The issue is that NPC balance is now being built around SCB's, which are not balanced. One problem will end up creating another in the future because they didn't fix the first one.
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
The issue is that NPC balance is now being built around SCB's, which are not balanced. One problem will end up creating another in the future because they didn't fix the first one.
A quick question,If you are a very skilled pilot who is flying a small agile ship against a large ship that has less agility.I would like your ideas on how you would make AI of the large ship more difficult for the smaller more agile ship.A large ship is never going to be able to outmanuver a small agile ship,Even if both pilots are equally skilled the big ship will never outmanuver the small,So what should be put in place to counter the agile ship.Turrets are currently in place but these are negated by chaff so a ship with low manuverability primary method of defence is lessend.Big ships are ready handicapped,no multiple power plants,no multiple power distributer .So in essence how do you balance small size/agility/Skill v large size/Power
Last edited:
^This.
My 2x Class 3 plasma accelerators don't care about shield cells on NPCs.
Haven't really noticed a big difference in the AI at the HAZ EXCEPT the eagles.....Man! They are all juiced up! BTW PhanttoM...do you have to use heatsinks with those 3 PA's?
What.
Whenever you approach your enemy, you have to make a decision: Is this my fight, or is this not?
This is an extremely important decision, taking a huge measure of things as factors, including your loadout. Like with any decision, you measure your entire wealth of experience in it. The application of your experience is by definition, skill.
An pilot might feel they can take an anaconda in a viper. They will probably lose for a number of reasons, one being load out. They might win, and one of the main reasons might be load out (chaff). Regardless, this will probably be a long fight because this is a less extreme example of a sidewinder trying to take on a majestic interdictor. And this is not the fault of SCBs or the AI or FD, this is the fault of the player for accepting such a fight. Don't want a long fight? Go fight other vipers. There are exactly zero problems here.
Alright, forgive me, other posters are setting fires between my ears.
In CQC, what is the sidewinder's theme? What's its relation to the condor? And with the eagle? How do their load outs differ?
So in normal play, what might be the anaconda's theme? Or the courier's theme? Or the python's theme?
What's its relation to the FAS? And with the FGS? How do their load outs differ?
Point 1) These ships have high TTKs relative to their class. That's fine. See point 2.
Point 2) All is not equal in the galaxy. There are better ships and there are better weapons and there are better utilities and there are better internals. It's not all trade offs, it's not all balance. This both condemns and reconciles the existence of ships like the adder and eagle, as well as ships like the FDS and orca.
Point 2a) I keep close tabs on a (I admit, struggling) game in development called Ensemble Online. There's 14 stats that you can put points into - a lot of them seemed rather useless such as critical damage (when just base damage was more effective) and linear reduction (tiny increments per point). I brought this up with the devs. Devs, so many of these stats are so inferior to others, why would you choose to put stats in them. The reply was (uncharacteristically) great: These stats aren't meant to be balanced - it's simply 'look at all the different areas you can work in'.
This was eye opening. There will be ships that are simply a better choice than others, such as multipurpose ships. This may be in part due to SCBs. When passengers become a thing, multi purpose ships may have a similar relationship with the orca, in that they perform as well as or in some cases better than the orca. Does this make the orca completely irrelevant? Probably not. Mostly unused? Probably.
Is this a bad thing? Nope. How many people fit a large frag cannon on their ships? Can't say I've ever seen it, and I've clicked on a lot of edshipyard links. Does this mean the weapon should be removed or fixed? Absolutely not. Because that one intelligent player who is going on an assassination mission can fit one, even if it's rather irrelevant to the rest of their game.
So to bring us back to the point, ships like the anaconda and python having high TTKs is just a facet of the game. Ships like the asp having a lot of hardpoints is another facet. One facet may be more meaningful than the other, and that's fine. Such is life in the galaxy. Traditional shield punching tactics might not work against larger shield tank ships, because the SCBs (like base damage in ensemble online) scales better than firepower (like critical damage in ensemble online). This is fine. Other tactics (such as a +1 numerical advantage) will still completely massacre shield tanks. And this is fine too.
Everyone needs to stop being upset because anacondas take longer for your vulture to kill. This is exactly as it should be. That's a pretty significant mismatch.
Question: If you had the most expensive, most powerful ship in the game, what would be the point if a vulture could just swoop in and turn you into popcorn, like you expect to do to NPCs? I believe this illustrates the absurdity of many complaints.
Last edited:
I think it's a good thing. After all, us players do it all the time. The closer the NPC's are to players, the more convincing the galaxy is.
I should probably ask you so that I'm sure I haven't misundertstood you.
You don't disagree with the people that discuss the problems with SCB's, but you think those problems are okay because they are ''facets of the game''.
