The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[CYB34]

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.

Are you looking for conflict when trading?

Do you think if both of you had only 1x SCB you would've won? With what? Turreted and gimballed weapons? Lightweight Alloys? A full cargo?

Traders already make loads of money with no risk whatsoever in a Python or Anaconda. Now they want to be invincible and stay to fight too!

 

[raok]

My 2 cents...

1st of all, I agree that SCB stack is not cool.

I suppose PvP should always go to the point where people fight without shields in the end. Right now, when someone is about to lose shields -> They jump out.

Shield & Hull builds...
I do not like the idea that one has shield build, and then he will jump before the shields are down. Hull builds would always have disadvantage, because of module dmg. I say no for the idea of providing two different builds, shields should always go down faster than hull, with a good margin.


Energy vs Hull and Kinetic vs Shields. This should probably be more visible than it is now. Builds with just lasers is not cool.

Because people try to jump right before their shields are down -> Builds with lasers are even more effective in PvP. So it turns out to be, who has most lasers? Hull is not strong enough atm.

Anaconda with lasers and cannons vs Anaconda with lasers. I think the former should always have the upper hand, with a good margin. After shooting the shields of SCB Anaconda down with all those shield cells, I suppose its hull should last even longer.


...
Idea for balancing, ~rock-paper-scissors... Viper max ~3mil, Anaconda just a little bit more. Viper should not have even tiniest change against Anaconda, ever.

Anaconda should be so slow vs Viper that you would need to use turrets. Viper could still shoot modules from Anaconda, but C2 cannon would not be a real threat for Anacondas hull. If Viper is left alone against an anaconda without turrets, it can shoot down the drives -> Some other ship with C3 or C4 Cannon, would be able to take easy shots and bring down the conda.

Anaconda with big guns, needs support from small ships.
Anaconda with turrets, needs support from "big guns".

I think balancing should be focused for wing vs wing battles, not 1vs1. Not saying that 1vs1 balance is not important, but you know what I mean


Well, to be honest, not sure exactly how all should be balanced, and if all were even good ideas like I said. The idea should still be clearly there.

 

[Rocky-451]

As someone mentioned, the SCB is a DEFENSIVE weapon, and in a logical world traders would use it to defend against pirates. It's perfect for protecting your shields while firing up the FSD to escape. It'd be absurd to claim that SCBs make pirates invincible yet in the hands of traders, SCBs become so useless that they don't even help them to get away. If I were a trader and I'm worried about getting attacked, I'd certainly save a slot for a SCB. I don't know, maybe most traders do that already and those complaining are a minority who are not smart enough - or are too greedy - to use a slot for something besides cargo. It's ironic, but removing or nerfing SCBs will make it tougher for traders to escape.

 

[Starender]

i feel that ships are pretty balanced right now, no need to unbalance it

we only need small tweaks, like a FdL buff and more ships like the python to create some competition around this size/medium pad


other than that it's near perfect

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

Many things don't make sense in ED .. moving it to a utility slot would force players to pick what they need and not just stock pile them (as they do now). Watching a lot of videos on YouTube showing PvP combat fights and it becomes a game of endurance - the one with the most tends to win.

You would make FDLs and Anacondas the only ships people would use in combat, because they COULD stack SCBs.

Every balance idea just creates a new balance of terror. Right now nearly every ship has the option for SCBs, where as with your solution it is only the Anaconda and the FDL.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

You would make FDLs and Anacondas the only ships people would use in combat, because they COULD stack SCBs.

Every balance idea just creates a new balance of terror. Right now nearly every ship has the option for SCBs, where as with your solution it is only the Anaconda and the FDL.

No, people would justify the merits of sacrificing their KWS, cargo scanner, shield boosters, frame shift wake scanner chaff and heat sinks for SCB's.

It works, because there are legitimate choices to be made. As long as SCB's are internal slots, there is only one choice. More SCB's.

 

[possessed]

i feel that ships are pretty balanced right now, no need to unbalance it

we only need small tweaks, like a FdL buff and more ships like the python to create some competition around this size/medium pad


other than that it's near perfect

+1 rep for you...

 

[Jesse30]

Jesse I believe you were killed by Triadius already :]

Haha funny, here a video me killing your almighty Triadius leader.

[video=youtube;6GY_S_eELEk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GY_S_eELEk[/video]

 

[Jesse30]

Are you looking for conflict when trading?

Do you think if both of you had only 1x SCB you would've won? With what? Turreted and gimballed weapons? Lightweight Alloys? A full cargo?

Traders already make loads of money with no risk whatsoever in a Python or Anaconda. Now they want to be invincible and stay to fight too!

I'm not a trader Ive been a fighter since day one back in the Beta days, I am only pointing out that stopped being a fighter at the moment just because I don't like combat anymore, if I want to fight I would login to CQC and that is my problem the main game is not good enough for may taste when it comes to combat. Like other pointed out, SCBs belongs under utility to avoid stacking that's all. And please don't tell I need to learn how to fight if you look at my channel I have plenty of PvP experience.

 

[Jesse30]

As someone mentioned, the SCB is a DEFENSIVE weapon, and in a logical world traders would use it to defend against pirates. It's perfect for protecting your shields while firing up the FSD to escape. It'd be absurd to claim that SCBs make pirates invincible yet in the hands of traders, SCBs become so useless that they don't even help them to get away. If I were a trader and I'm worried about getting attacked, I'd certainly save a slot for a SCB. I don't know, maybe most traders do that already and those complaining are a minority who are not smart enough - or are too greedy - to use a slot for something besides cargo. It's ironic, but removing or nerfing SCBs will make it tougher for traders to escape.

