the cost of firepower..

Just my idea on how things could be changed, without compromising others who have a legitimate reason for using SCB's

Well. That is the first cool idea for a long time:] Thx

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

The reduction in power for combat ships is tied to their agility.

Python isn't agile. With a bunch of SCBs it's a heavy truck that drives likes a tub full of water. Amusingly, the nerf to its speed has almost certainly created a direct correlation with SCB stacking.

One cannot run from a number of combat ships, in the Python. So the choices are die, or tank damage and pop SCBs like candy. Unless it's another CMDR and they ram you to solve the problem (yeah, they will take damage, but now all those SCBs mean exactly squat).

I just don't see the point of stacking SCBs, though. Sure, I can. But do I want to? Not really.

Which is also, related, why I don't really use it for RES sites now. It's buy-back is expensive, it's slow as hell (so forces at least some SCB use to stay at any combat zone or resource site) and can be used for a lot of other purposes instead (it's a fantastic mining ship for example).

It drifts like a boss though, so at least there is some fun to be had. Having said that, it's seen less use now that I have a FAS and Clipper.

The Gunship has agility?! I need to take mine back it's deffective! I have no idea what a good solution would be, but I know that the fact I cower from player multi role's in my Gunship is insane. Me in my Gunship and a bud in a Vulture against a wing of 1 Conda with 1 SCB and 2 Gunship's with 1 SCB we had fun, this "price deterant" wasn't there as we were playing for fun and had rebuy money. In the end the Conda still ran and 1 Gunship too, mine was down to 45% hull and my friend was down to 70%. All that money flying around and 1 rule "Fight" and only one guy had to pay rebuy, so if SCB's were limited to one slot and maybe made without an ammo limit to compensate there would be ballance because FDev designed these ship's well.

 

[kofeyh]

I'm sorry that your gunship is slow. But it does tell you that on the tin.

So is the Python? Problem with sweeping generalisations is that they miss the important details. Try the FAS; it's the same size but is actually agile.

Edit: I get what you are saying but tactics are just as important as build.

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

I'm sorry that your gunship is slow. But it does tell you that on the tin.

So is the Python? Problem with sweeping generalisations is that they miss the important details. Try the FAS; it's the same size but is actually agile.

The Gunship thing was a joke as you said "the reduction in power in combat ship's is tied to their agility." Now keep your dirty hand's away from my precious!

 

[Helgarth]

Make big ship shield much stronger, but shield take ages to recharge. Remove SCB. Small ships, small shield but recharge faster.

It's a thing that makes sense to me.

 

[kofeyh]

Big shields are already strong, where the shield modifier is strong, and take ages to regenerate.

Energiser Python is an example of what happens when you blindly nerf a ship without considering the consequences. They exist because the ship has been fundamentally compromised.

Original Python was redonculous. And it could be argued the 3 large 2 medium hardpoints still make it a bit mental. But like a lot of changes, they have been agressive and don't always actually give the outcome people expect.

Python is now quite slow, it cannot outrun quote a few different combat ships; so this will naturally mean SCBs become invaluable; ie make its shields last long enough to out damage the opponent.

Cue endless shield cells (which a single well timed ram will entirely negate).

The reality is, SCBs are used because they respond to an inherent weakness. Introduced as part of ship rebalancing and changes to the way shields work. Removing SCBs doesn't fix the weakness. Nor should the weakness just be removed, or big ships can then prey on little ships and that's not entirely helpful. It just makes the outcome one-sided.

Sometimes the better approach is to understand why a thing exists, and what caused it to exist, rather than expect it's removal to cure the problem.

 

[Muetdhiver]

Sometimes the better approach is to understand why a thing exists, and what caused it, rather than expect it's removal to cure the problem.

It's pleasing to read something sensible '^^

 

[Helgarth]

Big shields are already strong, where the shield modifier is strong, and take ages to regenerate.

Energiser Python is an example of what happens when you blindly nerf a ship without considering the consequences. They exist because the ship has been fundamentally compromised. Original Python was redonculous. But like a lot of changes, they have been agressive and don't always actually give the outcome people expect.

Python is now slow, so the only option in PVP is to make its shields last long enough to out damage the opponent. Cue endless shield cells.

The reality is, SCBs are used because they respond to an inherent weakness. Removing SCBs doesn't fix the weakness. Nor should the weakness just be removed, or big ships can then prey on little ships and that's not entirely helpful. It just makes the outcome one-sided.

Sometimes the better approach is to understand why a thing exists, and what caused it to exist, rather than expect it's removal to cure the problem.

So as I said, buff larger ship shields, python included.I just say that in an immersion vision, I'm more for a rework of the SCB than the removal since I don't really care that much BUT immersion wise I think it should work like that.

 

[kofeyh]

SCB are a capacitor, that currently doesn't act like one.

I'd rather FD ensure it acts as intended; namely reverse the cool down (so it takes an age to charge, with instant use). This then means you have a proper heat dynamic. Which means multiple cells have a heat multiplier that would lead to high risk of damage/ up to and including critical damage to regulator.

This does not prevent stacking. Or strategic power off/ on of cells (it's now a proper risk/ reward). It just naturally constrains how much can be used at any one time, means enabling an SCB means it has to charge up first, and makes them operate on a cool down, rather than limited use ammunition based.