And multipurpose ships might ''simply be any better choice than any other'' because of SCB's, and this is ok?
Then you say something again about how Anacondas should tkae a long time to kill. Yes, I know. This is how it is, but you're using that in a tone that makes me think you are trying to use it to support your opinion about SCB's, that's what I'm wondering about. I definitively agree that the base stats should make an Anaconda hard to kill, that makes sense, but I don't understand what this has to do with SCB's.
I greatly dislike the SCB-stacking meta, and personally think it should be changed in some way, but I think people's complaints about NPC usage of them is way overblown.
I really love my little ships, and so far I've gone into HazRES's in my Eagle, Viper, and my Cobra. These are not at all powerhouse ships. All of them have D-grade shields even. I run two fixed burst lasers (medium, except for the Eagle of course) and small gimballed cannons. My ships do carry a single SCB each, yes, but I pretty rarely have to use 'em. I could go without and not notice that much of a difference, I'd just have to fly a little more carefully and when in danger, run a little sooner.
I've had no problems taking on appropriate prey and downing them pretty quickly, given the ships I was flying. This includes Pythons, Fed Assault Ships, and Clippers. They did pop SCB's of their own (more often, they tried to), but it's really not that big of a deal. I did jump a Gunship even in my Viper once, but boosted out asap when I found out it was covered in turrets and I was low on chaff. Not been brave enough to take on an Anaconda yet in one of my little guys, but they die without much issue to my Vulture and FDL (again, D-shields, fixed bursts, and a gimballed cannon each, not in any way geared to the teeth or shield-meta focused).
If you're out there in full pulse gimballs or turrets and have gotten lazy in your flying, yeah, you're gonna have a lot more problems than you used to. But in all honesty that's more due to the chaff and your weapon selection than it is the NPCs using shield cells.
If you're having problems, here's my recommendations:
1) Reconsider your weapon loadout. Are you using over-relying on gimballs/turrets in places where you could be using fixed? Gimballs and turrets are fine, but you have to understand they do less damage, and you have to compensate for that somewhere. Do you have the the spare power to swap out a basic pulse for something that will do more damage per shot? Bursts are fantastic for this, imo, but as others have stated beams are good too (if you can stay on target long enough), as are rail guns, frag cannons (apparently, never used 'em myself) and plasma.
2) Focus less on your shields absorbing damage and more on what you can do to avoid it entirely. Better flying helps a ton here. So does swapping out shield boosters for chaff, which also frees up power for weapon upgrades.
3) Pick your fights better. Know what fights you have a chance of winning, know when you leave it be, and know when to run. When you're facing multiple opponents, play smart. Blow up the little ships that will die quick first, so their damage doesn't have the time to add up and up while you try to take out the big ship.
I really love my little ships, and so far I've gone into HazRES's in my Eagle, Viper, and my Cobra. These are not at all powerhouse ships. All of them have D-grade shields even. I run two fixed burst lasers (medium, except for the Eagle of course) and small gimballed cannons. My ships do carry a single SCB each, yes, but I pretty rarely have to use 'em. I could go without and not notice that much of a difference, I'd just have to fly a little more carefully and when in danger, run a little sooner.
I've had no problems taking on appropriate prey and downing them pretty quickly, given the ships I was flying. This includes Pythons, Fed Assault Ships, and Clippers. They did pop SCB's of their own (more often, they tried to), but it's really not that big of a deal. I did jump a Gunship even in my Viper once, but boosted out asap when I found out it was covered in turrets and I was low on chaff. Not been brave enough to take on an Anaconda yet in one of my little guys, but they die without much issue to my Vulture and FDL (again, D-shields, fixed bursts, and a gimballed cannon each, not in any way geared to the teeth or shield-meta focused).
If you're out there in full pulse gimballs or turrets and have gotten lazy in your flying, yeah, you're gonna have a lot more problems than you used to. But in all honesty that's more due to the chaff and your weapon selection than it is the NPCs using shield cells.
If you're having problems, here's my recommendations:
1) Reconsider your weapon loadout. Are you using over-relying on gimballs/turrets in places where you could be using fixed? Gimballs and turrets are fine, but you have to understand they do less damage, and you have to compensate for that somewhere. Do you have the the spare power to swap out a basic pulse for something that will do more damage per shot? Bursts are fantastic for this, imo, but as others have stated beams are good too (if you can stay on target long enough), as are rail guns, frag cannons (apparently, never used 'em myself) and plasma.
2) Focus less on your shields absorbing damage and more on what you can do to avoid it entirely. Better flying helps a ton here. So does swapping out shield boosters for chaff, which also frees up power for weapon upgrades.
