I think there are too many people on this thread assuming that it is only in PvP that SCB are a problem.
I don't play PvP. I'm exclusively PvE, because my combat skills are pretty poor.
For me SCB make it just a bit too easy to take down an Elite Anaconda without taking any hull damage in my vulture. Those encounters ought to be hard (and rarer on the BBs probably better rewarded - on a par with the superior smuggling missions). I imagine if I fitted my python properly for combat with several banks of SCB, that it would be easier still.
I do absolutely take the point several have made that the large shield values you can get on the larger ships combined with the fairly constant recharge rate is a problem. I think multiple SCB aren't the correct answer there. Ideally the time to charge an unboosted shield to max should be more or less constant across ships. I'd make it be 1 unit of time for size 5 shield and size 5 power distributor with 4 pips to SYS. Scale to 2 units of tPvP with 2 pips and 4 with 1 pip. Scale by the ratio of shield size to power distributer size (so size 6 shield and size 4 distributor would be more than 1 unit of time, and size 4 shield and size 6 distributer less - whether you scale linearly or not is an open question - but having a given size distributer provide X MJ/sec of shield which various per distrib size might be simplest).
And then I'd change SCB so they don't draw much power, are one per ship, are much more costly to reload (so they are more emergency use than regular live a little longer in a CZ use), and let them be used whether shields are online or not. If shields come back online at 50% of full charge and an SCB of a given size gives +60% over a few seconds, it would being shields back on over a few seconds. You could also bump the heat cost of their use so you'd be mad to continue to fire while they are recharging your shields (or at least have to dump a couple of heatsinks to compensate).
I'd also uprate the value of armour and especially of hull reinforcements so that the choice of SCB or Hull reinforcement is a hard one or at least varies from ship to ship. I really like the idea of armour-tanking in a FAS (no need for pips in SYS for instance) but I suspect FAS with Shield and SCB vs FAS with armour+hull reinf might still be a bit one-sided in favour of the SCB. It would be an interesting test to do for those who are so inclined.
Not really, people would just arm them earlier
You're suggesting some ships get a buff, and others get not?
The premise would be if you were to draw a graph using the current SCBs in single and double config, using the energy usage and the energy they apply to the shields, that's what I would hope the new "only one permitted" SCB modules 1E --> 6A would mimic...
The only major difference would be the new module would prevent more than 1, 2 or 3 uses X minutes (depending on module class). So no more 4-5 SCBs, with non-stop uses for minutes on end...
In brief imagine the current mechanics but you can't use more than 1-3 uses in X mins... That's where we're trying to get to roughly.
You still get a problem with balancing if we assume the balancing is meant the way it is currently implemented in the game. With only one possible shield cell bank you have one major problem: Some ships have enough spare energy and a high biggest possible slot to fit the best SCB as you describe it. These ships are not necessarily the same ships which profit the most from SCBs today -> new ship balancing required. I already gave you an example (FAS vs. FDL). So I will give you annother: Python vs. Anaconda. Both ships normally use a class 6 slot for their best SCB, but the Python often has very much power left. The result: The Python could fit a class 6A SCB without compromise (6,4 MJ? left with pulse lasers/multicannon loadout and full boosters) where the anadonda may only fit a 6B (4MJ left with 7 boosters, multis and pulses). So suddenly the Python tops the anaconda regarding SCBs. This must not be bad, but at least it's very hard to balance.
You still get a problem with balancing if we assume the balancing is meant the way it is currently implemented in the game. With only one possible shield cell bank you have one major problem: Some ships have enough spare energy and a high biggest possible slot to fit the best SCB as you describe it. These ships are not necessarily the same ships which profit the most from SCBs today -> new ship balancing required. I already gave you an example (FAS vs. FDL). So I will give you annother: Python vs. Anaconda. Both ships normally use a class 6 slot for their best SCB, but the Python often has very much power left. The result: The Python could fit a class 6A SCB without compromise (6,4 MJ? left with pulse lasers/multicannon loadout and full boosters) where the anadonda may only fit a 6B (4MJ left with 7 boosters, multis and pulses). So suddenly the Python tops the anaconda regarding SCBs. This must not be bad, but at least it's very hard to balance.
I moved your solution to the front of this thread, hopefully FD will see it one day.Possibly you misunderstand, or my explanation is lacking?
If we consider my battle Python, it has (at least ) FOUR SCBs. Which are run in pairs at a time. For example four 5A SCBs.
My proposal is:-
1) We are only allowed one SCB module.
2) The existing modules (1E to 6A) are rebalanced such that they mimic a good cross section of the existing configs, say 1E to two 6As run in parallel, and even above.
3) Class 1 & 2 give you say one cell. Class 3 & 4 give two. And Class 5 & 6 give you three.
4) Each cell can only be used once per X minute. eg: 8.
So we may end up with my my Python might then be fitted with say a 5A SCB which for all intents and purpose used the same amount of energy, and replenishes my shields the same, as my current TWO 5A SCBs. So no change there at all, except for maybe mass? And definitely less cargo space used!
I'd maybe get 9 ammo with that module, so not a lot of difference there either.
The big difference is, I cannot now use more cells at a quick rate. In a 5-6 minute fight, I could only use three for example, instead of the current half dozen and counting.
So in summary, my proposed solution would result in little/no difference in energy use, shield regeneration... Simply reduce the amount of times you can use SCBs in a given time window..
Possibly you misunderstand, or my explanation is lacking?