So the notion is it takes x seconds to charge, with the amount of energy released based on the class/ rating. For example I fire an SCB, it dumps x amount of energy into the shield, through the regulator which may or may not damage the regulator depending on when I chose to use it, and then I have x seconds before the capacitor cycles and I can do that again.

It means SCBs now use stored power instead of Ammo (they already require power to run!). It creates an additional layer of strategy. So you might run around with them off to conserve power, then enable if you are about to drop into combat.

I don't believe removing a thing solves the thing. I believe actually figuring out a better mechanic, improves the thing.

Or FD could simply look at why SCBs are used in the first place; and look at tidying some of the hit boxes for life support.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

Chaff is there expressly to limit the big advantage these ships gain by basically having a nearly 360 degree firing arc, which keeps pressure on a target's shields without the requirement of good piloting. Chaff is working as intended and needs no changes.

So you think an Anaconda or Type-9 Trader relying on turrets doesn't need its Weapons ever hitting the Target.
Interesting.

The single Chaff 10sec protection Window is a good balance and was working as intended.
A Ship being non-hittable in a convinient, permanent Chaff cloud costing 17000Cr to equip and absolutely invincible to 40M Cr worth of high-end Turrets IMHO is not working as intended (unless balancing was thrown out the window).
There's a whole bunch of Videos where guys were teasing other CMDRs into that trap. The effects were just as predictable.

Anyway, doesn't matter.
Frontier will eventually either do something about it or not. If anything, they know it's a potential issue. Upto them to make the call.

Personally, I refuse to run a double-Chaff setup.
To me, that feels like cheating/exploiting, even if it technically isnt. Just the consequences of the current implementation.

-- edit --

Oh, and since Fair is Fair...

I hereby formally request to equip all NPCs capable of it to carry and use double Chaff when attacked.
That'd be an interesting show to watch - both in the Game and definitely in the Forum

 

[Mephane]

Personally I have no problems with SCB's or even SCB stackers.. They can easily be overcome if you use proper tactics.. but fine, that argument has been done to death...

If you really want to fix SCB's them make them a singular Capacitor, and you can only load one. The larger the Slot size, the more capacitance you get.

but the differences are these

-The Capacitor can recharge from your ships SYS power output. The more pips set to SYS, the faster it recharges (recharge time would need to be balanced of course). No more stupid Ammo.. it never made sense
-You can discharge the capacitor once it reaches 75% capacity at anytime, but will only get the current capacitor level directed towards your shields
-When you activate the capacitor, your heat levels spike A LOT..
-Each charge activation is significantly more powerful than a single charge activation from a current SCB.
-Each time you land, your capacitor and shields are fully recharged

The whole idea is so those farming rez or cz to be able to recharge their shields much more easily without having to resort to multiple SCB's in order to stay in a zone. You will have to be far more tactical when activating an SCB as you cant just use it every 5 seconds. Also it will add another dimension to combat, of how many pips should you put into sys instead of weapons and engines. You could put full pips to shields, shield tank and hit your shield capacitor more often, but at the expense of having very limited weapons power and maneuverability. An anaconda being swarmed by light fighters would then have much more protection but at the cost of firepower..

Just my idea on how things could be changed, without compromising others who have a legitimate reason for using SCB's

Me gusta. I'd even say this system could allow multiple SCBs where they charge from SYS sequentially, fire sequentially, to retain the notion of "if you got the room and power, you can carry multiple", which FD have spoken about they really like. But now with the twist: you cannot simply turn off this extra SCBs, in order to retain their charge, they must be kept on.

 

[Mephane]

Some interesting ideas. However the last sentance is based on the notion that SCBs exist for "legitimate reasons", misses the response that a few folks don't think they are legitimate.

Afaik, the notion that SCBs per se are not legitimate springs from their current implementation as shield potions, and multiple SCBs serving as extra inventory for more potions (and the current possiblity to turn the extra SCBs off, voiding their power requirements as a significant drawback for all but the power-starved, room-starved ships - a Viper suffered much, MUCH more from the previous SCB nerfs than an Anaconda, even though a Viper with a single SCB wasn't even the problem). Jones' suggestion does indeed rid us of this notion as instead it directly interacts with the other game mechanics - power distributor, SYS capacity, SYS/ENG/WEP management.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Larger shields should take longer to regenerate. That's not abnormal. That's actually pretty logical. SCBs are used to keep shields going. So to change SCBs requires a fundamental rethink of shields.

But...they really shouldn't.

You have a shield GENERATOR that give X shield but regardless of size only gives the same recharge as Y shield.

The problem we have is that regardless of shield generator the recharge rate is the same? Why? One could think that a S7 shield generator should have a better recharge output than a S1 Shield.

If anything shields should generate in PERCENTAGE not MJ, or at least that the size or rating of generator improve the recharge.

It's like having a nuclear plant with the power output of 1 million gigawatt and another with 1 gigawatt but both of them can only DELIVER 1 kilowatt per minute.

It doesnt make sense that shield GENERATORS are only good at giving a total shield but sucks at GENERATE the actual shield.