The Shield discussion thread

[Renso]

You'll also want to upgrade the power supply... I noticed that the shields on my former Adder would recharge more consistently when I upped the power supply. May have been a placebo effect though... until we get official words on specs, loads and balances for all these devices, I won't know for sure.

 

[Morbad]

I agree that the poll isn't very good.

 

[defekt]

You now sound like a very bad politician!

No, he sounds like someone who sees a non-neutral poll when he sees one. Reliable Poll-crafting is a skill; it sounds simple but in reality...

 

[Morbad]

Power draw from shields comes out of the SYS capacitor. If you have more than one bar left in it, your shields are recharging as fast as they can recharge, irrespective of your power plant.

 

[Johnny Spaceboots]

Somebody should make a new poll, with blackjack and hookers.

Oh, and options that aren't deliberately slanted towards one side or the other.

 

[Morbad]

I know what would be a fun change to SCBs: Leave them the same as they are now, but if they charge a shield over full, have the excess power directly damage the shield generator module. Timing larger SCB use would then become absolutely critical, because using one early could damage or destroy your shield generator, while waiting too long means your shields could collapse before the SCB was relevant.

I don't expect such a change to be adopted, see such a change as necessary, or even see it as more viable than doing nothing, or something else, but I do think it would be fun.

 

[Caille]

Should be one bank per ship.

Great for no weapon traders but should not become an easy mode in larger ships with more internal space.

Caille

 

[dioogio]

If we're going to go to name calling, then I suppose you sound like a shady statistician. You crafted a poll with 3 options in favor of shield cells, two of them more moderate (so would obviously attract the bulk of people) and 1 single option that is not in favor of shield cells, with 1 nebulous trash option. And now you're saying that I would be skewing the results if we reduced it down to a more simple, less exploitable y/n poll? Please.

Makes no sense.
If I had been trying to bias the results. I would have had 3 options:

a) Ok as is (18%)
b) Keep shields but nerf them a bit (50%)
c) Get rid of them (25%)

or as I previously posted and you insist would be better, 2 options

a) Ok or needs minor nerfing (75%)
b) Broken get rid of it (25%)

A shady statistician would never have had 3 options for the preferred option and only 1 option for the other. They would have had one well phrased option for the preferred and 3 options for the other.
Look at the bars. To those not examining the options the negative looks on par with the others.

btw the Nebulous Trash Option is to allow people who not agree with any option to state why.

Edit: having seen your further comment. Its an open forum, why not open another poll with any option choice you see fit.

 

[Johnny Spaceboots]

Makes no sense.
If I had been trying to bias the results. I would have had 3 options:

a) Ok as is (18%)
b) Keep shields but nerf them a bit (50%)
c) Get rid of them (25%)

or as I previously posted and you insist would be better, 2 options

a) Ok or needs minor nerfing (75%)
b) Broken get rid of it (25%)

A shady statistician would never have had 3 options for the preferred option and only 1 option for the other. They would have had one well phrased option for the preferred and 3 options for the other.
Look at the bars. To those not examining the options the negative looks on par with the others.

btw the Nebulous Trash Option is to allow people who not agree with any option to state why.

And that's essentially how you're interpreting the results, now, as your second stated option. That 75% of people are okay with shield cells and only 25% have serious issues with them. And the "Get rid of it" option is so extreme that it automatically discourages people from voting for it in the first place.

Two reasonable sounding options of
a) It does not need serious changes
b) The mechanic needs to be seriously reevaluated
would be a more accurate way to gauge peoples feelings on them
Or something else which provides two options which aren't polarized and at two extremes, or a poll where all of the moderate options are leaning towards the "it's fine" side of things, with the sole "It's not fine" option being at the utmost extreme of "REMOVE IT ENTIRELY"

Personally, I'm fine with shield cells as a concept, but I believe that the implemented design of them is deeply flawed and needs to have a serious design pass. That does not mean that I want to see shield cells removed entirely.

