The word bulkheads makes little sense in that regard and it is quite clear that what it means is the exterior armour plating, whereas hull packages are internal modifications. Regarding prices, I meand the price when you buy the ship. I have no idea how they are actually calculated, it could be a per-ship multiplier of the hull price, but the price of the default ship with the default equipment is indeed roughly the same as that of military armour.
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
The word bulkheads makes little sense in that regard and it is quite clear that what it means is the exterior armour plating, whereas hull packages are internal modifications. Regarding prices, I meand the price when you buy the ship. I have no idea how they are actually calculated, it could be a per-ship multiplier of the hull price, but the price of the default ship with the default equipment is indeed roughly the same as that of military armour.
Point is: Our 3 Couriers were able to down the Anacondas Shields - the second "layer" already went red when he started popping shield cells and went invulnabru-mode. There is nothing you can do against it. Against chaffs you can use fixed weapons at least.
Why should the 'Conda/Cutter/[Insert Random large ship here] be the end of all being? Why shouldnt they cancel out each other? Comined arms?
Last edited:
Interesting... I'm trying to find a flaw with the general premise of that, but I'm having trouble...
Would you envisage across some ships an additional Utility Mount (or two?) maybe being introduced to balance SCBs moving to them?
- - - Updated - - -
I didn't suggest it should be. We're talking about a specific example? I'd hope a pair of well equiped Anacondas (we're talking 1.5bCR?) should be able to fend off three Couriers surely?
For SOME ships, others are not so lucky.
Eagle MkII pays 14 times it's hull cost for Mirrored armour
Imperial Eagle, essentially the same hull with extra nacelles pays only 4,8 times the hull cost for the exact same armour modification.
Being a Marine myself I understand the concept of combined arms. If the Anaconda pilot is facing three Couriers he should be worry at that point, and should get the hell out of there as soon as possible, but SCB stacking lets you play God mode.
Why not triple the weight and power consumption and takes occupies 2 slots. Also charge $20M for each. Nerfing is a cheap way to balance. Low budget producers can be excused, but it's beyond comprehension why anyone would encourage such low brow techniques. People sacrifice much in power and slots to stock them as it is. But they are free to choose what to outfit.
i understand what you mean but this would be a huge nerf for fighters and a huge buff for multi-purpose ships
You both forget to realize that the Courier, with its 3A distributor and 3 mediums, has less dps than a Cobra.
Its like firing a gattling cannon at a tank. Combined power is not going to help.
That 3 Courier vs 2 Anaconda encounter is laughable really.
He didin't even say what weapons they were using, not to mention showing the loadout.
If you go firing medium multicannons or gimballed pulses at 1547MJ of shield and expect to melt the target or expect the player to be as dumb as an NPC, you deserve to be killed several times.
SCB stacking might be godmode against a small ship, but have you even been attacked by 3 skilled Pythons or FDLs in your godmode Anaconda? Guess what, its fleemode all of the sudden.
You get in an Anaconda, come to Nanomam and see how overpowered it is, then comment.
I originally supported restricting SCBs or removing them but I've gradually come around to a different opinion - based in part on reconsidering my own ED experiences in the light of the discussions here and in the other, slightly differently focused, thread on the subject.
As a miner, including SCBs in your loadout reduces the amount of refined metal you can fit in your hold, cutting into your profits. For this tradeoff you become more survivable against those that would relieve you of the refined metals you do have.
As a trader, again you are reducing your cargo carrying ability. You are trading profit making ability for having more time to escape that pirate wing that just pulled you over.
As a pirate you're giving up space for limpets or loot in favor of more dwell time in the face of the po-po objecting to you scooping the canisters you extorted or time to get away from that pesky bounty hunter who wants a piece of you.
As an explorer your downside for carrying them is their mass, reducing your jump range. In exchange you're less likely to lose your hard-gained exploration data to a wandering psycho on the way back to the bubble.
None of these professions would stack SCBs because they can't spare the space or mass. It would be idiotic.
A bounty hunter or a mercenary, if they are actually making profits from that activity will still mostly be operating PvE, For them SCBs are almost essential as they maximize their dwell time for more NPC targets. For maximizing the profitability of these two professions - something that if you recall from the early days of the game was sorely needed - they need that extended dwell time. These guys almost have to stack them to maximize that. If SCBs weren't around "something else" in terms of ship balancing would have taken their place to make ship builds that can tank PvE.
The problem is not SCBs per se, it is that builds that can tank PvE can also to some extent tank PvP and so of course the dedicated PvP player will use one.
The only reason to do anything about SCBs is to improve the PvP experience for players that are in the game solely for that. Almost anything proposed to penalize SCBs would have demonstrable downsides to every other play style however, and as such I can no longer support it. There is now a place in the game that is balanced for PvP and has no pesky PvE components to get in the way. You want the faster paced combat that removing or nerfing SCBs would get you? It's there, in CQC.
I'd support limiting the numbers of SCBs a ship could carry, maybe, but if it isn't stacking SCBs that are required for a PvE tank it will be something else and whether it's via the shields mechanic or some other route you'll still see the same effect on combat in the wider galaxy. The issue will maybe vary by kind or severity but the effect will always be there.
As a miner, including SCBs in your loadout reduces the amount of refined metal you can fit in your hold, cutting into your profits. For this tradeoff you become more survivable against those that would relieve you of the refined metals you do have.
As a trader, again you are reducing your cargo carrying ability. You are trading profit making ability for having more time to escape that pirate wing that just pulled you over.
As a pirate you're giving up space for limpets or loot in favor of more dwell time in the face of the po-po objecting to you scooping the canisters you extorted or time to get away from that pesky bounty hunter who wants a piece of you.