3) Pick your fights better. Know what fights you have a chance of winning, know when you leave it be, and know when to run. When you're facing multiple opponents, play smart. Blow up the little ships that will die quick first, so their damage doesn't have the time to add up and up while you try to take out the big ship.
Last edited:
I disagree with people who say SCBs should be removed, heavily changed, one per ship, etc. I do not see these as problems. Some people say that SCBs make combat builds too rigid. I would accuse exploration and trading builds suffering the exact same flaw, and thus I do not see this as a problem. Some people say that multipurpose ships have an SCB advantage. Fine, but that cobra is not going to do well against an viper with four frag cannons. Again, I do not see a problem.
The problem is that everyone's spectrum, everyone's standard, everyone's baseline for 'combat' is swimming around in an RES for hours. Remember that bug that got introduced in 1.3 that made RESs pretty lack luster for bounty hunters? Bounty hunters instead moved to sitting around in SC, bringing in a good 300k wing every five minutes or so. This was an amazing bug that absolutely needs to be reintroduced. But the point is, people flipped out over this. Their baseline had been shifted. Oh my gosh cannot compute how do I go on. This is what the forums looked like.
I see SCBs like I see chaff - extremely powerful, wouldn't leave home without at least two, as they are staple element of 90% of your encounters.
Not unlike cargo racks, for a trader, or scanners for an explorer. An anaconda can fit more cargo racks, making it a better AB trucker. An anaconda can fit more fuel/scoop/AFMUs, making it a better AB explorer. An anaconda can fit more boosters and SCBs, making it a better shield tank. This is all fine.
That seems pretty silly to claim, because a Cobra can also equip frag cannons. There's nothing combat ship exclusive that matters in combat that can counter or compare to the multipurpose exclusivity of stacking SCB's, that's the issue. The end result is that combat-focused ships are not really combat-focused. Theoretically their advantage is a lower price point for equal combat capabilities. This matters if you're running an entire Navy, but is largely irrelevant to the individual pilot, outside of just starting out in the game.
You can argue that you don't think that's a bad thing in terms of how it plays out, I'd disagree but you can argue that point. At the very least though, you should accept that the two types of ships are mis-categorized as it is. A combat specialist ship is not much of a combat specialist if a different class can specialize in combat better.
If combat ships, for example, had increased ammo capacity per weapon than multipurpose ships, you would have a solid point. But outside of a change like that, they simply lack in what's become an important part of PVP combat, without anything else to show for it.
the SCB spaming i have had no trouble dealing whit, but the chaff spam!, oh my
i have completely retired my gimbals now, and don't think i ever will be doing Pve in a clipper again
Ive noticed this too.
Im glad im in the Vulture tho where i simply take the extra time to swoop the updrafts and whisper in their ear about where they are about to go...
Their chaff is like a yappy little dog barking from behind the window
Last edited:
Eh, I think you're a bit off course now. The problem is that combateers had issues with another thing, and they were close-minded about it, so you are right? It's pointless to argument from personality here.
Not that I think it matters to this thread, but I definitievely agree with you there. I know many might disagree with me, but if you ask me, I think the way RES works is a boot in the face of ED. I don't think ''farming'' should be something you do in ED. Especially not ''go to one place and kill stuff as it spawns''-farming. Bounty hunting should be about, well, hunting. And if we're talking about things that I think breaks the pretty fine balance of what the combat is supposed to be like in ED, then that is another thing.
I don't think you can say that there is a similar situation with traders and explorers. Firstly, because the way these players interact with the game and other players just is different. I think it's pointless to draw a comparison in the way that you do. Still, I wouldn't say that Cargo racks or discovery scanners should play a similar role in those professions that SCB's do in combat. If it does, then we have a serious problem, the SCB's position as a combat staple doesn't work in the combat balance, and I think we can see this now. It shouldn't have a prominent role, it doesn't work, it controls how combat works and steers it in a bad direction. If it actually is to become a ''combat staple'', I think that it needs a lot more limitations... there was some discussion on this. For example, the SCB could draw from the SYS bar but have unlimited ammunition... this would promote more varied loadouts, since there's no point in having more than one, and it would remove some of the power that multiroles gain from SCB's. Also, more metagamey, I think it would remove the SCB's role as a ''Shield Potion'' and put it more in a place where I think that the devs originally wanted them to be.
And now that you mention it, yes, chaff is in a bit of an odd position, too. Wasn't it supposed to primarily lock scans? It's a utility item, I'm not sure if I really like it being such a staple of combat. This can be discussed though. The chaff is also in a bit of a different position, since it's a utility item and not an internal.
I think it is a good thing.
I like SCB's and I like the fact that npc are able to use them.
NPC's are too weak mostly anyway.
Having said that I don't think I have seen an NPC use SCBs at all myself.