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

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

You would make FDLs and Anacondas the only ships people would use in combat, because they COULD stack SCBs.

Every balance idea just creates a new balance of terror. Right now nearly every ship has the option for SCBs, where as with your solution it is only the Anaconda and the FDL.

I agree that balancing stuff seems easy ...

 

[Kastor]

You would make FDLs and Anacondas the only ships people would use in combat, because they COULD stack SCBs.

Every balance idea just creates a new balance of terror. Right now nearly every ship has the option for SCBs, where as with your solution it is only the Anaconda and the FDL.

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

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

 

[digitalscream]

I'm not a trader Ive been a fighter since day one back in the Beta days, I am only pointing out that stopped being a fighter at the moment just because I don't like combat anymore, if I want to fight I would login to CQC and that is my problem the main game is not good enough for may taste when it comes to combat. Like other pointed out, SCBs belongs under utility to avoid stacking that's all. And please don't tell I need to learn how to fight if you look at my channel I have plenty of PvP experience.

See, I don't get this. I fly a Vulture, which has far less SCB potential than pretty much every other combat ship in the game, yet I can get into a fight with a Clipper/Python/FDL/etc and win (or at least they run away, not being masslocked) without using more than two or three of the 6 cells I have available.

How?

By using my ship's strength (agility) against their ship's weakness (lack of agility). Sure, your argument is valid when everybody's combat strategy is to get the biggest ship they can strap a bunch of guns to, but if you approach it with a bit more finesse then you'll find that things are a lot more interesting.

Trust me - grab yourself a fixed-pulse Vulture, stick a couple of SCBs in it (just for safety) with a pair of chaff launchers, and go dance with the big boys. Once you get the hang of it, it puts a whole new spin on the game's combat - and it requires skill, not just a big bank balance. Hell, I'm not even close to being there yet, but the game's suddenly fun again and NPCs feel a lot more dangerous (in fact, big-ship NPCs feel more dangerous than CMDRs when you use fixed weapons).

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

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

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

Your math skills suck.
The Cobra has 2 utility slots, the Anaconda has 8.

4x is not "a bit more than twice"

And currently the Anaconda can pack 2x as many SCBs as the Cobra, assuming each uses 1 internal slot for shields, and the rest for SCBs.

So you got it EXACTLY backwards from the way it is now.

 

[Kastor]

Your math skills suck.
The Cobra has 2 utility slots, the Anaconda has 8.

4x is not "a bit more than twice"

And currently the Anaconda can pack 2x as many SCBs as the Cobra, assuming each uses 1 internal slot for shields, and the rest for SCBs.

So you got it EXACTLY backwards from the way it is now.

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

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

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

- - - Updated - - -

See, I don't get this. I fly a Vulture, which has far less SCB potential than pretty much every other combat ship in the game, yet I can get into a fight with a Clipper/Python/FDL/etc and win (or at least they run away, not being masslocked) without using more than two or three of the 6 cells I have available.

How?

By using my ship's strength (agility) against their ship's weakness (lack of agility). Sure, your argument is valid when everybody's combat strategy is to get the biggest ship they can strap a bunch of guns to, but if you approach it with a bit more finesse then you'll find that things are a lot more interesting.

Trust me - grab yourself a fixed-pulse Vulture, stick a couple of SCBs in it (just for safety) with a pair of chaff launchers, and go dance with the big boys. Once you get the hang of it, it puts a whole new spin on the game's combat - and it requires skill, not just a big bank balance. Hell, I'm not even close to being there yet, but the game's suddenly fun again and NPCs feel a lot more dangerous (in fact, big-ship NPCs feel more dangerous than CMDRs when you use fixed weapons).

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

 

[Soopyyy]

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

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

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

- - - Updated - - -



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

The Anaconda needs A6 SCB's to even attempt to refill A7+boosted shields. To go from one ring to three full rings requires roughly 4-6 A6 SCB's. One A6 SCB would boost a Cobra's shields well past 100% if it were possible.

 

[Cymek]

I've read how players get annoyed that multipurpose ships are more powerful than fighters, but most of the fighter class ships are quite small and would be fighting outside their weight range. Surely a fighters advantage is its speed and agility and its in its element when it's part of a wing. Most of the asking for something to be changed seems a case of sour grapes and not a genuine gripe about unfair gameplay.

 

[Soopyyy]

I've read how players get annoyed that multipurpose ships are more powerful than fighters, but most of the fighter class ships are quite small and would be fighting outside their weight range. Surely a fighters advantage is its speed and agility and its in its element when it's part of a wing. Most of the asking for something to be changed seems a case of sour grapes and not a genuine gripe about unfair gameplay.

Yep, a wing of competent pilots in Vultures of FDL's will ruin a Python or Anaconda.

 

[zxaber]

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

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

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

 

[Kastor]

The Anaconda needs A6 SCB's to even attempt to refill A7+boosted shields. To go from one ring to three full rings requires roughly 4-6 A6 SCB's. One A6 SCB would boost a Cobra's shields well past 100% if it were possible.

EDITED: Post, it was WAY to sarcastic.

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