that would be even more problematic. Prismatics are +20% shield but as I recall double power and double mass, so especially combat ships mostly can not afford this shield! But right, the multipurpose ships get even better ;-)
The "Shield Meta" Explained, in 3 graphs
- Thread starter Alexander the Grape
- Start date
that would be even more problematic. Prismatics are +20% shield but as I recall double power and double mass, so especially combat ships mostly can not afford this shield! But right, the multipurpose ships get even better ;-)
FAS is on principle a bad option for CZ because of it's shields being not great. FAS is an amazing armor tank however, meaning for other uses is an excellent option. But if you're farming CZs in a ship that's not a good option for it, I refer to one of my previous comments: that I want to farm CZs in a T6 Transport doesn't mean the game should allow me to do it easily.
To answer your question a python can easily link 2 6B, 2 5B and 2 3B SCBs leaving ample remaining room for a class 2 FSDI, and a class 4 Fuel scoop. No room for anything else but if you're going to use it for CZ farming who cares about having no cargo space.
Proper in-parallel use of those battery arrays provides from 16 to 32 SCB uses, depending on how much you micromanage their usage and how much recharge you need, but the obvious route is to pair them by class. 6-6s online until depleted, then bring the 5-5 online, once depleted bring the 3-3 online.
Such a setup of paired 6s-paired 5s-paired 3s means 16 uses (6-5-5) which will provide 6 charges of 350MJ, 5 charges of 320MJ and 5 charges of 230 MJ respectively. A 6C-class powerplant can easily provide the juice for that and a retardedly powerful weaponry on top of two +20% shield boosters and A-rated thrusters and power distributor, and still use C-class life support and sensors (provided that you set your power management priorities appropiately). And you can even throw a heatsink in just in case you're scared of overheating if you tap the iwin-button twice instead of once.
http://coriolis.io/outfit/python/07...wBhwJjEEY7iEEiuaQ==?bn=stupid duracell python
That's literally HOURS farming unless you're stupid enough to attract the aggro of the full CZ room. And of course it means you can laugh at the face of 4-5 simultaneous NPCs if the situation arises.
And that's literally bonkers.
Last edited:
so... it's not the problem that ALL ships should got nerfed SCB wise but only some (the multipurpose to be exact)
And on the other hand, when I can survive in that FAS in CZs for hours, that does mean I could not be that bad, right?
Again, I do use mostly about 5 double/paired SCBs in my FAS (together 250MJ) and this I say should be the minimum I do get and I do want to play.
These additional 4 double SCBs (225MJ) are a good saving.
So... when only ONE SCB allowed, I would EXPECT that these charges would atleast do these 250MJ (or whatever 2/3 of your shield are) and having atleast 5 charges, then I would be okay with that.
First and foremost, I don't PVP. You wanna know why? No? Too bad I'm gonna tell you...
Because I hate dealing with... This. The bickering back and forth, the salt, the insult slinging, the constant angry shouts for nerfs and buffs that never ceases because someone couldn't secure the kill or they were killed by a certain tactic.
That's all this 'conversation' appears to be, at least to me. Maybe the question shouldn't be 'Should SCB's be nerfed?' maybe it should be 'Should there be better counters to them'? At this moment, in order to crack open a SCB spamming ship (doesn't really matter which one, but we'll say a 'Python') you either need to fire on it for a while, or pour out enough burst damage to shell it like a peanut. There are a few good options for burst damage that could potentially wreck a shield, but they lack one thing that more popular weapons have: sustainability. Example? The Railgun.
Railguns are absolute monsters when it comes to tearing shields apart: anyone who's ever ran a foul of a rail-gun Asp in a CZ can confirm that, but the problem is that it lacks one very important thing... Sustainability. You get 30 shots with it, then it's useless. If you have to run back to base to reload everytime you get into a fight, then that just sounds boring. That is the primary reason why I never pack them! Same for flak cannons, missiles, and torps... The ammo count is so low, that in any sort of long term engagements people don't pack them, even though they have some amazing stopping power. I think that SCBs wouldn't be a problem if the weapons that are designed to crack open shields (Railguns, flak cannons, ect. ect.) were simply given more ammo should people would use them in their day-to-day flying builds instead of the usual Pulse Lasers and Multi-cannons/Cannons.
Heck, maybe even make some kind of charge-up laser cannon that takes a while, but does a fine job of punching the shields off a ship?
Would it be a perfect solution? Probably not; someone would find it offensive that their preferred build of ship is not as good as it used to be, but hey, it's an idea.
Because I hate dealing with... This. The bickering back and forth, the salt, the insult slinging, the constant angry shouts for nerfs and buffs that never ceases because someone couldn't secure the kill or they were killed by a certain tactic.