Perhaps my Pyhton obliterates their shields too quickly for their little AI brains to react.
Last edited:
Oh I see you're using the word "skill" when you mean "knowledge". It doesn't matter because once you start the fight, it's the SCB's we're arguing here isn't it. SCB's do not make the AI harder, they make the fight last longer though you may be right because you could get bored quicker and not pay attention and die that way.
Well it happened again today, came across a python and witnessed it firing off SCBs this time I didn't engage it (and nothing else was attacking it) I only scanned it and it was firing off SCBs every 30/40 seconds - watched it doing this for a few mins then hit my shadowplay save key only to find out shadowplay wasn't working again - going to have to resetup #OBS
Tried some combat last night in a FAS, and was very impressed by the NPCs now. They're a lot more challenging, constantly using SCBs and dropping chaff.
One weird thing I did notice though - several times my target started dropping chaff, and since I have gimballed weapons I unselected the target in order to keep firing. But once the chaff stopped, there was no "red square" to indicate I could re-target him. "Cool!" I thought, "they even do silent running so they can't be targeted". But no, his shields were still up, so it looks just like a bug to me. Several times during the right that red "targetable" square would pop up for a second and go again. Taking down some of the bigger NPC SCB popping craft with gimballed weapons and no lock makes for a looooooong fight.
One weird thing I did notice though - several times my target started dropping chaff, and since I have gimballed weapons I unselected the target in order to keep firing. But once the chaff stopped, there was no "red square" to indicate I could re-target him. "Cool!" I thought, "they even do silent running so they can't be targeted". But no, his shields were still up, so it looks just like a bug to me. Several times during the right that red "targetable" square would pop up for a second and go again. Taking down some of the bigger NPC SCB popping craft with gimballed weapons and no lock makes for a looooooong fight.
Please FD remove SCBs or hit it with the nerf bat already.
I barely even play the main game anymore, the only time I get on the main game is to fly my Python and do some trading. Every time I have an PvP encounter it comes down to who has the most SCBs, please at least look into giving us a counter to SCB stacks, so why even bother looking for conflict in open when you could do the same with CQC without the aid of health poison. Does anybody else agree? at least in a real world scenario you know the only way to counter a tank is hit it from the back or the top, at least give us that option to find a weak spot to give us more game-play options, like choosing between fast and agile or slow and strong.
Proposed solutions by different Cmdrs in this thread:
Originally Posted by Kleem
Originally Posted by Eremos
Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape:
Originally Posted by CMDR Surround:
Originally Posted by Snarfbuckle:
Originally Posted by Muetdhiver:
Originally Posted by Soma:
Originally Posted by NeilF
Myself in combat using one SCB in a smaller Viper:
[video=youtube;7-Wp0tIvonw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Wp0tIvonw[/video]
I barely even play the main game anymore, the only time I get on the main game is to fly my Python and do some trading. Every time I have an PvP encounter it comes down to who has the most SCBs, please at least look into giving us a counter to SCB stacks, so why even bother looking for conflict in open when you could do the same with CQC without the aid of health poison. Does anybody else agree? at least in a real world scenario you know the only way to counter a tank is hit it from the back or the top, at least give us that option to find a weak spot to give us more game-play options, like choosing between fast and agile or slow and strong.
Proposed solutions by different Cmdrs in this thread:
Originally Posted by Kleem
I think SCBs are good, stacking SCBs is good, and even that SCBs give an advantage to ships with better internals/PP is also good. I personally don't use them, but it is a good module nonetheless.
There are two things (IMO) that make SCBs overpowered, and they will stay overpowered if no changes for those will be made:
1. ability to shoot & use SCB at the same time
2. ability to use multiple SCBs at the same time
To solve this, I think, something like this should be done:
- SCB can be used only with hardpoints retracted. And if hardpoints deployed before SCB stopped, it should cancel SCB effect.
- Only one SCB module can be fired at a time. So if there are two modules active and player "pushed the button" only one of them will fire, and on the next push it'll fire the other one.
- 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.
No more "one click = full shields", no more "firing weapons while recharging shields" - I think it would be much better if SCB is just a defence module.
But most importantly - it'll be player's choice to play offensive or offensive, with no option to play overpowered offensive present today.
If you think it will make SCB useless - simply look into (for example) Vultures loadouts with "SCB only when weapons not powered" - many CMDRs use them with no problems. And I don't think it'll be more inconvenient for big ships, because bigger hardpoints take longer to deploy/retract.
There are two things (IMO) that make SCBs overpowered, and they will stay overpowered if no changes for those will be made:
1. ability to shoot & use SCB at the same time
2. ability to use multiple SCBs at the same time
To solve this, I think, something like this should be done:
- SCB can be used only with hardpoints retracted. And if hardpoints deployed before SCB stopped, it should cancel SCB effect.
