I see what you mean. Because of the limited amount of charges per minute it is not so important to have hundreds of SCBs (you can't use them so often, anyway), It's only important that they are big enough to fill your shields. And with higher classes you can fill them more often than with lower ones. I like Rgconners suggestion a bit more. He does not solve the "stacking" problem (problem for traders to be competitive without losing too much cargo space), but spamming becomes more difficult and the ships can keep their unique strength and weaknesses.
The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread
- Thread starter OnePercent
- Start date
I see what you mean. Because of the limited amount of charges per minute it is not so important to have hundreds of SCBs (you can't use them so often, anyway), It's only important that they are big enough to fill your shields. And with higher classes you can fill them more often than with lower ones. I like Rgconners suggestion a bit more. He does not solve the "stacking" problem (problem for traders to be competitive without losing too much cargo space), but spamming becomes more difficult and the ships can keep their unique strength and weaknesses.
wow how did my post become OP? xD ultra merge lol
I think so, I would appreciate if you could find thread #120 and copy and paste in the front of this thread? There a lot of good suggestions how to fix SCB stacking and needs to have more visibility in the front.
Last edited:
Thanks
There is a dedicated thead (from my sig) - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=150794
I see a lot of good suggestions but each time I see one, I'm always wondering what the purpose is. Is it just to come up with ideas on how to refactor SCBs and to feed the discussion? Because I don't think that Frontier is going to go over each post of each thread that suggests modifications to the SCBs. I think they will decide something and just implement it. So, that's why I'm wondering what is the purpose of having those long threads with an indefinite number of suggestions...
Last edited:
Don't Nerf anything, let the weak die. Make it harder but boost the bounties if it becomes too hard.
A thing that must go is what I call "the barrel of submission" where AIs stop fighting and do barrels in place.
A thing that must go is what I call "the barrel of submission" where AIs stop fighting and do barrels in place.
Anyway if you ask me AIs are very dumb. I'd expect wings from the same faction to jump on me and collaborate after I murder a few of their buddies. They should... if ships are worth more credits, you'd have to be picky and attack the loners, the damaged and the weak instead. Instead of just diving in the moshpit and holding the trigger I'd have to select what I attack. Right now I avoid some things but it ain't a big deal.
The main question we are really interested in is "how easy should it be to kill a competent player?"
Some people think SCB shouldn't exist, which would make it very easy to gang up on players and kill them.
Overall, I think too much pvp is ending in stalemates and high-wakes so there should be some way to counter SCB. 1v1s are especially boring imo because in the majority of match-ups, its borderline impossible for either side to get the other's shields down. It just turns into a marathon endurance match. It's supposed to be Elite: Dangerous, not Elite: Survival.
I think SCB are ok in general, but we should have more weapons designed to do high amounts of burst damage to shields. Right now we have PAs and railguns, but railguns only go up to medium and the huge/large PAs eat through capacitor charge like Americans eat at a buffet. Plus PAs are far too easy to dodge. Unless you literally fly in a straight line (kind of like the NPCs do), you won't get hit because the projectile speed is atrocious.
Maybe if FD made a weapon like a beam laser, but with even higher dps and lower damage per energy, then people could counter SCB by bursting down their target's shields before their banks kick in.
The weapon wouldn't be OP because it has low damage per energy. That would make it do less sustained dps than beams or pulses.
I've also toyed around with the idea of having a weapon that reduces shield recharge rate for a set amount of time after it hits. Like a debuff weapon, that does no damage.
SCB should stay in the game, but I think its pretty obvious that FD should add some sort of counter mechanic. I don't understand why people think there shouldn't be a counter for SCB. Most ships can tank far more damage than they can give out. You'd think 4v1s would result in the single person's death every time, but it's far too easy to just put full pips to shields, spam SCB, and high-wake away.
The only reason I can see for not adding a counter mechanic to SCB, is that people are afraid of dying and are too afraid to lose any amount of survivability. Adding a counter to SCB will make pvp more fun and exciting.
