The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[torc]

so, we had a lot of threads talking about a fix for SCB, since the absurd unbalance of that tool in game, and not a frikkin'word from devs?

Would be great having devs here talking with us and, who knows, maybe they should find some good idea since the massive amount of proposal people had regarding SCB balance.

 

[Kastor]

It's pretty easy, class 7 shields take ~5 minutes to recharge to a single ring; it's nearly 11 minutes back to full shields. A class 6 takes like best part of 3 minutes; and another 2-3 to reach 3 rings. shield boosters only make the problem worse.

5 minutes is long enough for more than one fight to start and end, let alone 11 minutes. A competent wing can do a huge amount of damage over that time. If the shields are hit again and go down, there's yet another 5+ minutes.

It is ludicrous to think that a 43-45 million credit A class shield has the same charge rate as a much smaller A class worth barely a million. But that is where we are. It takes an age because the size of the power plant, regulator have zero bearing.

The children's paddling pool and the Olympic swimming pool feed by the same size hose.

In a 1v1 scenario then it comes down to hull and jousting/ luck; symmetric versus asymmetric battle are two very different beasts.

SCBs exist and are used because of the linear nature of shield regeneration; fix the cause, rather than try to box with shadows (fix the symptoms).

I do agree that shields need to have a better recharge at higher levels. No one here is arguing against that point. But I don't think the devs see it as an issue while SCBs are still so powerful. The SCBs overshadow the base problem.

- - - Updated - - -

so, we had a lot of threads talking about a fix for SCB, since the absurd unbalance of that tool in game, and not a frikkin'word from devs?

Would be great having devs here talking with us and, who knows, maybe they should find some good idea since the massive amount of proposal people had regarding SCB balance.

In a perfect world eh. I worry that the devs have made a "ignore all SCB talk rule"

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Let's talk a bit about shield generation.

Let's assume that we are stuck with the recharge rate of shields.

But what if the time before the shield starts recharge is faster on a larger shield?

I cant remember but isn't the base time 30 seconds before shield goes up? Let's say it is. So why not the recharge delay be faster on better quality shields and larger shields.

Yes, SCB's needs a limiter for that to balance out but it would make a lot more sense.

Shield Size
S1: [E] 30S / [D] 29S / [C] 28S / 27S [A] 26S
S2: [E] 29S / [D] 28S / [C] 27S / 26S [A] 25S
S3: [E] 28S / [D] 27S / [C] 26S / 25S [A] 24S
S4: [E] 27S / [D] 26S / [C] 25S / 24S [A] 23S
S5: [E] 26S / [D] 25S / [C] 24S / 23S [A] 22S
S6: [E] 25S / [D] 24S / [C] 23S / 22S [A] 21S
S7: [E] 24S / [D] 23S / [C] 22S / 21S [A] 20S
S8: [E] 23S / [D] 22S / [C] 21S / 20S [A] 19S

So a S8 A class shield would be 30% faster than a S1 shield generator before it starts recharge due to larger capacitors and whatnots to initiate the power needed to charge the shield.

After that it follows the current game magic and can only feed the shield with 1MJ per seconds as usual.

 

[raok]

^ See above. Majority vote.

Nobody said anything about changing the Anaconda. It's just fine. This is a thread about SCB's and has been for 680 posts.

What role are you going to play in a game where you're alone 99% of the time? Are we balancing the game for NPC wings now?

Changing one thing will affect to other things as well. It is not pure SCB question.


I think I wrote more to this thread about roles. If Anaconda would be slow and would be forced to use turrets against fast ships, even in PvP. It would be ok to make it very strong. Fighting would be done totally differently with it, it would not be a fighter any more. It's role in wing vs wing battles would be something totally different -> Than 1vs1 fighter. Right now all ships in the game are 1vs1 fighters. It would be a big change to the game, so I do not really think they will do it.

Anaconda could use fixed, but then it would need support against fast ships. etc.

When balancing ~rock-paper-scissor style, you can make the small ships to be somehow valid in the end game. Maybe Viper is not able to destroy fixed weapon Anaconda, but it could break Anacondas drives, or canopy. Anaconda might be forced to retreat. In one way Viper just won? Anaconda might be back with turret setup, in this moment Viper should probably run.


Anyway, back to the normal Elite 1vs1 fighters...

If someone has money to buy 5,6,7,8... Times more expensive fighter, why is should be easy target for a wing of cheap ships? Everyone will have money to buy those in the end. So if you do not have the ship now, you will have something big eventually. Then you feel that it is stupid that now you have 30mil rebuy cost, and you got nothing. Then you are back at the forum crying another river to buff the Anaconda? So pure SCB nerf is not a good idea.

Why to even try to balance it like this? Why would someone buy that very expensive end game ship, with huge rebuy, if a ship 1/10 of the price can do better or the same?

So this SCB stack, in one way it is ok, because it makes Anaconda to be worth the $.

I still admit and think the same that it is not in balance atm. They should have increased the hull strength as well, in balance with shields. So that the battles are not something where the other ship jumps out before its shields are down.


So to make small ships useful vs big ones, there has to be more diversity between the ships. Roles. Simplest example was that Anaconda example, where you can fit it with big fixed weapons, or turrets. You either shoot bigger ships or smaller ships.

Right now all the ships are 1vs1 fighters -> More expensive ships have all the reasons to be better than the cheap ones.


edit.

I buy a Fiat, you buy a Ferrari.

I got my Fiat and you got a Fiat with a cup holder.

This is what pure SCB nerfers are asking for.

 

[Mephane]

After that it follows the current game magic and can only feed the shield with 1MJ per seconds as usual.

I'll just go ahead and disregard any proposal for a "solution" that leaves this factor untouched. It is the single-worst thing about the shield meta, imo, much worse than the SCB stacking/spamming.

Also: recharge delay usually means the time the shields wait before resuming their passive regeneration after getting hit, it is a staple game mechanic as it prevents big shields from becoming entirely impenetrable to weaker weapons, and enables "death by a thousand cuts" tactics if the target is a massive shield tank. What you are referring to is the time for the shield to reboot/reinitialize (I prefer the latter term) when it has failed, and that time is derived directly from that passive regeneration, namely it is calculated such that the reinitialization lets you start at 50% shields, and the duration is adjusted accordingly. Increase the 1MJ/s figure and you automatically reduce the reinitialization times, too.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So in effect:

Replace SCB with a device that increases.the rate of.recharge (but runs hot)

or

Increase charge levels

or

Classes of shield have different charge characteristics (A fast, E slow)

 

[Talarin]

Let's talk a bit about shield generation.

Let's assume that we are stuck with the recharge rate of shields.

But what if the time before the shield starts recharge is faster on a larger shield?

I don't see the need to make that assumption. The existing mechanic simply makes no sense within the ship mechanics as I understand them, so if a change is going to happen then we may as well push for to be changed properly.

I still think that making shield generation a function of:

- power output from the power plant
- the amount of power that can be (and is, via power management) distributed to the shields
- the amount of power that can be taken in via the shield unit
- some sort of efficiency co-efficient (which really acts as a gameplay balancer, stopping things happening too quickly - plus the explanation as to why our ships generate so much heat)

If shield "reset" becomes a minimum power % required before they re-activate then it all balances out, ships with better power set-ups will get shields back more quickly.

 

[Uvelius Sång]

Could we please get an own "Nerf This!" subforum so that those of us who do not fancy the all-time Nerfing Competitions can just exclude it from their newsflow? Thanks.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

- power output from the power plant
- the amount of power that can be (and is, via power management) distributed to the shields
- the amount of power that can be taken in via the shield unit
- some sort of efficiency co-efficient (which really acts as a gameplay balancer, stopping things happening too quickly - plus the explanation as to why our ships generate so much heat)

If shield "reset" becomes a minimum power % required before they re-activate then it all balances out, ships with better power set-ups will get shields back more quickly.

In all honesty I really think SYS should be more used than it is today. Instead of it just affecting shield resistance we could have Shields work like weapons and engines.

-Shield Recharge drains SYS by X for each Shield Ring
-More PIPS in SYS reduce drainage amount and does not lower shield resistance as much
-Forced Shield Recharge: Player activates "SYS DUMP" and takes a HEAT hit but recharges X shield depending on SYS storage BUT can bypass the shield recharge timer. HEAT penalty is dependant on time left of recharge.
-SCB's are now changed to SYS boosters and have a reload timer like a HEAT SINK and is a UTILITY
-Shield Boosters are moved to Internal Modules.

 

[Mephane]

So in effect:

Replace SCB with a device that increases.the rate of.recharge (but runs hot)

or

Increase charge levels

or

Classes of shield have different charge characteristics (A fast, E slow)

or

The class/rating of the power distributor determines shield regeneration.

 

[Kastor]

or

The class/rating of the power distributor determines shield regeneration.

Naw leave it on the generator. You don't want it spread across to many modules as that cause additional balancing problems. Good Power Dis is already super powerful.

Gonna interject here though and point out that conda only has 10x sidewinder shields and I expect the conda should have a far bigger recharge time (not rate) than the winder even after the change. This kinda leads me to believe that the shield regen rate would range from 1mj to 3mj... max.

But still, that would cut the conda shield recharge time down to a third so still seems like a good change.

 

[NE1]

so, we had a lot of threads talking about a fix for SCB, since the absurd unbalance of that tool in game, and not a frikkin'word from devs?

Would be great having devs here talking with us and, who knows, maybe they should find some good idea since the massive amount of proposal people had regarding SCB balance.

Sandro Sammarco reply to SCB issue https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=179079&p=2762176&viewfull=1#post2762176

 

[Rubbernuke]

or

The class/rating of the power distributor determines shield regeneration.

Or that! Or both, it would be great for customisation depth.

 

[raok]

If coriolis.io can be trusted.

Conda with max shield + boosters + cells, has 9647 points of shield.

Conda with max hull reinforcement, has 3908 points of armor + hull tanking suffers greatly from possible module damage.

Granted, armor is resistant for smaller weapons, but is that atm. enough to compensate? Also the hull reinforced version does not have any shields, so Anaconda would probably never have that much hull in the 1st place. If you take 1000 pts of hull, you get 4697 pts of shield.

This is the balance issue if you ask from me. This is the reason why people jump out before they loose the shields, hull is so fragile + module damage. Also directly related to the fact, that most fly with just energy weapons. I know some low power ships fly with kinetics, but if they could, they would fly with energy weapons.

This is related to the SCB, because it affects to overall ship balance.

 

[Mephane]

Also directly related to the fact, that most fly with just energy weapons. I know some low power ships fly with kinetics, but if they could, they would fly with energy weapons.

But the popularity of energy weapons is mostly unrelated to the prevalence of SCBs, because NPCs do not always have them and never spam them endlessly (btw they could, in theory, if programmed to, because NPCs have infinite ammo). The reason is rather a combination of a) projectile weapons require ammo b) are not hitscan (except railguns, which are even more ammo-limited), c) lasers, blasters, plasma guns are just must more scifi-ey than machine guns and artillery cannons, so for many people lasers are the natural choice (myself included).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sandro Sammarco reply to SCB issue https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=179079&p=2762176&viewfull=1#post2762176

I like the idea he proposed:

Hello Commanders!

[...]
We have been discussing them recently: one idea I'm personally quite interested in is the concept that cells overcharge your shields to unsafe levels, beyond the generator's normal capacity, potentially damaging your shield generator (and thus causing malfunctions/destruction) if during the time the cell is active the shield *doesn't* receive enough damage to drain it down to below the generator's normal maximum. We haven't checked all the angles on this idea (and there are others), but at face value it seems potentially cool to me.

[...]

Prevents spamming, introduces timing.

I recently bought my first triplets of SCBs. When I reckoned a fights going to be hairy, I'd fire one at the first instance of incoming fire. Mindlessly. If this meant I could damage my shields because I fired them too soon, I'd put more thought into the matter. I also use them when I CBA-ed to wait for them to recharge.

 

[raok]

But the popularity of energy weapons is mostly unrelated to the prevalence of SCBs, because NPCs do not always have them and never spam them endlessly (btw they could, in theory, if programmed to, because NPCs have infinite ammo). The reason is rather a combination of a) projectile weapons require ammo b) are not hitscan (except railguns, which are even more ammo-limited), c) lasers, blasters, plasma guns are just must more scifi-ey than machine guns and artillery cannons, so for many people lasers are the natural choice (myself included).

a. Restricted by ammoo
b. Harder to hit the target
c. Everyones personal decision which looks the coolest.
+
d. Ships have tons of more shield + even more with SCB vs hull.
e. In PVP, the opponent will leave after shields are down, or almost down. So better to stack just lasers.
...

So it is not a surprise that people use lasers ~always?

SCB Nerf might be ok, but at the same time the hull should be buffed. Probably even a lot. Probably would be better if hull were 9000+ and shield 3000+. Shooting modules would be much more interesting after this. Also automatic repair systems might be very competitive against shield cell bank in this case.

Anaconda should be very strong vs current ships, and should be able to tank multiple. Corvette and Cutter are coming, those are the ships Anaconda is meant to have trouble with. Makes no sense to try to balance FdL and Anaconda 1vs1.

Shall we try to balance Eagle and Python for the next?

edit...

If they do not create roles, everyone will eventually fly with Corvette or Cutter. So it can be that they actually have to create "the roles" eventually.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

a. Restricted by ammoo
b. Harder to hit the target
c. Everyones personal decision which looks the coolest.
+
d. Ships have tons of more shield + even more with SCB vs hull.
e. In PVP, the opponent will leave after shields are down, or almost down. So better to stack just lasers.
...

So it is not a surprise that people use lasers ~always?

SCB Nerf might be ok, but at the same time the hull should be buffed. Probably even a lot. Probably would be better if hull were 9000+ and shield 3000+. Shooting modules would be much more interesting after this. Also automatic repair systems might be very competitive against shield cell bank in this case.

Anaconda should be very strong vs current ships, and should be able to tank multiple. Corvette and Cutter are coming, those are the ships Anaconda is meant to have trouble with. Makes no sense to try to balance FdL and Anaconda 1vs1.

Shall we try to balance Eagle and Python for the next?

edit...

If they do not create roles, everyone will eventually fly with Corvette or Cutter. So it can be that they actually have to create "the roles" eventually.

carefull, if you overbuff hull it's getting dangerous in terms of shipbalance. because any ship not having enough hardpoints to laod a variety of Lasers and ballistics.will suddenly be extremely inefficient.because they need a huge amount of time to get through shields AND a huge amount of time to get through hull. While a ship able to carry more guns than its Weap energy can supply will simply carry a shieldbraker and hullbreaker set of wepaons and switch to the needed configs. And this ship will then have it easy vs shields and easy vs hull.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

The "if SCBs were removed, CMDRs would just leave when their shields went down" argument is flawed.

Now that armour tanking isn't destroyed by module sniping, the reason commanders leave is because of SCBs: they know that however strong their hull, it doesn't compare to the strength of SCBs and they will get whittled down.

If SCBs were removed, then coming back when you have no shields is much more likely and people would stick around and fight to the death more

 

[Snarfbuckle]

The "if SCBs were removed, CMDRs would just leave when their shields went down" argument is flawed.

Now that armour tanking isn't destroyed by module sniping, the reason commanders leave is because of SCBs: they know that however strong their hull, it doesn't compare to the strength of SCBs and they will get whittled down.

If SCBs were removed, then coming back when you have no shields is much more likely and people would stick around and fight to the death more

The drawback that I have realized is the INSANE cost of armour.

An Eagle pays 1440% of their ship for Reactive Armour

An Anaconda pays 240% their hull cost for the same Reactive Armour.

That's 346 MILLION just for the Armour Plating on an Anaconda. Just the armour is TRIPLING the insurance cost.

A 7A shield generator is 51 million.

Who in their right mind would AFFORD armour with that kind of cost. The LEAST advanced technology is the most expensive???