- Only one SCB module can be fired at a time. So if there are two modules active and player "pushed the button" only one of them will fire, and on the next push it'll fire the other one.
- 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.
No more "one click = full shields", no more "firing weapons while recharging shields" - I think it would be much better if SCB is just a defence module.
But most importantly - it'll be player's choice to play offensive or offensive, with no option to play overpowered offensive present today.
If you think it will make SCB useless - simply look into (for example) Vultures loadouts with "SCB only when weapons not powered" - many CMDRs use them with no problems. And I don't think it'll be more inconvenient for big ships, because bigger hardpoints take longer to deploy/retract.
Main problem with SCB for me - no real option for "Offence is your best defence" in current gameplay. Why even bother with it, if you can have good offence and best defence at the same time?! No real choice, only to artificially limit yourself by not using SCB.
So here is an idea, little bit too complex, but...:
- Change shileds recharge rate like
E grade - 1 MJ/s
D grade - 1 MJ/s
C grade - 2 MJ/s
B grade - 4 MJ/s
A grade - 5 MJ/s
Maybe half of C-A grades recharge rates for class 1-4 shields.
- Better shield recharge rate drains SYS capacitor quicker.
- Buff class 5-8 shields capacity by ~20% for all ships.
- No changes to Shield boosters, because they already extend recharge time by extending shields capacity.
- SCB changes to some kind of recharge rate booster
No ammo in SCB, it uses SYS capacitor, and only if SYS capacitor is not empty,
When active SCB increases shields recharge rate.
- Currently if shields receive damage it stops shields recharge. When SCB active, it takes maximum possible recharge rate (based on a shields grade), multiplies it with values (and conditions) below and begins shields recharge.
- SCB recharge shields until SYS capacitor is drained or SCB stopped,
- SCB drains shields capacitor for equivalent amount of it's recharge rate increase.
- When active SCB generates a LOT of heat, like it jumps to 95% for the whole duration,
- If any other module (weapons, fsd, boost) fired when SCB is active, it will generate 200%-500% of normal heat.
- Firing more than 1 SCB will make shields unstable and there is a big chance of malfunction with additional spike of heat,
- more active SCB = exponential increase in chance of shields malfunction and heat increase.
- SCB shields recharge rate is based on "Shields class" vs "SCB class"
- if SCB class and Shields class are the same or SCB is 1 class lower than Shields:
E grade - 500% (5x) recharge rate increase
D grade - 600% (6x) recharge rate increase
C grade - 700% (7x) recharge rate increase
B grade - 800% (8x) recharge rate increase
A grade - 1000% (10x) recharge rate increase for same class SCB, and 900% (9x) if 1 class lower
- if SCB is 1 (or more) class higher than Shields:
It will generate 20%-50% more heat and will cause overheat,
It will make shields unstable and there is a big chance of malfunction with additional spike of heat,
E grade - 700% (7x) recharge rate increase
D grade - 800% (8x) recharge rate increase
C grade - 900% (9x) recharge rate increase
B grade - 1000% (10x) recharge rate increase
A grade - 1200% (12x) recharge rate increase
- if SCB is 2 classes lower than Shields:
E grade - 200% (2x) recharge rate increase
D grade - 300% (3x) recharge rate increase
C grade - 400% (4x) recharge rate increase
B grade - 500% (5x) recharge rate increase
A grade - 600% (6x) recharge rate increase
- if SCB is 3 or more classes lower than Shields:
E grade - no increase
D grade - no increase
C grade - no increase
B grade - 150% (1.5x) recharge rate increase
A grade - 200% (2x) recharge rate increase
- if SCB is 4 or more classes lower than Shields = no recharge rate increase
- SCB have 1 second delay between activation and fire.
- All utility equipment that uses SYS capacitor (chaff, etc) will lower shields recharge rate by 1 MJ/s when used, because they stress SYS capacitor. Shields recharge rate can't be lower than 1 MJ/s.
For example:
Ship with 7A shields and 2 chaff have 5 MJ/s shields recharge rate. When 1 chaff is fired shields recharge rate decreases to 4 MJ/s for duration of chaff. If another chaff fired while first still active shields recharge rate decreases to 3 MJ/s.
if this ship fires 6A SCB with no active chaffs - shield recharge rate will be 5 MJ/s * 9 = 45 MJ/s. This boost will drain energy from SYS capacitor, and will stop when it's empty (or if stopped manually).
if this ship fires 6A SCB and then (or before) fires 1 chaff
- chaff and SCB both active - shields recharge rate will be 4 MJ/s * 9 = 36 MJ/s for duration of chaff,
- if two chaff active - shield recharge rate will be 3 MJ/s * 9 = 27 MJ/s for duration of 2 chaff,
- then 4 MJ/s * 9 = 36 MJ/s for ramain duration of 1 chaff,
- and then goes back to 5 MJ/s * 9 = 45 MJ/s.