That's all this 'conversation' appears to be, at least to me. Maybe the question shouldn't be 'Should SCB's be nerfed?' maybe it should be 'Should there be better counters to them'? At this moment, in order to crack open a SCB spamming ship (doesn't really matter which one, but we'll say a 'Python') you either need to fire on it for a while, or pour out enough burst damage to shell it like a peanut. There are a few good options for burst damage that could potentially wreck a shield, but they lack one thing that more popular weapons have: sustainability. Example? The Railgun.
Railguns are absolute monsters when it comes to tearing shields apart: anyone who's ever ran a foul of a rail-gun Asp in a CZ can confirm that, but the problem is that it lacks one very important thing... Sustainability. You get 30 shots with it, then it's useless. If you have to run back to base to reload everytime you get into a fight, then that just sounds boring. That is the primary reason why I never pack them! Same for flak cannons, missiles, and torps... The ammo count is so low, that in any sort of long term engagements people don't pack them, even though they have some amazing stopping power. I think that SCBs wouldn't be a problem if the weapons that are designed to crack open shields (Railguns, flak cannons, ect. ect.) were simply given more ammo should people would use them in their day-to-day flying builds instead of the usual Pulse Lasers and Multi-cannons/Cannons.
Heck, maybe even make some kind of charge-up laser cannon that takes a while, but does a fine job of punching the shields off a ship?
Would it be a perfect solution? Probably not; someone would find it offensive that their preferred build of ship is not as good as it used to be, but hey, it's an idea.
Yes, which actually brings another somewhat related idea up. Ammo Racks.
I say related because additional ammo for said weapons could be considered a worthy competitor for internal compartments with SCB's
Basically giving an offensive perk that rivals the SCB's defensive perk
I ran a 4 railgun FDL for a while but the constant need to return to a station eventually got too tiresome.
good post!
and yes I do know these ASPs - although they seems to be less lately. After 1.4 I had several times one ASP behind me wrecked my shield in a CZ as I was killing some... whatever. Good for me I got that FAS with me... with that hull, milspec armor that needs some time to get through...
haha... Even nowadays as soon as I hear that SOUND of these Rails or PAs.. I promptly get off my actual target searching for that ASP ;-)
- - - Updated - - -
Ammoracks. Good idea. I had to change my layout exactly because of that.
I'd honestly wouldn't have a single "but" to have to a scalar % shield recharge based on SCB class rather than the fixed MJ ammount we're using now. A class 7A SCB recharging 100%, class 6A 90%, class 5A 80%, class 4A 70%, class 3A 60%,class 2A 50% class 1A 40% of the ship's full shields irrespective of the actual shield power of the ship using them would be perfectly fine, with 5 uses per SCB.
That would work fine for me, as long as you only get to mount one such SCB per ship, that is.
Last edited:
That's an internal component that should've been added to the game the second railguns ammo got cut down to 30 shots, in fact. I wholeheartedly agree with the idea.
- - - Updated - - -
but only 5 times. Which is much better than the current more than dozen they can right now. Change the %s if you want, it's just an idea. The whole concept and what I mean is that I don't think anyone would oppose changing the relative strenght of the SCB recharges as long as we limit the number of charges to a reasonable number, instead of the neverending ammount that is feasible right now.
Or in other words, that you can have your SCB that recharges 240Mw in your FAS if you want, as long as you only get to mount only one such SCB at the most
.
Last edited:
I understand your point about keeping the big ships around when involved in wing combats. However, I think the real problem is not with SCBs on large ships but how they are abused and turned combat into who has the most SCB stacked. So, basically, if SCBs were supposed to help bigger ships tank, then it seems it might have succeeded at that but also created slug fest as a side effect, which is what a lot people have a problem with.
EDIT: re-reading my reply, I think that if the goal is to help bigger ships being tank in wing vs. wing combats, then why not increasing their effectiveness but limit to one per ship? That way, if you're about to lose your shields, you know that something is going wrong. You can activate your SCB 1, 2 3 or 4 times but that also means at the first time you have to use it, it would probably be best to get out of there. That means your opponent (singular) is a batter fighter than you or there were too many opponents against you.
Last edited:
Goose4291
Banned
I hate to say, you're wrong with that statement Quineloe.
Back at the last Hutton truck run, 10-15 chaps were firing on Allenrose at one point (including the station) and he tanked all the damage whilst popping shield cells for a good 5 minutes.
Last edited:
Yes. I hope they at least do this for the a Beta.
It seems Frontier often aren't balsy enough to introduce changes that would change Elite Easy into Elite Dangerous, but it may be good if they have a continuous beta server where they introduce and balance gameplay changes.
Shield cells offer nothing. Hull reenforcements are much better for gameplay because they have a benefit with a significant cost (namely potential hull damage). But unfortunately, this interesting gameplay choice is removed as SCB easily beat hull reenforcement and their power requirements beyond the first are zero because they can be powered off and retain charge, yet instantly be powered on again.