If we consider my battle Python, it has (at least ) FOUR SCBs. Which are run in pairs at a time. For example four 5A SCBs.
My proposal is:-
1) We are only allowed one SCB module.
2) The existing modules (1E to 6A) are rebalanced such that they mimic a good cross section of the existing configs, say 1E to two 6As run in parallel, and even above.
3) Class 1 & 2 give you say one cell. Class 3 & 4 give two. And Class 5 & 6 give you three.
4) Each cell can only be used once per X minute. eg: 8.
So we may end up with my my Python might then be fitted with say a 5A SCB which for all intents and purpose used the same amount of energy, and replenishes my shields the same, as my current TWO 5A SCBs. So no change there at all, except for maybe mass? And definitely less cargo space used!
I'd maybe get 9 ammo with that module, so not a lot of difference there either.
The big difference is, I cannot now use more cells at a quick rate. In a 5-6 minute fight, I could only use three for example, instead of the current half dozen and counting.
So in summary, my proposed solution would result in little/no difference in energy use, shield regeneration... Simply reduce the amount of times you can use SCBs in a given time window..
After mulling for a week...
I have to think it would make sense to require a power draw from SYS to power an SCB much like a weapon does. Bigger SCB, more drain to SYS.
That would add more functionality to SYS, which except for charging shields is sort of useless. Oh yeah, it powers chaff, but not really a noticeable amount of power.
How many are loaded would be irrelevant in a battle, since you would have to divert power from engines or weapons to power the SCB, so there is a balance there. Keeping the current trigger/reload delays, I think there is a suitable balance mechanism there.
A commander could decide strategically to have more than one, but the SYS battery charge requirement would mean one large or possibly two small ones could be fired at any one time before not having enough to fire another charge. Draw from the battery to do normal recharging of the shield means really 2 to 3 pips to sys to use SCB continuously. (Courier can chew up almost pips to SYS when shields are recharging, I am pretty sure it is not the only one).
That leaves very little power to run engines or weapons if you want to SCB tank. Much like running a Plasma or Railgun is hard if you are constantly draining the WEP battery with beams.
Recap:
1. No change to SCB mechanism.
2. ADD requirement for sufficient SYS battery to trigger SCB, just like a weapon.
Balance achieved by forcing tactical management of SYS/ENG/WEP and limiting damage output to run SCBs.
What happened to this thread? I had all the best solution in the front now just disappeared and looks like another SCB rant.
I just got nerfed?now you can feel nerf too...
You still get a problem with balancing if we assume the balancing is meant the way it is currently implemented in the game. With only one possible shield cell bank you have one major problem: Some ships have enough spare energy and a high biggest possible slot to fit the best SCB as you describe it. These ships are not necessarily the same ships which profit the most from SCBs today -> new ship balancing required. I already gave you an example (FAS vs. FDL). So I will give you annother: Python vs. Anaconda. Both ships normally use a class 6 slot for their best SCB, but the Python often has very much power left. The result: The Python could fit a class 6A SCB without compromise (6,4 MJ? left with pulse lasers/multicannon loadout and full boosters) where the anadonda may only fit a 6B (4MJ left with 7 boosters, multis and pulses). So suddenly the Python tops the anaconda regarding SCBs. This must not be bad, but at least it's very hard to balance.
What happened to this thread? I had all the best solution in the front now just disappeared and looks like another SCB rant.
After mulling for a week...
I have to think it would make sense to require a power draw from SYS to power an SCB much like a weapon does. Bigger SCB, more drain to SYS.
That would add more functionality to SYS, which except for charging shields is sort of useless. Oh yeah, it powers chaff, but not really a noticeable amount of power.
How many are loaded would be irrelevant in a battle, since you would have to divert power from engines or weapons to power the SCB, so there is a balance there. Keeping the current trigger/reload delays, I think there is a suitable balance mechanism there.
A commander could decide strategically to have more than one, but the SYS battery charge requirement would mean one large or possibly two small ones could be fired at any one time before not having enough to fire another charge. Draw from the battery to do normal recharging of the shield means really 2 to 3 pips to sys to use SCB continuously. (Courier can chew up almost pips to SYS when shields are recharging, I am pretty sure it is not the only one).
That leaves very little power to run engines or weapons if you want to SCB tank. Much like running a Plasma or Railgun is hard if you are constantly draining the WEP battery with beams.
Recap:
1. No change to SCB mechanism.
2. ADD requirement for sufficient SYS battery to trigger SCB, just like a weapon.
Balance achieved by forcing tactical management of SYS/ENG/WEP and limiting damage output to run SCBs.
Thank you for taking the time to explain it, it's getting clearer now. The suggestion is not bad, I like the nice buff for traders, but my point is still valid. Let's assume your class 5A SCB is ok for the python now (maybe the same as before but with more time between the "main" charges), but is it enough to fill the shield of the anaconda as it was before? (and like I said, your new power restriction is more against the anaconda than against the python)
To make it clearer we can take two virtual ships before your new mechanics and afterwards. Ship one has 20* class 6 internals and ship two 2* class 7 and plenty of power available....
That would happen by default.I like it! Additional we should remove the possibility for constant chaff spamming and I'm happy.
That would happen by default.
If you drain SYS completely, chaff does not work.
So while you could... you could not SCB spam too. One would throw off the other.
This solves the problem without creating special cases like some of the others do. it uses current methods and limits and applies them consistently to all systems.