So with those changes:
- "Offensive and defencive at the same time" is still possible, but for a much shorter periods of time, and will require additional equipment (HSL) with very limited charges,
- SCB stacking increase risks,
- Shield-tank and Armor-tank could be compared. Not ideal, but better then current state.
Additional:
- Shorter time to recharge shields on big ships while out of combat
- No need to restock SCB ammo
- Big ships can still have good counter to incoming damage, 45-50 MJ/s or more with increased risks. But it is much shorter than with current SCB stacking on some ships.
- No owerpowered small ships, because class 1-4 shields will have less effective racharge in the first place.
- No changes for "focus fire from a wing". As it should be.
There is a need to balance fitting requirements and costs, but this post is already too long...
edit: "Additional" added.
So here is an idea, little bit too complex, but...:
- Change shileds recharge rate like
E grade - 1 MJ/s
D grade - 1 MJ/s
C grade - 2 MJ/s
B grade - 4 MJ/s
A grade - 5 MJ/s
Maybe half of C-A grades recharge rates for class 1-4 shields.
- Better shield recharge rate drains SYS capacitor quicker.
- Buff class 5-8 shields capacity by ~20% for all ships.
- No changes to Shield boosters, because they already extend recharge time by extending shields capacity.
- SCB changes to some kind of recharge rate booster
No ammo in SCB, it uses SYS capacitor, and only if SYS capacitor is not empty,
When active SCB increases shields recharge rate.
- Currently if shields receive damage it stops shields recharge. When SCB active, it takes maximum possible recharge rate (based on a shields grade), multiplies it with values (and conditions) below and begins shields recharge.
- SCB recharge shields until SYS capacitor is drained or SCB stopped,
- SCB drains shields capacitor for equivalent amount of it's recharge rate increase.
- When active SCB generates a LOT of heat, like it jumps to 95% for the whole duration,
- If any other module (weapons, fsd, boost) fired when SCB is active, it will generate 200%-500% of normal heat.
- Firing more than 1 SCB will make shields unstable and there is a big chance of malfunction with additional spike of heat,
- more active SCB = exponential increase in chance of shields malfunction and heat increase.
- SCB shields recharge rate is based on "Shields class" vs "SCB class"
- if SCB class and Shields class are the same or SCB is 1 class lower than Shields:
E grade - 500% (5x) recharge rate increase
D grade - 600% (6x) recharge rate increase
C grade - 700% (7x) recharge rate increase
B grade - 800% (8x) recharge rate increase
A grade - 1000% (10x) recharge rate increase for same class SCB, and 900% (9x) if 1 class lower
- if SCB is 1 (or more) class higher than Shields:
It will generate 20%-50% more heat and will cause overheat,
It will make shields unstable and there is a big chance of malfunction with additional spike of heat,
E grade - 700% (7x) recharge rate increase
D grade - 800% (8x) recharge rate increase
C grade - 900% (9x) recharge rate increase
B grade - 1000% (10x) recharge rate increase
A grade - 1200% (12x) recharge rate increase
- if SCB is 2 classes lower than Shields:
E grade - 200% (2x) recharge rate increase
D grade - 300% (3x) recharge rate increase
C grade - 400% (4x) recharge rate increase
B grade - 500% (5x) recharge rate increase
A grade - 600% (6x) recharge rate increase
- if SCB is 3 or more classes lower than Shields:
E grade - no increase
D grade - no increase
C grade - no increase
B grade - 150% (1.5x) recharge rate increase
A grade - 200% (2x) recharge rate increase
- if SCB is 4 or more classes lower than Shields = no recharge rate increase
- SCB have 1 second delay between activation and fire.
- All utility equipment that uses SYS capacitor (chaff, etc) will lower shields recharge rate by 1 MJ/s when used, because they stress SYS capacitor. Shields recharge rate can't be lower than 1 MJ/s.
For example:
Ship with 7A shields and 2 chaff have 5 MJ/s shields recharge rate. When 1 chaff is fired shields recharge rate decreases to 4 MJ/s for duration of chaff. If another chaff fired while first still active shields recharge rate decreases to 3 MJ/s.
if this ship fires 6A SCB with no active chaffs - shield recharge rate will be 5 MJ/s * 9 = 45 MJ/s. This boost will drain energy from SYS capacitor, and will stop when it's empty (or if stopped manually).
if this ship fires 6A SCB and then (or before) fires 1 chaff
- chaff and SCB both active - shields recharge rate will be 4 MJ/s * 9 = 36 MJ/s for duration of chaff,
- if two chaff active - shield recharge rate will be 3 MJ/s * 9 = 27 MJ/s for duration of 2 chaff,
- then 4 MJ/s * 9 = 36 MJ/s for ramain duration of 1 chaff,
- and then goes back to 5 MJ/s * 9 = 45 MJ/s.