As an explorer your downside for carrying them is their mass, reducing your jump range. In exchange you're less likely to lose your hard-gained exploration data to a wandering psycho on the way back to the bubble.
None of these professions would stack SCBs because they can't spare the space or mass. It would be idiotic.
A bounty hunter or a mercenary, if they are actually making profits from that activity will still mostly be operating PvE, For them SCBs are almost essential as they maximize their dwell time for more NPC targets. For maximizing the profitability of these two professions - something that if you recall from the early days of the game was sorely needed - they need that extended dwell time. These guys almost have to stack them to maximize that. If SCBs weren't around "something else" in terms of ship balancing would have taken their place to make ship builds that can tank PvE.
The problem is not SCBs per se, it is that builds that can tank PvE can also to some extent tank PvP and so of course the dedicated PvP player will use one.
The only reason to do anything about SCBs is to improve the PvP experience for players that are in the game solely for that. Almost anything proposed to penalize SCBs would have demonstrable downsides to every other play style however, and as such I can no longer support it. There is now a place in the game that is balanced for PvP and has no pesky PvE components to get in the way. You want the faster paced combat that removing or nerfing SCBs would get you? It's there, in CQC.
I'd support limiting the numbers of SCBs a ship could carry, maybe, but if it isn't stacking SCBs that are required for a PvE tank it will be something else and whether it's via the shields mechanic or some other route you'll still see the same effect on combat in the wider galaxy. The issue will maybe vary by kind or severity but the effect will always be there.
As I pointed out before, the SCBs per se are not the real problem; stacking them is the problem. That turns a PvP fight into who has the most SCBs, which I don't think was intended. Yes, limit them to one per ship if you must keep them. I think that would be a good balance initially. This, as you suggested, might reveal another imbalance but, IMHO, the SCB stacking is the worst imbalance currently.
And as you mentioned in your post, using my Python and my Anaconda as true multi-purpose ships, I can only carry one shield cell bank. I think one would be fine for most situation. If you're tanking in your Anaconda against a wing, a stack of SCB should be able to buy you enough time to high wake when all the ships in the wing are targeting you. I'm against stacking so that a large ship like an Anaconda can be almost invincible. That doesn't make much sense, IMHO. There were a few times I had to run away in my Anaconda. Situations where I found myself facing a wing of 3 Vultures, for example. Or this NPC Anaconda who rammed me, instantly putting my shields offline and getting my hull to 64%. The Anaconda is not the end of all, best of all. You have to run to survive in order to be ready for another fight.
Sorry but I don't have a Anaconda yet, too busy with real life to trade my way to the top.
Bigger is better. But it shouldnt be an end all. Not like this, not with SCBs being the carry that they are. An Eagle shouldnt easily tackle a Conda nor should a Viper... It should be borderline impossible. A Courier should not find it easy to kill even a Python or an FAS. Not every ship should be an Apex predator. Every ship needs to have roles or things they are good at in specific situations.
Last edited:
And who asked for your opinion? Are you bothered by reading this thread or Don't like what you are reading? Go read a book or write in the newspaper.
this is low from you...
Haha, nice.
No I'd say it right on. It's not even quater as bad as the post he was replying to. At least he did have to call the other guy a "crying whinebaby".
Damn like a boss.Who trades their way to an Anaconda? It's all about exploration.
So it then becomes a question of who has the biggest SCB. Or who has the most hull reinforcements behind their military composites. The point I was making is that nerfing or eliminating SCBs doesn't take the problem away. Without SCBs in the mix, folks would find another way to build a tank and that will then do the same thing to PvP combat, in terms of matching ship vs ship instead of player skill vs player skill. That's why FD limited the ship and loadout options available in CQC - because that has to be balanced for PvP because that's what it's there for. Just don't expect a perfect PvP balance to show off your superior skill in the main game. There's just too many other ways to play it for it to be optimized for that. In the main game there will always be a "toughest tank" build, if it isn't a stack of SCBs on a big ship, it will be something else, some other combination of hull and modules that will be almost impossible for a ship built out any differently to take down because it just outlasts what its pilot can't outfly.
Trying to create the kind of balance you are looking for in the main game just isn't going to work. Not unless you make it impossible to build a tank with decent firepower or multirole capacity and that will be so much to the detriment of folks playing a different way that FD would be idiots to do it. It would annoy WAY more play styles than it pleased.
Bingo. If you want variety, that necessarily means that there will be ways to optimise an outcome. CQC needs to be balanced pretty religiously because that format is more about skill, cunning and abilities. Using a ship to its fullest potential. You eschew vibrancy and component choice to ensure combat is balanced.
Open isn't balanced. 3x 3 medium guns of any sort aren't going to do too much to an Anaconda with an A class shield, regardless of boosters. Against 2? Not a hope.
This also illustrates a fundamental point, people assume they can win regardless of the asymmetry of a battle, because they often don't actually understand the mechanics. Class 2 weapons have an approx 33% damage penalty against large ships. So more helps. This is why FDL in a competent pilots hands can be deadly. There are 4 points that stack damage, overcoming a lot of the penalty.
However a courier has 3 points. Even with 2 rails and a plasma, it's going to be a tough job to kill a commander in an Anaconda. Why is the assumption the combat guy will win? If they are a) in a wing b) have a fit out the overcomes the damage penalty (rails and plasma and c) work as a solid team, with some cunning - they will be quite a match.
However taking on two commanders in Anacondas, that have a considerable weapon advantage (at this point the shields are almost irrelevant, the multiple class 3 weapons alone will cause utter destruction) should be a serious cause for concern, if you are rocking a courier.
There are examples being given when SCBs aren't actually a deciding factor. This doesn't help prove SCBs are bad.
I am all for a shield and SCB balance; it think however making everything killable by a couple courier pilots, regardless of situation, is not the sensible approach.