Some people think SCB shouldn't exist, which would make it very easy to gang up on players and kill them.
Overall, I think too much pvp is ending in stalemates and high-wakes so there should be some way to counter SCB. 1v1s are especially boring imo because in the majority of match-ups, its borderline impossible for either side to get the other's shields down. It just turns into a marathon endurance match. It's supposed to be Elite: Dangerous, not Elite: Survival.
I think SCB are ok in general, but we should have more weapons designed to do high amounts of burst damage to shields. Right now we have PAs and railguns, but railguns only go up to medium and the huge/large PAs eat through capacitor charge like Americans eat at a buffet. Plus PAs are far too easy to dodge. Unless you literally fly in a straight line (kind of like the NPCs do), you won't get hit because the projectile speed is atrocious.
Maybe if FD made a weapon like a beam laser, but with even higher dps and lower damage per energy, then people could counter SCB by bursting down their target's shields before their banks kick in.
The weapon wouldn't be OP because it has low damage per energy. That would make it do less sustained dps than beams or pulses.
I've also toyed around with the idea of having a weapon that reduces shield recharge rate for a set amount of time after it hits. Like a debuff weapon, that does no damage.
SCB should stay in the game, but I think its pretty obvious that FD should add some sort of counter mechanic. I don't understand why people think there shouldn't be a counter for SCB. Most ships can tank far more damage than they can give out. You'd think 4v1s would result in the single person's death every time, but it's far too easy to just put full pips to shields, spam SCB, and high-wake away.
The only reason I can see for not adding a counter mechanic to SCB, is that people are afraid of dying and are too afraid to lose any amount of survivability. Adding a counter to SCB will make pvp more fun and exciting.
Last edited:
I feel like the counters are already in the game but the task at hand is to much for them. If SCBs where slower or limited. Then beam lasers would be fine for the task, that was the intended job for beam lasers, annihilating shields, but shields became way to good.
Last edited:
I'd like to see some shield refactoring. And some work around regen.
SCBs will always be contentious (in short, views are so disparate and infinite that FD is unlikely to consider our input), however I have often wondered how the meta would change if class and rating of power plant, versus class and rating of shield, versus class and rating of regulator, had an impact on recharge time.
This would affect both generalist and combat ships alike. It also means transport ships would see some love.
The linear nature of regen seems counter-intuitive to all the effort put in to provide multiple class and ratings of shields, regulators and so forth. There is more that could be done to make it more dynamic, imho.
I really encourage FD, once horizons is out the door to take a more wholistic look at shields. I have no idea if any SCB changes would include shields, but they are so interlinked it seems crazy not to.
SCBs will always be contentious (in short, views are so disparate and infinite that FD is unlikely to consider our input), however I have often wondered how the meta would change if class and rating of power plant, versus class and rating of shield, versus class and rating of regulator, had an impact on recharge time.
This would affect both generalist and combat ships alike. It also means transport ships would see some love.
The linear nature of regen seems counter-intuitive to all the effort put in to provide multiple class and ratings of shields, regulators and so forth. There is more that could be done to make it more dynamic, imho.
I really encourage FD, once horizons is out the door to take a more wholistic look at shields. I have no idea if any SCB changes would include shields, but they are so interlinked it seems crazy not to.
Last edited:
I agree. On most ships, the shield regen per second from SCB is several orders of magnitude higher than the DPS possible from the ship's weapons. Clippers, pythons, FAS can regen their entire shield strength just from 1 set of SCB. To be honest, the only time your shields go down in pvp is when you either forget you're taking damage, or you run out of banks.
Is it possible to take down someone's shields if they have full pips to shields and are spamming SCB? Maybe, but only if you have no less than 2 full wings on them.
It's about time the player base gets real: its not normal to be able to tank 4+ CMDRs by yourself. When i get interdicted by a wing of 4, I want to feel in danger, like my ship destruction is imminent and every second counts in my escape. Instead, its just funny to watch the enemy CMDRs unload on me, and they can't even do anything cuz SCB are way too strong.