Elite Dangerous existed before shield cell banks, it can exist after them. Just remove them before people get even more used to them than they are now.
It should be combined with increasing shield recharge rates to at least 50% of SYS capacitor energy. This would increase shield recharge speeds by about 50%. Probably the 4 pips to shield bonus needs to be reduced also, to around a 50% bonus, not a 150% bonus like it is currently.
This has been the most obvious fix for a long time... Probably the easiest to implement as well.
The only issue will be those that already have multiple sxb fixed but I'm sure FD can just strip the modules out and reimburse the full cost of them.
I agree in one way. But...
Is the multirole meant to be a ship that can be fitted for trade, combat & something between. Or is multirole meant to be always, in every possible scenario, just a multirole ship?
SCB stacks is one way to turn MR ship to be more combat oriented?
Want to still clarify, that I do agree that SCB in its current form is OP.
edit.
Just to point one more thing... The combat ships have sacrificed their internals by default already + jump distance...
Last edited:
If it wasn't for the ability to carry offlined SCBs and instantly enable them if needed, the would be perfectly balanced. I do not like the idea of a hard limited but rather would like to see the limiting factor of power grid kicking in, which requires a nerf on how easily you can online additional SCBs.
Last edited:
This is all your opinion, even if a small majority agrees with you. I could think of a million others things in the game which might fail to reward skill. Your complaints are all relative. So should I the unskilled flyer because I don't have good reflexes or twitch skills then have to suffer? I wasn't born with your reflexes and motor skills? You are not satisfied by a module, so nerf it and solicit support. Your uber skills aren't rewarded. Sleepless nights.
As for pvp players having a massive advantage over anyone who wants to use internal slots for anything else, well.... that's like saying, hey I've got muh trade conda here, I've got my internals filled for space, but I want to be able to go toe to toe with a guy who used his space for combat models.
What other options are they really besides cargo racks for internal slots? Or you want to be able to fit cargo racks so you can scoop more cargo when pirating? So if someone chooses other internals, they had a choice. It wasn't forced on them.
Most games which have diversity in builds often have exclusive pvp and pve builds. Because the AI firstly will never be as good as a human player and two, inherent in the diversity is infinite combinations which cannot all be balanced against one another.
Using your logic, I think that the accuracy of point defense should be nerfed so they can't shoot down my torpedoes, so my torpedoes hit all the time since I don't have a lot.
I should have counter chaff so when you spam one chaff after the other, my gimbals still hit.
You are targeting one aspect of things. Chaff renders gimbal obsolete, so I want it nerfed, I can't hit anything with fixed weapons, I'm not skilled enough.
You can't have ship fitting and expect you can prepare your ship for every occasion. Apart from different builds depending on pvp or pve, you have the different choices.
+1 reped.
this one I liked the most:
I should have counter chaff so when you spam one chaff after the other, my gimbals still hit.
@Grape: funny thing you'd put up a threat called The slaughter of novice players is beginning to haunt me with you teamed up and outfitted for pure PVP slaughtering newbies in sideys and cobras and then complain here that they do not fall fast enough (that is when they do use more than one SCB)... what shall I say to that...
this one I liked the most:
I should have counter chaff so when you spam one chaff after the other, my gimbals still hit.
@Grape: funny thing you'd put up a threat called The slaughter of novice players is beginning to haunt me with you teamed up and outfitted for pure PVP slaughtering newbies in sideys and cobras and then complain here that they do not fall fast enough (that is when they do use more than one SCB)... what shall I say to that...
Seriously nerf chaff. Because it makes my weapons useless, and people just fit 3/4 of them, and can use them for a long battle.
Any serious pvper would fit at least one chaff. Most 2, depending on ship. This completely shuts down a weapon sub set in the game indefinitely and means you have to fit fixed.
It just seems to me, that you your targets seem to be jumping out before you kill them because they save a cell or two for that special moment.
What you should ask for is a module to disable drives, like eve online
Just admit that the most thing that annoys you is that a mediocre anaconda pilot can tank you long enough to drive you off while flying your favorite ship the FAS. And you want to be able to kill said anaconda with your FAS because the pilot clearly isnt as skilled as you, and that's annoying.
Any serious pvper would fit at least one chaff. Most 2, depending on ship. This completely shuts down a weapon sub set in the game indefinitely and means you have to fit fixed.
It just seems to me, that you your targets seem to be jumping out before you kill them because they save a cell or two for that special moment.
What you should ask for is a module to disable drives, like eve online
Just admit that the most thing that annoys you is that a mediocre anaconda pilot can tank you long enough to drive you off while flying your favorite ship the FAS. And you want to be able to kill said anaconda with your FAS because the pilot clearly isnt as skilled as you, and that's annoying.