The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[Eremos]

Well, the recharge time is quite short and railgun fire rate is slow so I doubt you will hit a lot with it when the shields are incapacited.
Plus if I am not mistaking railguns are fixed only so when your shields are down against a railgun boat you should shake it hard to avoid some punishment.
With that in mind, for just the SCB problem the hull penetration reduction don't need to be huge I think.

It is more a problem for pure hull tanking, but it is not the matter here ^^

But again, a reduction in shield mitigation instead of a full drop could be viable (but well... a really "game wize" solution...)

 

[Jesse30]

I did not read the entire thread but as this suggestion is not listed in the OP post so maybe it was not discussed about.

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 :

1. 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
2. Using SCB will be more strategic :
   • You have to consider the gain / risk of using your SCB :
     1. 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
     2. 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 :
     1. You should try to break your opponent lock to buy some fire free time while recharging
     2. You should try avoid exposing vitals modules to your opponent by knowing their position and orienting yourselve accordingly before recharging
3. 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

Your suggestion was moved to the first page, hopefully, Frontier will read it.

 

[kofeyh]

I did not read the entire thread but as this suggestion is not listed in the OP post so maybe it was not discussed about.

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 :

1. 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
2. Using SCB will be more strategic :
   • You have to consider the gain / risk of using your SCB :
     1. 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
     2. 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 :
     1. You should try to break your opponent lock to buy some fire free time while recharging
     2. You should try avoid exposing vitals modules to your opponent by knowing their position and orienting yourselve accordingly before recharging
3. 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

You want to disable shields whilst a shield cell charges. interesting. At present a shield cell cannot operate whilst a shield is down. These are currently mutually exclusive goals.

This also requires that the existing cooldown before a shield even starts recharging has to be removed.

Also once a shield is down, you make any ship with low hull highly vulnerable. This negatively impacts quite a few combat ships, and few multipurpose (these typically have higher hull to offset lower shields), yet it's the multipurpose that are the target (people don't seem to give a crap about combat ships with SCBs, but Python and anaconda due to the larger capacity).

It's a novel approach, but is still the ambulance at the bottom of a cliff. Trying to resolve the symptom. The cause of all of this is the shield regen rate and distortion from boosters on cool down time before a shield charges.

A couple well placed rail shots, will all but incapacitate a ship with no shields.

Hopefully FD will take a look at shields and the current mechanic, first. Changes there could reduce the need considerably. SCBs are used to fix a flaw, not because SCBs are great.

Also understand that hull upgrades have a reduced impact on piercing weapons such as rails. They will pass through military armour and still hit modules. They act as an damage modifier, as far as I understand.

So this model you suggest basically means people will simply just use rails (or plasma) exclusively and we will then have a massive thread on how OP rails are.

 

[DocWatts]

Has something as simple as a five minute cool down been suggested already?

 

[kofeyh]

Has something as simple as a five minute cool down been suggested already?

Enable SCB, use, power off, power on next SCB use, power off. Might as well just set the module count to 1 and leave it at that, because Duracell pythons leave banks disabled so would not have to care; the battle is over and they can just hi-wake out and cycle cells to charge then jump back in.

PVP remains unaffected (which is where most of the angst seems to be) because pythons can still roll through multiple cells so can withstand fire for the entire single cycle of all cells, which is probably still sufficient to cause consternation.

It's a nice simple solution, just fairly easy to counter.

 

[clinton]

Has something as simple as a five minute cool down been suggested already?

Per cell use? Yeah, that would be great actually. Would completely fix the problem. You'd generally only get one cell use per battle, which would make them handy but stop them being abused.

 

[Shaamaan]

It's kind of worrisome that people try to nerf SCBs specifically as if these were the root of the problem. They are not.

Consider WHY boosters are so popular in the first place, at least for PvE (I don't do much PvP, but enough PvE to be able to offer a few reasons for their usefulness over other survivability tools).

- Most ships have bigger shield health than hull health.
- Because the cost of dying is so high, anything that increases the risk of dying is avoided as much as possible - as such, people prefer to use shields to soak up damage, rather than hull.
- Besides the increased chances of simply getting blown up, lots of things can go wrong when hull is under attack - critical modules are in danger, so is the canopy. Loosing a critical module (or canopy) means death or forces an immediate retreat (in PvE you generally want to keep on fighting as long as possible).
- Buffing shields as much as possible doesn't gimp a ships jumping capabilities, while buffing armour does. I haven't checked, but I think a super-heavy hull-and-armour-reinforced ship would also have more trouble with handling.
- SCBs provide an active way for the player to react to incoming damage.

Note that if enough buffs are made to allow "hull tanking", then field repair modules might end up having the same status as SCBs currently. At the same time nerfing shields / SCBs might render a lot of ships with weaker armour / hull useless.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

How about this instead:

-SCB's functions like Engine Booster and utilize SYS

-Shield recharge amount is equivalent of SCB's RATING X SIZE as percentage of max shield (E=1 / A=6)

-You CANNOT regain more shield percentage than your SYS pool amount in your Power Distributor at once without heat penalty

-Charges are removed

-MJ percentage regained cannot be more than your Power Distributor without blowing fuses so the Power Distributor is the bottleneck for heat.

-Low SYS when using SCB's move any remaining SYS after recharge to HEAT penalty instead

-Using an SCB when the shield is DISABLED boosts the countdown timer INSTEAD of recharging the shield.

An Anaconda with a 7A SCB would regain 42% of shields and not suffer any heat if using a 8A Power Distributor
The same Anaconda could reduce the restart timer by 42% as well and then use the remaining timer to recharge SYS and boost shields again after the shield is up.

The Anaconda would require 10 seconds before using SCB again as to not suffer heat damage with 4 PIPS in SYS.

This way you have to make a tactical choice of increasing SYS in order to boost shields faster OR doing something else.

It also free up room to have more versatile ships AND using armour so no-one needs to run away they loose their shi...shields.

 

[Vitamin Arrr]

FD: dont change a thing. It's perfect. Removing items already in-game or changing how they work breaks RP continuity and realism--things in real life don't just randomly change. Please don't break immersion by listening to whining crybabies thinking they can complain you into submission because they suck too bad at PVP to actually do anything useful, and have no real-life problems that are more important than to come here like pigs oinking at the trough of nerf slop.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

It's kind of worrisome that people try to nerf SCBs specifically as if these were the root of the problem. They are not.

Note that if enough buffs are made to allow "hull tanking", then field repair modules might end up having the same status as SCBs currently. At the same time nerfing shields / SCBs might render a lot of ships with weaker armour / hull useless.

Both are a problem.

While there are LOGICAL arguments to why bulkhead improvements are so expensive it's a poor game design decision.

-Lower the cost for Armour and more versatile builds would pop up

-Limit SCB's from being stacked like a warehouse in ships and more versatile builds would pop up

-Make better use of SYS for shields and SCB's

-Do NOT add "field repair kits" as it would make armour into the same problem as SCB's

- - - Updated - - -

FD: dont change a thing. It's perfect. Removing items already in-game or changing how they work breaks RP continuity and realism--things in real life don't just randomly change. Please don't break immersion by listening to whining crybabies thinking they can complain you into submission because they suck too bad at PVP to actually do anything useful, and have no real-life problems that are more important than to come here like pigs oinking at the trough of nerf slop.

O you know, you could actually read the thread and try to understand that the issue is far more than someone's PVP E-Peen but actually a larger problem than that.

 

[Sturmalex.]

Please change SCBs, so fed up.
The current CGCZ is a prime example of it: 2 Anacondas jumps in, picking the enemy faction, me and my wing consisting of 3 Courier engage one, he is just SCBing while the second Anaconda meltsone of us. Then we are forced to disengage.

Seriously, bigger does not mean better. FDev should take a look at Eve Online - imo they solved the issue with "bigger = better" quite good.

 

[kofeyh]

Both are a problem.

While there are LOGICAL arguments to why bulkhead improvements are so expensive it's a poor game design decision.

-Lower the cost for Armour and more versatile builds would pop up

-Limit SCB's from being stacked like a warehouse in ships and more versatile builds would pop up

-Make better use of SYS for shields and SCB's

-Do NOT add "field repair kits" as it would make armour into the same problem as SCB's

- - - Updated - - -



O you know, you could actually read the thread and try to understand that the issue is far more than someone's PVP E-Peen but actually a larger problem than that.

Once again, people are assuming SCBs are the issue and are all trying to chase ambulances to the bottom of cliffs. Don't chase ambulances, it's not cool.

The issue is why we have SCBs in the first place. It's a cludge to solve the linear shield gen. Fix the cause and provide more flexibility and the cludge ceases to be the current meta.

It's used because it is the brute force fix for regen. It is far from being the best or only solution.

- - - Updated - - -

Please change SCBs, so fed up.
The current CGCZ is a prime example of it: 2 Anacondas jumps in, picking the enemy faction, me and my wing consisting of 3 Courier engage one, he is just SCBing while the second Anaconda meltsone of us. Then we are forced to disengage.

Seriously, bigger does not mean better. FDev should take a look at Eve Online - imo they solved the issue with "bigger = better" quite good.

3 couriers against 2 anacondas sounds like a risky strategy. Regardless of SCBs. Courier is a top ship, but you can't expect medium weapons to be godly when they have a damage penalty against large ships.

I suspect that if it was 3 of you on one anaconda, it might be a quite different story, as you'd be free to kite without having to deal with a second massive damage dealer. I loved mine while I had it but it's medium-only hardpoints means you still have to pick your fights.

 

[NeilF]

Please change SCBs, so fed up.
The current CGCZ is a prime example of it: 2 Anacondas jumps in, picking the enemy faction, me and my wing consisting of 3 Courier engage one, he is just SCBing while the second Anaconda meltsone of us. Then we are forced to disengage.

Seriously, bigger does not mean better. FDev should take a look at Eve Online - imo they solved the issue with "bigger = better" quite good.

And if you use the other silly stacking technique of multiple chaff units? ie: So you're firing off loads of chaff back to back so none of their turrets can fix?


TBH, IMHO it just shows two of the main problems we currently have surely? Stacked SCBs and stacked chaff units?


ps: That said, are we suggesting two well fitted Anacondas working togethor shouldn't be a force to recon with?

 

[NeilF]

Relentless in making everything the same as everything else because "balance". If you want diversity, demanding flexibility be removed does not make a good argument.

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.

Frankly I don't think FD are going to go near shields again anytime soon. Is SCB staking annoying? Probably. But to change that really needs a bit more thought than just force into utility slot (making anacondas suddenly able to stack 8 SCBs, freeing up spots for hull reinforcement - yay now they are even harder to kill! Success!; fer-de-lance would become the new Python, causing yet another thread of people whining) or setting a slot count limit; because even just a single SCB is enough to send some into an apoplectic fit.

I believe the entire mechanic needs work; but nerfing SCBs in the interim dosn't really achieve anything. I personally don't think SCBs are a great mechanic. But right now they are the only fix to slow shield regen; hanging the slot count doesn't just affect PVP.

Sorry, so what are you suggesting with SCBs then, when suggesting "they are the only fix to slow shield regen?"

Are you suggesting if bigger shields simply recharged quicker, then we'd actually be able to do away with SCBs all togethor?

Apologies if you've already made this point and I've missed it in the thread somewhere...




if this is so, I think the danger is with balancing shields up so they're powerful enough without SCBs, is that as there's no ammo involved there's the potential for a CMDR to literally sit in a CZ or RES forever? With SCB ammo, they will run out of it.

 

[Kastor]

Once again, people are assuming SCBs are the issue and are all trying to chase ambulances to the bottom of cliffs. Don't chase ambulances, it's not cool.

You are sure trying to get some mileage outta that ambulance. New analogy time maybe, just saying.

- - - Updated - - -

DocWaars:"Has something as simple as a five minute cool down been suggested already?"

Enable SCB, use, power off, power on next SCB use, power off. Might as well just set the module count to 1 and leave it at that, because Duracell pythons leave banks disabled so would not have to care; the battle is over and they can just hi-wake out and cycle cells to charge then jump back in.

PVP remains unaffected (which is where most of the angst seems to be) because pythons can still roll through multiple cells so can withstand fire for the entire single cycle of all cells, which is probably still sufficient to cause consternation.

It's a nice simple solution, just fairly easy to counter.

This is why I don't even think your trying to find a solution. If i just change the words "cool down" to "warm up", we get the same intended solution without the easy counter you've pointed out. Turning a fresh one on won't help if you still have to wait 5 min.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

The issue is why we have SCBs in the first place. It's a cludge to solve the linear shield gen. Fix the cause and provide more flexibility and the cludge ceases to be the current meta.

It's used because it is the brute force fix for regen. It is far from being the best or only solution.

IF they fixed the linear shield gen (a move I would approve of) they would still have to fix SCB's as well.

But we still need cheaper armour (regardless if called hull upgrades armour costs make no sense no matter how you look at it).

-Make internal Hull Upgrades more expensive (They ARE internal bulkhead upgrades)
-Make basic Armour (change name from bulkhead upgrade to armour) cheaper (Replacing the SKIN of the ship with a different material is not that expensive)
-Make armour prices more sensible per hull instead of...ODD*

-Cobra MK III Reinforced: 151 890 credits / +86 Armour / +14 Tonnes / 64% of hull cost
-ICourier Reinforced: 1017 000 credits / +58 / +4 Tonnes / +40% of hull cost
-Eagle : 26 880 Credits /+29 / +4 Tonnes / 257% of hull cost

Some people suggested that LORE impacted the price of the Eagle as it was no longer in production but that is a TERRIBLE argument for game balance.

Can someone find me a logical calculation to HOW the armour costs are calculated?

 

[Mephane]

And if you use the other silly stacking technique of multiple chaff units? ie: So you're firing off loads of chaff back to back so none of their turrets can fix?

That, too, should be fixed, with a universal chaff cooldown so a 2nd unit serves as spare ammo, not to bridge the cooldown of the first for a single long streak of perma-chaff.

Can someone find me a logical calculation to HOW the armour costs are calculated?

They are roughly the same price as the base ship. I do think that armour (bulkhead) could really be improves by drastically cutting its price (I say a factor of 5, e.g. a military grade armour on a Python's would still cost 10m, but no longer 50m) and possibly a decrease in the mass as well.

 

[NeilF]

That, too, should be fixed, with a universal chaff cooldown so a 2nd unit serves as spare ammo, not to bridge the cooldown of the first for a single long streak of perma-chaff.

Agreed... What's the point of trying to balance gimbals and fixed, if you can nerf gimbals solidly.

 

[Kastor]

That, too, should be fixed, with a universal chaff cooldown so a 2nd unit serves as spare ammo, not to bridge the cooldown of the first for a single long streak of perma-chaff.

Yes + I feel like the effect of chaff should also be lessened but stack able. So if you want attacks to miss your large ship or small ship at close range you'll need to fire two or more at once (using the same fire group as to avoid the universal cool down. Just a thought.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

T

They are roughly the same price as the base ship. I do think that armour (bulkhead) could really be improves by drastically cutting its price (I say a factor of 5, e.g. a military grade armour on a Python's would still cost 10m, but no longer 50m) and possibly a decrease in the mass as well.

Nope.

Military Grade Composites is 1440% the base hull cost of the Eagle at 150K compared to the Eagles base hull at 10K

Compare that to the Anaconda that pays roughly 100% of base hull cost at 150 million.

SAME armour completely different percentage.

And for those that says BULKHEAD improvements and that you need to rip out the entire ship agains...MIRRORED SURFACE COMPOSITES and REACTIVE SURFACE COMPOSITES...oddly, they are not bulkheads since they are armour plating.