 

[dioogio]

And that's essentially how you're interpreting the results, now, as your second stated option. That 75% of people are okay with shield cells and only 25% have serious issues with them. And the "Get rid of it" option is so extreme that it automatically discourages people from voting for it in the first place.

Two reasonable sounding options of
a) It does not need serious changes
b) The mechanic needs to be seriously reevaluated
would be a more accurate way to gauge peoples feelings on them
Or something else which provides two options which aren't polarized and at two extremes, or a poll where all of the moderate options are leaning towards the "it's fine" side of things, with the sole "It's not fine" option being at the utmost extreme of "REMOVE IT ENTIRELY"

Personally, I'm fine with shield cells as a concept, but I believe that the implemented design of them is deeply flawed and needs to have a serious design pass. That does not mean that I want to see shield cells removed entirely.

My options where based on my interpretation of the threads I had read. And the tone I saw (rightly or wrongly) was:
"Happy/reasonably happy" and "we don't need no stinking shield cells".

What the results so far mean is up to interpretation.
IMO they show that the majority of those participating in the poll (75%) believe that Shield Cells are a valid part of the pilots arsenal (in one form or another), and that they should not be dropped from the game (like the spawn of the devil they are to some).

Determining that fact was the main objective of my poll. Hence the option choice.

it would make sense to collect valid options for a follow up poll to see what actual solutions would be favoured by the majority.
Personally I believe a more extensive list of options would be far more valuable than a simple yes/no. (I made the mistake of including specifics solutions in my poll)

Your options of
a) It does not need serious changes
b) The mechanic needs to be seriously reevaluated

Does not provide additional information to the Devs (assuming they are listening) on what solutions the community would like to see. And my poll already indicates that less people like the status quo than would get rid of it altogether. So it will be obvious that change is needed, whether its minor or serious change is not as informative as suggestions.

 

[Tal Ray]

The polls, so far, show that less than 1 in 4 thinks SCB should be removed.

Unfortunately, the vocal minority think that if they cry loud enough, and hurl enough insults, they can get things the way they want.

If they win this one, they won't stop, no sir. They will continue to nerf all the things that give THEM problems until all we have left is pablum.

Deal with it.

 

[Johnny Spaceboots]

The polls, so far, show that less than 1 in 4 thinks SCB should be removed.

Unfortunately, the vocal minority think that if they cry loud enough, and hurl enough insults, they can get things the way they want.

If they win this one, they won't stop, no sir. They will continue to nerf all the things that give THEM problems until all we have left is pablum.

Deal with it.

Thus far, I've seen the people against SCB's being redesigned hurling the most insults. And again, if you had read most of the posts, most peoples problems with SCB's is that they don't give them problems; rather, they remove all of their problem in combat, with no downside. Either do something about SCB's, or give us some sort of "weapon overcharge cell" to counteract the insane defenses. But then that is like bringing in mongeese to kill an infestation of snakes, and we end up with a combat model revolving around consumables instead of skill.

Not to mention you're basing your "vocal minority" crap on a skewed poll. A skewed poll, which also incidentally shows that over 75% of people are in favor of them being nerfed one way or another.

 

[FS3DPete]

One bank per ship. If you feel you need more than that, then you're not as good a pilot as you think you are.

The fact that you can only carry a limited number of cells (I've never been able to equip a shield cell bank with more than 13 cells) is nerf enough. They also cost credits to replace, but having Shield Cell Banks in multiple equipment slots is overkill.

The fact that you can't use them to re-activate your shields is something that takes skill to get around. If your shields collapse during combat because you were too busy firing your weapons to take down your enemy shields, then that's on you, and no amount of shield cell banks will get your shields back any quicker. That's skill enough for me.

Although I think that it should take longer for your shields to come back up the bigger your hull and/or the higher class of shield generator you have fitted (stronger shields, but longer charge time).