So with those changes:
- "Offensive and defencive at the same time" is still possible, but for a much shorter periods of time, and will require additional equipment (HSL) with very limited charges,
- SCB stacking increase risks,
- Shield-tank and Armor-tank could be compared. Not ideal, but better then current state.
Additional:
- Shorter time to recharge shields on big ships while out of combat
- No need to restock SCB ammo
- Big ships can still have good counter to incoming damage, 45-50 MJ/s or more with increased risks. But it is much shorter than with current SCB stacking on some ships.
- No owerpowered small ships, because class 1-4 shields will have less effective racharge in the first place.
- No changes for "focus fire from a wing". As it should be.
There is a need to balance fitting requirements and costs, but this post is already too long...
edit: "Additional" added.
Originally Posted by Eremos
The idea is quite simple, make SCB desactive shields while recharging them.
It is quite easy to justify lore wize as SCB injects a lot of power in the shield generator that could render the shield too unstable to be sustained.
As a plus you can easily adjust the balance by playing on the recharge time.
With just this modification we can have some good changes in the shield meta :
It is quite easy to justify lore wize as SCB injects a lot of power in the shield generator that could render the shield too unstable to be sustained.
As a plus you can easily adjust the balance by playing on the recharge time.
With just this modification we can have some good changes in the shield meta :
- While the shields are down you can target specifics modules and do some hull damages :
- Targetting ships modules can be usefull again : SCB, shields generators, canopy even are juicy targets to attack
- Kinetic heavy weapons like missiles / torpedos can be more usefull as you have a window where you can use them to inflict maximum damage
- Using SCB will be more strategic :
- You have to consider the gain / risk of using your SCB :
- It is preferable to have a near 100% shield recharge than 4 25% ones as a result SCB fitting should be a little less mindless
- Pilots will tends to use SCB when their shields are almost depleated, reducing the safety margin for the recharge
- You have to be more cautious about your recharge timing :
- You should try to break your opponent lock to buy some fire free time while recharging
- You should try avoid exposing vitals modules to your opponent by knowing their position and orienting yourselve accordingly before recharging
- You have to consider the gain / risk of using your SCB :
- Some modules will become more usefull :
- PD and EC should becomes more used in case of missile spam
- Advanced bulkheads and HRP will help even for a shield tanker
Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape:
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
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
Originally Posted by CMDR Surround:
I had an idea to fix this and make the game more awesome. Make missiles a counter for scb.
Change missiles to make good damage against shields but keep their current hull damage and ammo count. (Shield damage buff for torpepos too).
Current meta for outfitting is to take as many shield boosters as possible. But with buffed missiles youd have to think how to protect your shields. With pointdefturret and ecm of course!.
It would make outfitting so much more exciting. Currently outfitting is like playing rock-paper-scissors without the scissors. Its so easy now to make a ship which counters everything. Just put shields and lasers.
But buffed missiles wouldnt be op because there would be plenty of counters for it.
ECM: if there is missiles coming at you, release ecm and evade missiles.
Point defence turret: this would need a small nerf. Decrease the accuracy close to multicannon and make them work like turrets with halfsphere field of view. Meaning that you would need 2 of them to protect yourself fully.
Chaff(new): if you use chaff you cannot be targeted but fired missiles continues chasing.
Silent running: cannot be targeted but fired missiles continues chasing. But they have decreased accuracy.
Speed: just runaway from it.
There would much more diversity for outfitting ships. All types of ships would be good but the traditional scb shieldega booster ship wouldnt be king.
Change missiles to make good damage against shields but keep their current hull damage and ammo count. (Shield damage buff for torpepos too).
Current meta for outfitting is to take as many shield boosters as possible. But with buffed missiles youd have to think how to protect your shields. With pointdefturret and ecm of course!.
It would make outfitting so much more exciting. Currently outfitting is like playing rock-paper-scissors without the scissors. Its so easy now to make a ship which counters everything. Just put shields and lasers.
But buffed missiles wouldnt be op because there would be plenty of counters for it.
ECM: if there is missiles coming at you, release ecm and evade missiles.
Point defence turret: this would need a small nerf. Decrease the accuracy close to multicannon and make them work like turrets with halfsphere field of view. Meaning that you would need 2 of them to protect yourself fully.
