The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
there are a lot of suggestions and discussion in this thread and in the other that aren't in the direction you mentioned, so please avoid to generalize and try to see how constructive many posts are here.
Thanks.
Most people on this thread have been arguing that combat should not be ruled by a single module. A module which can be stacked by multi-role ships to make them near invincible (at least in 1v1 encounters).
I agree that SCBs dont _need_ to be removed / limited to one per ship. But the game would IMHO greatly benefit from changing the way SCBs work. Yes they should remain a viable build option but they should not be the ONLY viable option for serious combat builds.
Last edited:
I don't think that's fair. For example, if you check my suggestion - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=150794
...you notice it's attempting to simplify SCBs down and prevent non-stop use of them for extended times. In short, you can have only one SCB. A small SCBs will only for example allow one use over say X minutes, medium ones two, and large three.
While initially I suggested no ammo should be used, I've since changed my mind to prevent CMDRs just sitting in RES/CZs forever.
In short, it's trying keep the general behaviour of SCBs now, but without allow the situation where you can sit there daisy chaining a dozen or more uses.
Last edited:
"there are a lot of suggestions and discussion in this thread and in the other that aren't in the direction you mentioned, so please avoid to generalize and try to see how constructive many posts are here.
Thanks."
ok, I didn't read all 59 pages and I said MOST commanders not ALL. I bet for every post you bring I can give you 5 in my direction.
Thanks."
ok, I didn't read all 59 pages and I said MOST commanders not ALL. I bet for every post you bring I can give you 5 in my direction.
Last edited:
You can only fit one SCB module to a ship, and it would be available in different sizes.
A small ship could only fit a small SCB module, where as a large ship could fit any size SCB module etc.
A small SCB module would only contain a single charge, where as a large SCB module may contain upto 3 charges. As such a small ship can only recharge its shields once in X (eg: 5) mins? Where as an Anaconda (with a large SCB module) could do say 3 consecutive shield recharges within that time.
When a charge has been used from an SCB, it will take many minutes (eg: 6) for that charge to become available again (assuming the module is kept powered).
A large SCB module (3 charges) as well as being huge, so requiring a lot of cargo space, would also require significant energy usage. A small SCB module (1 charge) would require far less cargo space, and less energy usage.
In the case of a multiple charge SCB module, after using a charge, if another (charge) is still available, there would be a short delay (10-20 seconds?) before it could be used.
There would be only a very short delay between activing an SCB recharge and it being applied (eg: just 2-3) seconds. As long as the shields are still up, the charge will be applied (over a few seconds).
An SCB charge would replenish say 3 shield rings on an average setup.
Each usage would still use ammo, but your SCB would have multiple ammo (eg: 5-10).
This was your suggestion so let's see:
The anaconda and the clipper both have a class 6 internal as their best possible fit for their SCB = huge shift into the direction of the clipper
It is also very difficult to balance. If you want to balance it like the existing ship capability the "huge class 6" must be 5? times more powerful than the class 5 and what means avarage setup? Sorry, I bet I missed something because of lack of time to analyse your suggestion and don't take it as an insult, please!
Don't mind him, he's probably spelt library with one 'r' again
No... All good stuff!
In my spiel I do have "A large SCB module (3 charges) as well as being huge, so requiring a lot of cargo space, would also require significant energy usage", so if we consider your Anaconda vs Clipper, an Anaconda has a size 8 Power Plant, where as a Clipper has a 6. So hopefully, the Clipper could indeed be able to fit in a large SCB, but chances are it would have to forgoe on a lot of weapons etc? In reality it would probably have to settle for a small/medium depending on other energy uses?
So hopefully it allows people to do extreme things (eg: put a large SBC in a clipper) but there would be penalty.
Some anecdotal data, having been on the receiving end of a NPC railgun FAS (and TBH I wasn't paying attention DOH!) it was capable of dropping 600 MJ shields in under 20 seconds, this is against a non evading target so essentially best case for the attacker.
Another aspect to consider is weapon "round" velocity, for example PA projectiles can be dodged (duck, dive, ............) because of the low velocity and the very visible projectile, however railgun rounds I certainly haven't been able to track or dodge.
Energy weapons other than extreme maneuvers and chaff (gimbals and turrets) are hard to shake, so although a lot of the heavy weapons can do serious damage the hit probability is going to be significantly lower so I suspect railguns and lasers are your best bet.
Another aspect to consider is weapon "round" velocity, for example PA projectiles can be dodged (duck, dive, ............
) because of the low velocity and the very visible projectile, however railgun rounds I certainly haven't been able to track or dodge. Energy weapons other than extreme maneuvers and chaff (gimbals and turrets) are hard to shake, so although a lot of the heavy weapons can do serious damage the hit probability is going to be significantly lower so I suspect railguns and lasers are your best bet.
Never had a problem with NPCs using SCBs in combat, 3 large and 2 medium pulse lasers pretty much see to any shields in extremely quickly as long as I can keep them lined up.
If they do survive long enough to use SCBs, then as soon as I see the telltale blue wave/glowy thing on their shield bubble, I try to just unleash everything, sometimes including ramming before they kick in and restore their shields.
I always figure, that as long as you can keep inflicting constant damage to the shields at the same rate you were before they used an SCB then they should still drop, of course a skilled CMDR, or even NPC will time SCB usage with launching chaff+evasion to give them time to work.
If they do survive long enough to use SCBs, then as soon as I see the telltale blue wave/glowy thing on their shield bubble, I try to just unleash everything, sometimes including ramming before they kick in and restore their shields.
I always figure, that as long as you can keep inflicting constant damage to the shields at the same rate you were before they used an SCB then they should still drop, of course a skilled CMDR, or even NPC will time SCB usage with launching chaff+evasion to give them time to work.
No... All good stuff!
In my spiel I do have "A large SCB module (3 charges) as well as being huge, so requiring a lot of cargo space, would also require significant energy usage", so if we consider your Anaconda vs Clipper, an Anaconda has a size 8 Power Plant, where as a Clipper has a 6. So hopefully, the Clipper could indeed be able to fit in a large SCB, but chances are it would have to forgoe on a lot of weapons etc? In reality it would probably have to settle for a small/medium depending on other energy uses?
So hopefully it allows people to do extreme things (eg: put a large SBC in a clipper) but there would be penalty.
Also energy usage is not the best sollution, because the normal spare energy for each ship is often not far apart from each other. And I see still problems with your "An SCB charge would replenish say 3 shield rings on an average setup". Let's take the class 4 module: Is the average setup a FDL with 700 shield or a cobra with 100 shield? Or works that class 4 module somehow magically different for each ship type?
Sorry can you explain? An example maybe?
Yes, I see your issue. My analogy is very poor/vague!
Given shields can of course vary dramatically in capablilty, could (for example) the 1E -> 6A SCBs simply not offer a good variety of recharge amounts (eg: 30MJ --> 500MJ). ie: With for example with the new 6A giving something akin to over twice what it does now, as if you were running them in parallel. The 6E variety might instead off 3 charges in X minutes of only 300MJ. The 5E offering 3 charges of 200MJ... etc...
So we have the class 1-->6 offering 1, 2, 3 charges in X minutes, combined with the E-->A rated offering a good variety of recharge amounts. And across this scale energy usage goes up to balance the unit with the rest of the ships loadout (eg: weapons).
Last edited:
When you configure a "normal loadout" with boosters and A modules you have often not so big differences, or the opposite; you get differences where you don't expect it. E.g take the FAS vs. FDL, Both ships currently have not much place for SCBs. Suddenly the FDLs gets problems because of your suggestion (lack of spare energy, only class 4 possible) and the FAS gets a buff (class 5 and no energy problems)
It seems you're completely missing the mark. SCBs are fine, stacking them is not. When PvP is reduced to who has the most SCBs stacked, I think there is a problem.
individually or in small numbers scbs are completely reasonable. When we're looking at 7+ on pythons and condas their effect on the outcome of a fight becomes blatantly excessive.
Perhaps were overlooking a simple solution. Limited banks to one per ship, have something like a five minute cooldown in between uses. This would effectively make it so that they would be used once in an average encounter. Perhaps you could make it so that small banks recharge a smaller portion of shields but recharge faster. Also make it so that using one drains pipa from sys just like boosting does from engines as someone else suggested.
Not overlooked, you are rehashing the same idea for at least the 5th time in this thread alone.
Just wear the buggers down. It's not rocket surgery.