The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[NE1]

Incase you missed them... All responses to SCB from the devs so far...

Hello Commanders!

AI can use shield cells, though not every ship loadout has them. This is part of a slightly wider issue where high skill-level AI don't always have the hardware you might expect them to fly with. Over time, this is something we'll want to look at, but not right now.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, there's also possibly an argument that if shield cells were removed, why would Commanders stick around after losing their shields if they currently leave when they run out of cells?

Shield cells were made to have somewhat more punitive heat and power effects a while back, which I think was in the right direction, but possibly too restrained.

We have been discussing them recently: one idea I'm personally quite interested in is the concept that cells overcharge your shields to unsafe levels, beyond the generator's normal capacity, potentially damaging your shield generator (and thus causing malfunctions/destruction) if during the time the cell is active the shield *doesn't* receive enough damage to drain it down to below the generator's normal maximum. We haven't checked all the angles on this idea (and there are others), but at face value it seems potentially cool to me.

I still strongly believe shield cells have a place in the game and don't want to remove them, however, although there won't be any changes in the short term, given time we'll get around to looking at them again to see if we can make their functionality better.

Hope this info helps.

They are supposed to be a last resort - your shields and armour are your primary defense and as with every release we're fixing a raft of issues and will continue to do so.

Michael

Hello Commander VictoriaG!

Shield cells will still help keep your ship alive, it's just that they generate a lot of heat doing so. Careful application of cells still offer tremendous benefits, and with heat management (from heat sink launchers for example) they are formidable.

But spamming cells of a decent quality for the ship you're in will have the potential to cause more harm than good.

This, coupled with a delay in booting up shield cell bank modules, diminishes (without removing completely) the benefits of having lots and lots of shield cells.

And of course, hull reinforcement modules will grant *moar* hull; our intention is to bring these two forms of defensive internal modules slightly closer together.

Hello Commander NeilF!

I would argue that the goal here is not to make every combat fair - that simply makes no sense with the range of ship capabilities that may or may not be present. The goal is to mitigate against a path of least resistance (the argument being that everyone should just load up with as many shield cell banks as possible) during outfitting.

Hello Commanders!

Just for your information:

Recharging shields quickly at starports: yes, we want to do this, just not sure when we'll be able to get it in.

Looking at shield recharge times: this is something we will be looking at in conjunction with loot.

The penalty for using a single shield cell is not going to blow your ship up (unless you were like at 1% hull and a million degrees temperature ), but chaining use of cells should become a danger factor (initially to your modules).

The delay for powering a shield cell bank module (note, there is *no* change to the activation cost of a shield cell) is significant, but should not be *completely* prohibitive (well, welll see, and tweak as required!)

Did I say *moar* hull from hull reinforcement packages? I really, really meant it...

The change has come from our own evaluation - we've said before that we weren't happy with how they worked.

Michael

You just need to adapt your tactics - the hull reinforcement is more valuable or use heat sinks to offset the heat damage. The change just means you can't spam using the SCBs without some preparation.

Michael

You will need to assign more power to the SCB if you want to use more than one of them and manage the heat - I'd also question if the big non-combat ships are the best ships for large scale combat.

Michael

You're assuming that they should be. Big ships have their place, but make big targets so in a large dogfight I would expect them to be vulnerable unless well protected by smaller and more maneuverable escorts.

Michael

You can tank the large ships quite effectively with the upgraded hull reinforcement packages and with proper heat and power management you can still use your SCBs - you just can't spam them like you used to and I repeat that bringing a big, slow ship to a dog fight might not be the best move anyway and if you do, then you have to prepare accordingly.

Michael

You mean like a battleship can be destroyed by a much smaller ship? The large ships have inherent from their size and how they're loaded out, but the SCBs were far too strong for them, but with the large ships you can still use multiples of them, you just have to prepare properly, so assign more power to them and have heat sinks at the ready. Use armour and hull reinforcements to tank them. A bigger doesn't always mean better.

Michael

Hello Commanders!

As with all changes, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, so we look forward to everyone's feedback once the changes go to live test.

A few points though: the heat generated from using shield cells is based on the rating of the cell bank. Using lower rated cells will give you less heat at the cost of less shield regeneration. And of course, heat sinks are effective at cooling your ship down.

Using a cell every now and again isn't going to do much more than a little bit of module damage from heat, which in general is far better than taking hull damage (and it also plays into module malfunction more). It's also still possible to fit multiple shield cell banks and use them - you will need to manage power more carefully as there's a twenty or so second delay before a shield cell bank boots up after being powered.

The issue with shield cells has primarily been that without any strong restraint or penalty on usage, larger ships with plenty of internals could gain an advantage from them that outweigh most other aspects, making them a de facto choice or path of least resistance.

I don't want to remove them (and if I did, the complaint that large ships will get wrecked would surely be even more persuasive) and I don't want to inflict an arbitrary, hard limit (remember, this is not about creating an even playing field *between* combatants, it's about offering *competitive choices* for combatants). What these changes are for is to see if we can't decrease the effectiveness of shield cells, and especially chaining them, whilst increasing a potential alternative - hull reinforcement.

Now there's an interesting argument/fear about relying on hull rather than shields, which is sub-system sniping.

A little while back, we decreased the size of pretty much all sub-system targets significantly and we stopped the power plant destruction from being an instant kill. Gimbal and turret weapons suffer from inherent confusion, limiting their ability to hit small targets and we reduced the range of most weapon's penetration. Even still, sub-system targeting needs to be useful, otherwise why have it?

So will sub-system sniping become the new path of least resistance if shields break more often? That's something I'd like feedback about from these changes. If it turns out to be the case, we have multiple options to address it: we can increase module health, increase damage reduction for fitting hull reinforcement packages and of course scale back the penalties for shield cells, as well as offer protection from modules with the loot system.

So the point here, as is always the case when we make design tweaks, to try out stuff in anger and get feedback from it that will ultimately help us improve the game.

Edit- forgot one

Another change we are testing in the 1.5 beta is to how shield cell banks operate. It comes in two parts, the first is increasing the heat cost when you use a shield cell bank. This increases the risk of using these as the sudden heat build up can cause module damage, using two or more in rapid succession can even cause hull damage – so making these a defence of last resort rather.. The second part is there is now a delay when these are powered up. These delays also apply to a range other modules. We’re looking forward to seeing the feedback on these and the other changes in the 1.5 build.


We’re also increasing the benefits from hull health from the hull reinforcement packages.

 

[Jesse30]

Hardcore PvPers loved the SCB meta

I hardly doubt anybody serious about PvP will care about SCB nerf, unless they are the same one who take on 4v1 battles and expect to win with their Billionaire Space battle station.

 

[Jesse30]

Incase you missed them... All responses to SCB from the devs so far...













Edit- forgot one

This should be move to the front of this thread.

 

[MJC]

Interesting. I personaly hated when SCB were introduced. But then I was fighting mostly 1:1 battles. I remember before SCB and Railgun (heat) nerf in 1.2 I could happily surprise player Python's in my rail Cobra. Since then the heat and scb made this difficult. Some argued why should a Cobra be able to take on a Python and they were listened to I suppose.

Now I fight a lot in wings of 4. We even had some fight with dozen or more players in the instance. I can tell you its a totally different ball game. If 4 guys focus fire on a single target (even Conda) its shield will fail. Even with SCB spamming a few rams from FDL do the job. Huge battles will be much shorter now and I believe people will not bring expensive big ships to wing battles.

Also we have got used to this way of playing for 6 months now. I now have to go back to how I played in 1.1 (and I was happy back then). Pain in the ...

On the other hand silent running hull tanks may be a viable option. But let me tell you, even a military armour FAS, with lots of hull reinforcments is going to suffer when being rammed by anything with shields (FDL)

I think it would be a good idea for pvp groups to get together in 1.5 beta and test this in 8 v 8 battles (for example) so that we can have a better understanding. My 2 cents...

 

[Jesse30]

Interesting. I personaly hated when SCB were introduced. But then I was fighting mostly 1:1 battles. I remember before SCB and Railgun (heat) nerf in 1.2 I could happily surprise player Python's in my rail Cobra. Since then the heat and scb made this difficult. Some argued why should a Cobra be able to take on a Python and they were listened to I suppose.

Now I fight a lot in wings of 4. We even had some fight with dozen or more players in the instance. I can tell you its a totally different ball game. If 4 guys focus fire on a single target (even Conda) its shield will fail. Even with SCB spamming a few rams from FDL do the job. Huge battles will be much shorter now and I believe people will not bring expensive big ships to wing battles.

Also we have got used to this way of playing for 6 months now. I now have to go back to how I played in 1.1 (and I was happy back then). Pain in the ...

On the other hand silent running hull tanks may be a viable option. But let me tell you, even a military armour FAS, with lots of hull reinforcments is going to suffer when being rammed by anything with shields (FDL)

I think it would be a good idea for pvp groups to get together in 1.5 beta and test this in 8 v 8 battles (for example) so that we can have a better understanding. My 2 cents...

Wing battle is lame but that is jut my opinion, the reason being, the moment you find yourself outnumber is time to go regardless of SCB or not, so I don't see a why it matters now.

 

[MJC]

I really don't like the fact, that they are punishing players, that are using module enabling/disabling for their advantage.
Module switching was one of the key factors that differentiated good players from exceptional players.

This. +1 mate. On a power starved FDL one has to have the experience and dexterity to switch things on/off in the middle of the fight in a split second. Difficult ot master, such peple should be rewarded and not punished because of scb spamming.

 

[MJC]

Wing battle is lame but that is jut my opinion, the reason being, the moment you find yourself outnumber is time to go regardless of SCB or not, so I don't see a why it matters now.

With all due respect Jesse, some of us in pvp guilds love to get involved in 4v4, 8v8 (or more!) battles etc. They are brilliant fun in my opinion. The leader will select a primary target which will be pounded by 4-8 guys. You can guess what happens to that target

In regards to 1:1 duel this may be a good change but in regards to group fights maybe not. We need to test it and get feedback to FD.

Fly safe Cmdr o7

 

[Richard Bentley]

On the ships where I use Shield Cell Banks and have more than 1, the second one is always an inactivated spare that requires manually switching on when the first bank is depleted. I don't see how the changes that are proposed will affect this use of them.
The big impact will be for those players who chain together several Shield Cell Banks to fire off at the same time, a tactic which favours larger ships with more internal module slots. They could still do this, but would need to manage the heat with heat sinks, just as players who use multiple rail guns or plasma accelerators have to.
If the real issue is the overreliance on Shield Cell Banks by some players who play in a certain way then isn't the simple solution to limit Shield Cell Banks to one per ship, in exactly the same way that other active* internal modules are treated? (*As opposed to passive ones like cargo modules). You can't have more than one fuel scoop, or shield generator, or frameshift drive interdictor as it stands, so why allow multiple Shield Cell Banks? That would immediately remove the issue of chaining them together for simultaneous activation which seems to be the main area of objection.

 

[Mystify]

If the real issue is the overreliance on Shield Cell Banks by some players who play in a certain way then isn't the simple solution to limit Shield Cell Banks to one per ship, in exactly the same way that other active* internal modules are treated?

I too think that would have been the cleaner solution.
No punishment for module switchers.
Shorter 1v1 Fights against large ships.
No change for wing fights (compared to the planned changes).

 

[NeilF]

I too think that would have been the cleaner solution.
No punishment for module switchers.
Shorter 1v1 Fights against large ships.
No change for wing fights (compared to the planned changes).

Only one SCB means more pointless refuel trips...

Surely we need a balanced behaviour which means a reasonable number of uses, but not too frequently, so as to be a mindless defense blanket.

My suggestion (see sig) was to in effect to keep the exact current performance, but just limit the number of charges per X minutes. FD have tried to limit it by heat and "boot up" times.

Maybe their approach will offer more variety/tactics... The risk is, their changes have upset the balance of other things, not really addressed the problem, or over compensated? We'll see over the next week or so...

 

[Midian27]

Michaels tone in these responses is incredibly worrisome. Sounds like he wants big ships to have no place in competitive combat... What? Just what? I was so stoked for horizons, now I think I might get a refund until we see how this "balance pass" works out.

Since every previous "balance pass" has just screwed things up I'm not too hopeful for this one.

 

[Bazorlag]

With all due respect Jesse, some of us in pvp guilds love to get involved in 4v4, 8v8 (or more!) battles etc. They are brilliant fun in my opinion. The leader will select a primary target which will be pounded by 4-8 guys. You can guess what happens to that target
In regards to 1:1 duel this may be a good change but in regards to group fights maybe not. We need to test it and get feedback to FD.
Fly safe Cmdr o7

It´s the same age-old problem that also exists in EVE Online. Small group fights allow more tactics like using active tank setups, but as fight size increases the meta changes entirely. Only way to "balance" it is to use some really gamey methods, such as punishing focus fire by allowing the targets resistance to damage go up a lot if it suffers many hits in succession from multiple targets.

 

[CMDR Kantos Kan]

Incase you missed them... All responses to SCB from the devs so far...

[Lot of comments and clarifications removed]

I'm impressed. Seems that Frontier were aware of the SCB spamming and they seem to take the sensible approach. I'm often critical but I applaud the way they try to tweak things. Leaving them there but requiring more thinking before continuing to use stacks of SCBs. I only have one SCB on each of my bigger ships and use it only to buy me time when I need to escape so it won't affect me much.

 

[Richard Bentley]

One issue that I will be having a close look at in the Beta testing is to see if there will be any differentiation between the heat generation and the triggering delay in the different size and classes of Shield Cell Banks. I would hope that an A-rated SCB would be less punitive on heat generation than the other grades, as this is the norm with other types of modules. Also a larger class module should really be a greater heat generator than a small one. Looking at the total charges and weight increases on SCB's, I have often steered clear of the larger ones - it could be that stacking will still work but only with smaller units. That way smaller ships (especially ones with weak shields like the eagle) could still have their one SCB unit without getting toasted by it.

 

[NeilF]

Michaels tone in these responses is incredibly worrisome. Sounds like he wants big ships to have no place in competitive combat... What? Just what? I was so stoked for horizons, now I think I might get a refund until we see how this "balance pass" works out.

Since every previous "balance pass" has just screwed things up I'm not too hopeful for this one.

Sounds a little alarmist TBH.

Let try V1.5 and see...

 

[Richard Bentley]

Michaels tone in these responses is incredibly worrisome. Sounds like he wants big ships to have no place in competitive combat...

I'm not sure that is exactly what Michael is saying.
There is also a lot about using Shield Cell Banks less and having a greater role for hull reinforcement when larger ships are being deployed in combat. Coming from Michael that is very interesting....
Those of us that have read his book "Legacy" will remember a major character in it called Hammer, who flies an Anaconda which is stuffed full of hull reinforcement, and uses it pretty much in the way that is being suggested / implied.
On this basis dare we hope for a significant buff to missiles too?

 

[NeilF]

With all due respect Jesse, some of us in pvp guilds love to get involved in 4v4, 8v8 (or more!) battles etc. They are brilliant fun in my opinion. The leader will select a primary target which will be pounded by 4-8 guys. You can guess what happens to that target

In regards to 1:1 duel this may be a good change but in regards to group fights maybe not. We need to test it and get feedback to FD.

Fly safe Cmdr o7

...just imagine if there were missions akin to convoy escort and convoy defense where two wings to oppose each other trying to get a convoy through, stop said conyoy etc...

Even for PvE it would be interesting! An invidiual trying to help, or a Wing in GROUP doing it.

And I'd see the convoy being nothing to do with SC, but normal flight from Nav Beacon A to Nav Beacon B (where they'd SC off to safety).

 

[Midian27]

I'm not sure that is exactly what Michael is saying.
There is also a lot about using Shield Cell Banks less and having a greater role for hull reinforcement when larger ships are being deployed in combat. Coming from Michael that is very interesting....
Those of us that have read his book "Legacy" will remember a major character in it called Hammer, who flies an Anaconda which is stuffed full of hull reinforcement, and uses it pretty much in the way that is being suggested / implied.
On this basis dare we hope for a significant buff to missiles too?

Hull reinforcement is useless unless it protects modules. When shields go down your drives will be shot out and you will be dead in the water.

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

Hull reinforcement is useless unless it protects modules. When shields go down your drives will be shot out and you will be dead in the water.

Higher armor quality, such as Military, does protect internals better. More armor will protect it longer.

 

[CMDR Kantos Kan]

Michaels tone in these responses is incredibly worrisome. Sounds like he wants big ships to have no place in competitive combat... What? Just what? I was so stoked for horizons, now I think I might get a refund until we see how this "balance pass" works out.

Since every previous "balance pass" has just screwed things up I'm not too hopeful for this one.

I didn't understand what Michael said this way. He said that trying to tank in a big ship against multiple ships is risky and that you should be in a wing with smaller ships as cover. That seems reasonable to me. Back during WWII, big aircraft carriers were vulnerable to lone fighter bomber dropping a torpedo and hitting it. The carrier needed protection from fighters to avoid that risk. That looks like what they're trying to do.

Edit:

You're assuming that they should be. Big ships have their place, but make big targets so in a large dogfight I would expect them to be vulnerable unless well protected by smaller and more maneuverable escorts.

Michael