Chaff(new): if you use chaff you cannot be targeted but fired missiles continues chasing.
Silent running: cannot be targeted but fired missiles continues chasing. But they have decreased accuracy.
Speed: just runaway from it.
There would much more diversity for outfitting ships. All types of ships would be good but the traditional scb shieldega booster ship wouldnt be king.
Originally Posted by Snarfbuckle:
Well, if anything they should really be moved to a UTILITY slot. After all, just like Chaff and Heat Sink they use charges and require the player to use them
Put shield boosters as an internal module instead to be in the same field as Hull Upgrades and it will be fine.
In the end it will not affect Anacondas due to their large amount of internal and utility slots.
Combine this with a better overhaul of how armour works so we can have proper Armour tanking as a choice as well.
Put shield boosters as an internal module instead to be in the same field as Hull Upgrades and it will be fine.
In the end it will not affect Anacondas due to their large amount of internal and utility slots.
Combine this with a better overhaul of how armour works so we can have proper Armour tanking as a choice as well.
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.
-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.
Originally Posted by Muetdhiver:
Why not have the AFMU do the following:
Auto repair the most damaged modules, with PP always being first.
When repairing, does not need to switch the modules off.
Can also repair the hull of the ship</li>
In addition, have the hull package bring in a %modifier to hull as the shield boosters.
Lower the price and mass of armor by a factor of two.
Then, voilà, two other worthy combat internals. Build variety stems from the availability of options, not the removal of options
as some seems to be so fond off.
If hull tanking was a thing, with the possibility of repairs and stuff, then :
Lasers would become less dominant, which is an other balance issue.
SCB's become less attractive, esp. if heat gen was raised. Make it so that lasers + SCB's + boost = big trouble or heat sinks. (more heat sinks => less shield boosters)
ncrease the attractivity of high hull ships, like the Dropship.
Auto repair the most damaged modules, with PP always being first.
When repairing, does not need to switch the modules off.
Can also repair the hull of the ship</li>
In addition, have the hull package bring in a %modifier to hull as the shield boosters.
Lower the price and mass of armor by a factor of two.
Then, voilà, two other worthy combat internals. Build variety stems from the availability of options, not the removal of options
as some seems to be so fond off.
If hull tanking was a thing, with the possibility of repairs and stuff, then :
Lasers would become less dominant, which is an other balance issue.
SCB's become less attractive, esp. if heat gen was raised. Make it so that lasers + SCB's + boost = big trouble or heat sinks. (more heat sinks => less shield boosters)
ncrease the attractivity of high hull ships, like the Dropship.
Originally Posted by Soma:
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..
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..
Originally Posted by NeilF
My proposal is:-
1) We are only allowed one SCB module.
2) The existing modules (1E to 6A) are rebalanced such that they mimic a good cross section of the existing configs, say 1E to two 6As run in parallel, and even above.
3) Class 1 & 2 give you say one cell. Class 3 & 4 give two. And Class 5 & 6 give you three.
4) Each cell can only be used once per X minute. eg: 8.
So we may end up with my my Python might then be fitted with say a 5A SCB which for all intents and purpose used the same amount of energy, and replenishes my shields the same, as my current TWO 5A SCBs. So no change there at all, except for maybe mass? And definitely less cargo space used!
I'd maybe get 9 ammo with that module, so not a lot of difference there either.
The big difference is, I cannot now use more cells at a quick rate. In a 5-6 minute fight, I could only use three for example, instead of the current half dozen and counting.
So in summary, my proposed solution would result in little/no difference in energy use, shield regeneration... Simply reduce the amount of times you can use SCBs in a given time window..
1) We are only allowed one SCB module.
2) The existing modules (1E to 6A) are rebalanced such that they mimic a good cross section of the existing configs, say 1E to two 6As run in parallel, and even above.
3) Class 1 & 2 give you say one cell. Class 3 & 4 give two. And Class 5 & 6 give you three.
4) Each cell can only be used once per X minute. eg: 8.
So we may end up with my my Python might then be fitted with say a 5A SCB which for all intents and purpose used the same amount of energy, and replenishes my shields the same, as my current TWO 5A SCBs. So no change there at all, except for maybe mass? And definitely less cargo space used!
I'd maybe get 9 ammo with that module, so not a lot of difference there either.
The big difference is, I cannot now use more cells at a quick rate. In a 5-6 minute fight, I could only use three for example, instead of the current half dozen and counting.
So in summary, my proposed solution would result in little/no difference in energy use, shield regeneration... Simply reduce the amount of times you can use SCBs in a given time window..
Myself in combat using one SCB in a smaller Viper:
[video=youtube;7-Wp0tIvonw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Wp0tIvonw[/video]
Last edited:
