The SCB (Shield Cell Bank) Thread

[Alexander the Grape]

If combat ships are now more effective at combat, why have a large expensive money sink like a conda? Let's all go back to vipers/vultures.

End game for me was getting into a ship that I had to work to earn. And feeling pretty powerful once I had upgraded it.

Unless something is done to the Base level of Shields then the game is still broken.

How can a Vulture have shields that are almost as good as a python? Cost versus performance doesn't make sense.

I agree the health potion mechanic needs fixing, but now all you'll get in PVE is vultures and in pvp you'll have shieldless armoured up rammers.

Python is a multirole. Still a beast with the right upgrades. If you want a high level combat ship, the Anaconda, FDL, Corvette and FGS are all good options post 1.5

 

[Nugstar]

Nah it's pretty even. I don't think you want to sacrifice shields completely unless you are silent running. Shield ranking is still viable, just hull tanking has got better, as has hybrid builds that do both

It's not even at all. I've seen the new pvp meta across multiple YouTube videos. Armour only wins against shields. Almost every time.

 

[Nugstar]

Python is multirole, but costs 200m to upgrade to combat role.

Paying that huge amount of credits should make it worthwhile.

I might as well be in the Vulture because it will be more effective in combat. And I don't want to go backwards. I want to progress. I want bigger, and better.

I'm sure the devs will tweak current values of SCB's to make them more balanced, instead of useless.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

It's not even at all. I've seen the new pvp meta across multiple YouTube videos. Armour only wins against shields. Almost every time. ��

Presumably these are the same series of videos from 1 guy in a silent running Corvette? I guarantee that a shield focused build with the right weaponry (cannons etc) would be extremely effective against him

- - - Updated - - -

Python is multirole, but costs 200m to upgrade to combat role.

Paying that huge amount of credits should make it worthwhile.

I might as well be in the Vulture because it will be more effective in combat. And I don't want to go backwards. I want to progress. I want bigger, and better.

I'm sure the devs will tweak current values of SCB's to make them more balanced, instead of useless.

It is worthwhile. A python has more damage, more power, more hull, more masslock. It may "lose" a 1v1 against a skilled fighter, but it will very rarely die. Get some escorts or improve your flying style and you'll see the advantages.

I hate to disappoint you but the devs don't want a game where bigger=better. Leave the linear levelling to Warcraft. Big ships are better in certain roles, small ships are better in others.

BTW a combat T9 costs more than a combat python: should that beat the python?

 

[Nugstar]

Then where is the progression for a combat focused player?

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Hahahahahahaha. Silliness.
.
---
.
I think it's very clear that FD is pushing armor to the front when it comes to durability. Consider a lot of the promotional videos and trailers showing shields dropping near instantly. I think this was the intended vision as far as durability is concerned. Also, consider recent changes:
- Power plants stopped causing immediate death at 0%.
- Hull defense increased.
- Two low shield high armor ships released.
- SCBs nerfed.
- Hull reinforcement packages buffed.
.
The problem is this change is incomplete. The new mechanics can work within ED I think, but it's part of a paradigm shift that is still currently rather unsupported. Yay for botched implementation! I believe the related issues need to be addressed:
- Too many weapons have way too much hull penetration.
- Thermal weapons are far too powerful against armor.
- Too few reasons to field large ships/huge hard points.
.
What does this mean? I think it means that SCBs are no longer going to going to be used to parry+reposte, and are going to instead block. Though, the use of an SCB in the beta is crippling, even if you are trying to flee. SCBs are becoming:
- an absolutely purely defensive measure.
- a top off between fights.
- a boon for fast (smaller!) ships who can disengage and reengage at will.
.
This brings both good and bad things in my opinion. I think it's pretty interesting, but I'm also a small ship pilot. The relationship between bigger and better is becoming radically different, which is a bit hard to swallow considering the first bullet of point one having pulled us in the exact opposite direction. I think the following will emerge:
- Fights will burn hotter. A single good pass is all you'll need to get a huge advantage.
- Fights will become skirmishes rather than battles. They will be over sooner and favor opportunistic plays over actual dogfighting skill.
- Big ships will be a lot less common, especially in PvP. They won't be practical in many situations where the odds aren't already stacked for them.
- Hard points will matter more than distributors. Yay FGS.
- Kinetics will become more popular. Yay frag cannons and missiles.
- Less than largest shields will be taken. More hull reinforcement will be taken.
- Going to a hazRES for three hours won't be a thing anymore. Prey of choice will be much weaker than the pilot. Team bounty hunting!
.
(and trading will once again reign supreme as the shortcut to fortune)
----
.
Anti-SCB people need to get it through their head that SCBs in their previous iteration were fine. The people who hated on SCBs also probably thought frag cannons and heat sinks were rather pointless, and expected that billion credit ships controlled by player should fall as easily as their NPC counterparts do.
.
Pro-SCB people need to accept that the vision of combat and by extension PvP is changing, and I believe this is a fact (referencing point one and its bullets one through five). For better or for worse is up to debate, but I think the most we can do now is make the best of the new situation.
.
The people at FD need to come out with some information as to what is supposed to be happening. To discuss the changes (not like we're beta testers or anything) we need to measure the reality against the intentions, and we can't do that right now.

 

[Kyle Brennan]

Half the problem is FD not telling us what the objective is, what they are aiming for with the cell nerf. Are shields a third rate protection system now? Are they worth hundreds of millions of credits anymore? The cells are so bad now they are the new missiles, a cool idea but don't work.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Half the problem is FD not telling us what the objective is, what they are aiming for with the cell nerf. Are shields a third rate protection system now? Are they worth hundreds of millions of credits anymore? The cells are so bad now they are the new missiles, a cool idea but don't work.

But in the Dev Update thread Michael has in fact been telling us what the objective is with the SCB nerf...

They [SCB's] 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

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 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

Why should a large ship not be capable of defending itself against ships 1/10th or less of its value through sheer force? What else justifies the price tag?

<snip>

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

That lot should give you a very good idea what FDEV's objective is.

tl;dr: SCB's are meant to be a last resort option. They were too overpowered and players spammed them and continuously used them like a magic shield health potion. The objective is to stop them being used that way, to change how players use them, this in combination with hull reinforcements. Use heatsinks to help counteract heat generated by use of SCB's. Oh, and big ships shouldn't automatically mean "I win".

 

[who?]

The main thing that bugged me about SCBs was escalation - if you had one then I needed to have one or I'd be at a huge disadvantage. If you had two, then I needed to have two etc. So, we both end up with a shipful of SCBs, neither of us having any advantage, but with no space for anything else. That, to me, hurts the variety of outfitting/gameplay.

Now, instead of having a shipful of SCBs, now you'll need a shipful of SCBs AND heatsinks. I'm not sure that's any better. With heatsinks, you can work around the heat limitation of SCBs, so spam away. And instead of a shipful of "magic potion A" now you need a shipful of "magic potion A AND magic antidote A" in combination. Hardly an improvement, IMO.

They could have just added a SCB cooldown (akin to the FSD cooldown) if they wanted to stop SCB spamming. And if they wanted to force the SCBs being a first resort rather than last - then each SCB recharge could reduce the overall shield capacity or recharge rate, thus you'd want to avoid using it until absolutely necessary. But as it is now, it's a shipful of SCBs and heatsinks.

 

[Heavenly-Hammer]

So what I'd like to see done with SCBs from here:

1.) Reduce the heat generation of each SCB. Let's say 25% more heat generation than than current live version. This makes using 2 or more SCBs at once riskier without making it completely untennable.

2.) Make repeat firings more punitive. Say...if you fire a second SCB charge within 10 seconds of the last, the heat generation is 100% more than base. This approach allows SCBs to still be used, but not spammed freely without consequence (which I believe is the goal).

3.) Keep module damage at Beta values. I like how much damage you can cause to your ship and force you to really think about the consequences of firing them.

4.) Keep the "boot" time for SCBs. Good addition that further impacts the ability to use them heavily.

The idea here being that module damage still happens if you let heat generation get out of hand, but it should take repeat firings of SCBs to cause heat to get that high. Using 2 SCBs fresh, high-rated SCBs in parallel with nothing going on should not cause a heat spike up to 250C. Maybe 125C. But maybe using the second charges in those SCBs inside of 10 seconds causes that heat generation to spike to 250-350C+ and take a little longer to cooldown, causing the envisioned amount of punitive damage FD wants to a ship, giving it an "emergency only" feel. And yes, using 3 SCBs in parallel should just be punitive if you want to do that and straight up not recommended.

What cannot happen is the changes being fully reverted. The full SCB meta as it stands needs to die a horrible death. But the first SCB usage can't be as punitive as they are now.

$0.02

 

[Kastor]

So what I'd like to see done with SCBs from here:

1.) Reduce the heat generation of each SCB. Let's say 25% more heat generation than than current live version. This makes using 2 or more SCBs at once riskier without making it completely untennable.

2.) Make repeat firings more punitive. Say...if you fire a second SCB charge within 10 seconds of the last, the heat generation is 100% more than base. This approach allows SCBs to still be used, but not spammed freely without consequence (which I believe is the goal).

3.) Keep module damage at Beta values. I like how much damage you can cause to your ship and force you to really think about the consequences of firing them.

4.) Keep the "boot" time for SCBs. Good addition that further impacts the ability to use them heavily.

The idea here being that module damage still happens if you let heat generation get out of hand, but it should take repeat firings of SCBs to cause heat to get that high. Using 2 SCBs fresh, high-rated SCBs in parallel with nothing going on should not cause a heat spike up to 250C. Maybe 125C. But maybe using the second charges in those SCBs inside of 10 seconds causes that heat generation to spike to 250-350C+ and take a little longer to cooldown, causing the envisioned amount of punitive damage FD wants to a ship, giving it an "emergency only" feel. And yes, using 3 SCBs in parallel should just be punitive if you want to do that and straight up not recommended.

What cannot happen is the changes being fully reverted. The full SCB meta as it stands needs to die a horrible death. But the first SCB usage can't be as punitive as they are now.

$0.02

This is a much more sensible argument. I love it. But I don't really think the first use is punishing at all, in the beta it might do like... 2% module damage. That's fine.

Players should start taking AFMs more if they are worried about a sliver of module damage.

 

[Shaamaan]

My biggest worry is that this change will severely (and negatively) impact PvE.

I mean, the costs of new ships sky-rocket once you go to medium-sized ships. If it's no longer possible to go to a RES and make money (again, talking about PvE here) because you need to bail out every few minutes to recharge those shields, then that'll be the death of bounty hunting PvE as it is now - perhaps a few armour oriented ships (FAS?) will still be viable...

 

[Deathwatch]

So what I'd like to see done with SCBs from here:

1.) Reduce the heat generation of each SCB. Let's say 25% more heat generation than than current live version. This makes using 2 or more SCBs at once riskier without making it completely untennable.

2.) Make repeat firings more punitive. Say...if you fire a second SCB charge within 10 seconds of the last, the heat generation is 100% more than base. This approach allows SCBs to still be used, but not spammed freely without consequence (which I believe is the goal).

3.) Keep module damage at Beta values. I like how much damage you can cause to your ship and force you to really think about the consequences of firing them.

4.) Keep the "boot" time for SCBs. Good addition that further impacts the ability to use them heavily.

The idea here being that module damage still happens if you let heat generation get out of hand, but it should take repeat firings of SCBs to cause heat to get that high. Using 2 SCBs fresh, high-rated SCBs in parallel with nothing going on should not cause a heat spike up to 250C. Maybe 125C. But maybe using the second charges in those SCBs inside of 10 seconds causes that heat generation to spike to 250-350C+ and take a little longer to cooldown, causing the envisioned amount of punitive damage FD wants to a ship, giving it an "emergency only" feel. And yes, using 3 SCBs in parallel should just be punitive if you want to do that and straight up not recommended.

What cannot happen is the changes being fully reverted. The full SCB meta as it stands needs to die a horrible death. But the first SCB usage can't be as punitive as they are now.

$0.02

Sounds like a solid idea

 

[micky1984]

The main thing that bugged me about SCBs was escalation - if you had one then I needed to have one or I'd be at a huge disadvantage. If you had two, then I needed to have two etc. So, we both end up with a shipful of SCBs, neither of us having any advantage, but with no space for anything else. That, to me, hurts the variety of outfitting/gameplay.

Now, instead of having a shipful of SCBs, now you'll need a shipful of SCBs AND heatsinks. I'm not sure that's any better. With heatsinks, you can work around the heat limitation of SCBs, so spam away. And instead of a shipful of "magic potion A" now you need a shipful of "magic potion A AND magic antidote A" in combination. Hardly an improvement, IMO.

They could have just added a SCB cooldown (akin to the FSD cooldown) if they wanted to stop SCB spamming. And if they wanted to force the SCBs being a first resort rather than last - then each SCB recharge could reduce the overall shield capacity or recharge rate, thus you'd want to avoid using it until absolutely necessary. But as it is now, it's a shipful of SCBs and heatsinks.

and when two equal ships fight it out it will then come down to pilot skill who would imagine but no one forces you to use SCB that your choice

 

[Fendalton]

My biggest worry is that this change will severely (and negatively) impact PvE.

I mean, the costs of new ships sky-rocket once you go to medium-sized ships. If it's no longer possible to go to a RES and make money (again, talking about PvE here) because you need to bail out every few minutes to recharge those shields, then that'll be the death of bounty hunting PvE as it is now - perhaps a few armour oriented ships (FAS?) will still be viable...

How are you bailing every few minutes in a RES? That sounds like player skill rather than gameplay. Get behind ships before you start attacking them, sit behind them, take hardly any hits? What ship are you in?

I like the new Hull Tanking meta, looking forward to unlocking my PP Pulse Lasers in 4 weeks.

 

[Shaamaan]

How are you bailing every few minutes in a RES?

I'm currently NOT. I'm worried that with the changes I will be. If I engage an NPC wing, then those SCBs are what's keeping me fighting and going strong - I can stay behind a ship all right, but those other 2 are going to pound my shields no matter what I do. And there's a lot of NPC wings...

On a side note - it was once my dream to get and outfit an Anaconda for PvE bounty hunting. But there's no way to "not get hit" in that, I reckon, so without potent shields and SCBs I don't see that as a viable way to go (and definitely not with the terrible recharge rate we got).

 

[Fendalton]

I'm currently NOT. I'm worried that with the changes I will be. If I engage an NPC wing, then those SCBs are what's keeping me fighting and going strong - I can stay behind a ship all right, but those other 2 are going to pound my shields no matter what I do. And there's a lot of NPC wings...

On a side note - it was once my dream to get and outfit an Anaconda for PvE bounty hunting. But there's no way to "not get hit" in that, I reckon, so without potent shields and SCBs I don't see that as a viable way to go (and definitely not with the terrible recharge rate we got).

Oh sorry I misread your post.

I wonder if the new hull tanking meta decreases impact damage from asteroids.

 

[Jesse30]

I'm currently NOT. I'm worried that with the changes I will be. If I engage an NPC wing, then those SCBs are what's keeping me fighting and going strong - I can stay behind a ship all right, but those other 2 are going to pound my shields no matter what I do. And there's a lot of NPC wings...

On a side note - it was once my dream to get and outfit an Anaconda for PvE bounty hunting. But there's no way to "not get hit" in that, I reckon, so without potent shields and SCBs I don't see that as a viable way to go (and definitely not with the terrible recharge rate we got).

Maybe you need to prioritize your target better when fighting a wing, pick on the little guy first and work your way up to the bigger target. I do it all the time When Rez farming works like a charm, and if it is too much hide behind the asteroids use cover to your advantage until you regroup, aka restore your shields.
Also, learn how to properly use silent running it works really well when you need that extra push to finish your target.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Maybe you need to prioritize your target better when fighting a wing, pick on the little guy first and work your way up to the bigger target. I do it all the time When Rez farming works like a charm, and if it is too much hide behind the asteroids use cover to your advantage until you regroup, aka restore your shields.
Also, learn how to properly use silent running it works really well when you need that extra push to finish your target.

Like much of the other advice you give, this sounds great on paper but in reality this doesn't work at all.

However you are right that target choice is being affected in a big way, which affects profits in a big way.

 

[Lobstris]

I'm currently NOT. I'm worried that with the changes I will be. If I engage an NPC wing, then those SCBs are what's keeping me fighting and going strong - I can stay behind a ship all right, but those other 2 are going to pound my shields no matter what I do. And there's a lot of NPC wings...

On a side note - it was once my dream to get and outfit an Anaconda for PvE bounty hunting. But there's no way to "not get hit" in that, I reckon, so without potent shields and SCBs I don't see that as a viable way to go (and definitely not with the terrible recharge rate we got).

Isn't the solution here just not to pick fights with wings when solo - that seems like common sense? Or if you really have to attack wings, don't carry cargo, and wait till they are engaged with others before wading in? Or don't use an expensive jack-of-all-trades ship in combat, used one of the smaller, more-affordable-to-rebuy ships? I do agree that, in the light of the changes, recharge rates should be looked at.