 

[Veldryn]

Wow, I might be a very average pilot but I lost all my cells against cheney the elite mission anaconda in a very well upgraded viper.
I cant wait to see your video of you taking on the 180k elite mission in a stock sidey with a few shield cells and winning. Bring it on!

You didn't quote the entire message. Try with this part as well:

I mean, if you're patient enough. Well, actually, maybe Anaconda's shield will recharge faster than the damage you can deal with a Stock Sidewinder. But still, they won't be able to kill you either.

Shield Cells only improve the damage you can output to a certain extent. You can shoot non-stop. But still, I'm not sure the two pulse lasers are powerful enough to even take down an Anaconda's shield (Never tried that). The point of my message was really that an Elite Anaconda can't kill you as long as you have ammos. And Ammos are pretty much illimited with the high level banks.

And once you have powerful enough weapons to go through the shields, just put 4 pips to weapons, 2 to engines, 0 to shields, and keep shooting. You barely even need to move (For aiming, and avoiding the Plasma Accelerator).

Although I think that it should take longer for your shields to come back up the bigger your hull and/or the higher class of shield generator you have fitted (stronger shields, but longer charge time).

That's the case already. Sidewinders need 10 seconds to recharge their shields. Anacondas need 2 or 3 minutes.

 

[Im_Lost]

The polls, so far, show that less than 1 in 4 thinks SCB should be removed.

Unfortunately, the vocal minority think that if they cry loud enough, and hurl enough insults, they can get things the way they want.

If they win this one, they won't stop, no sir. They will continue to nerf all the things that give THEM problems until all we have left is pablum.

Deal with it.

Less than 20% are saying they shouldn't be changed..

There is clearly something wrong when you can sit in one spot and "tank" an Elite anaconda in an Viper.

 

[Ydiss]

can I suggest you start a poll ?

When posting a new topic, you have to post the thread and then the poll.

I voted 1 per ship.

 

[Veldryn]

The polls, so far, show that less than 1 in 4 thinks SCB should be removed.

Unfortunately, the vocal minority think that if they cry loud enough, and hurl enough insults, they can get things the way they want.

If they win this one, they won't stop, no sir. They will continue to nerf all the things that give THEM problems until all we have left is pablum.

Deal with it.

More people want them removed (23% so far) than people want them unchanged (20%), so I'm not sure who the "Vocal minority" is. Remaining people want them changed (50%). I didn't go in details through the 6% of "others" (He, maybe some people actually want them to be more powerful? But I haven't read anything like that. I may have missed it, though).

Regarding these 50% of "Needs to be changed", additional poll options would be required, because all options in this poll are about restricting the number of cells (Reducing the number of banks really reduces the number of cells). However, many suggestions have been made in the thread to reduce the efficiency of Shield Cells in different ways.

 

[Adept]

Shield cells are terribly broken, and don't fit the game at all. Using an internal slot for faster shield regen would be ok, but these "healing bottles" are just standard MMO tripe.

Worst of all, the NPCs don't use them at all (and are still flying around without shields), so they really break the PvE combat balance.

 

[dasuke]

This is a tough question as shield cell banks, as they are, completely invalidate ammo-capacity weapon setups in PvP. Thank goodness NPCs dont use them. However, it would be nigh on impossible to complete any assassination mission on Anacondas or higher class ships solo without them, and I wouldn't want that - it would make monotonous trading the only realistic option for earning credits the game has.

 

[Veldryn]

However, it would be nigh on impossible to complete any assassination mission on Anacondas or higher class ships solo without them, and I wouldn't want that - it would make monotonous trading the only realistic option for earning credits the game has.

I'd say that's a different balance issue, specifically related to bounty hunting. Having tougher opponents and bigger rewards (With the Elite Anaconda being the final step, until they introduce wings of opponents) would be sufficient to solve this specific issue. Keeping Shield Cells because they are the only way to make money for Bounty Hunters seems a bad reason to me. The problem exists, but better solutions exist too.