"several orders of magnitude" means at least 1000 times the recharge rate, 3 being "several"
I would like to see how you get to that dubious claim.
We don't need exaggeration cluttering the discussion.
Last edited:
I'm going to keep repeating my personal views on the subject until someone can offer a sensible counter-argument...
1) SCBs are a staples of the profession. Explorers have scanners and scoops, trade ships have cargo racks, combat ships have SCBs. The more powerful staple item they have, the better they do. Make combat pilots able to take one SCB? Make traders carry one cargo rack.
2) Anyone serious about killing someone else is not going to let SCBs stop them. They're going to take frag cannons instead of multi-cannons. They're gonna take beams instead of pulses. Don't use your RES longevity build to measure your opinion of SCBs. It's nobody's fault but your own.
3) Big ships are big and expensive and heavily shielded. If the big ship is built for endurance, expect a long fight. Nothing is wrong with this. Consider the concept that these ships aren't meant to be taken down by a single other pilot.
1) SCBs are a staples of the profession. Explorers have scanners and scoops, trade ships have cargo racks, combat ships have SCBs. The more powerful staple item they have, the better they do. Make combat pilots able to take one SCB? Make traders carry one cargo rack.
2) Anyone serious about killing someone else is not going to let SCBs stop them. They're going to take frag cannons instead of multi-cannons. They're gonna take beams instead of pulses. Don't use your RES longevity build to measure your opinion of SCBs. It's nobody's fault but your own.
3) Big ships are big and expensive and heavily shielded. If the big ship is built for endurance, expect a long fight. Nothing is wrong with this. Consider the concept that these ships aren't meant to be taken down by a single other pilot.
This, 8 char. Amen
Indeed...
There's bucket loads of suggestions (pleas) for work to be done in some areas... I doubt most of it is even read by anyone at FD.
I often think I'm wasting my time TBH. But you live in hope!
1) I agree...
2) I agree...
3) I agree...
I think what people may not appreciate about SCBs is the mindless tactic of simply being able to burn through 4-6 SCBs non-stop... eg: Running them in pairs at a time, and when one lot runs dry, on to the next pair. And the fact then that the CMDR with 4-6 SCBs will have a fairly significant combat advantage over a CMDR who has just brought 2 along. As it's at little/no penalty for the first CMDR bringing more SCBs, the defacto standard is simply now fill your boots with SCBs if you think you'll encounter PvP. Why not? Just like - due to other miscalculated mechanics - it's also quite often dual chaff units and fixed weapons too now for any PvP. It's spoiling the game IMHO at least.
Personally, as you've probably seen, I'm happy with SCB performance to basically stay absolutely along the lines of what we currently can do, with one, two or even three SCBs running in parallel, but instead all via a single permitted SCB module. It may well have 9 ammo, but only has 1-3 cells, each of which can only fire off once per X (eg: 8) mins. In this fashion, your SCB choice now (hopefully) becomes more tactical, and in a single fight you'll most likely only get your 1-3 charges in... Done. ie: CMDR A doesn't have a huge advantage as he as twice as many charges at no real cost.
So in short, yes, keep SCBs as close to what we have now - possibly at more energy expense towards the top range? - but limit the number of uses in a given time window (eg: 3 charges in 8-9 mins).
Last edited:
His intention is clear. You nitpicking his misuse of "magnitude" could be perceived as of a lack of solid counter argument.
Last edited:
Ah that strawman argument again. Cargo racks and SCBs are not comparable at all. If you want to draw the analogy between combat and trading, then the equivalent to cargo ranks are guns: in both cases you definitely need them, your capabilities increase the more you have and the bigger they are. Unlike SCBs, because you can definitely go into combat without, can't say that about cargo racks.
Big ships being tough and having endurance, I completely agree. I disagree that this endurance is supposed to come from the amount of consumables one brings aboard. Passive shield regeneration is a related issue, PvE endurance is mostly tied how slow shields recharge and thus builds tend to use SCBs merely to offset this, not merely to defend against a sudden onslaught, but to reduce the boring and excessively long downtime in between fights.