Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

[Sidenti Taalo]

So I'm looking over the list of changes coming our way with Horizons and one stands out for me: SCBs are getting a massive nerf in regard to heat output. Basically, firing off a Class 6 now will fry your ship. There doesn't appear to be any added BENEFIT - just, for some odd reason or another now, the galaxy's SCB makers have all decided "eff it, we're gonna fry your ship for using our product!"

This is a ham-handed and clumsy attempt to balance PvP on the backs of PvEers. The reason most, if not all, traders load up on SCBs is because WE DON'T LIKE GETTING ATTACKED! Only an idiot would! So, naturally, we build out our ships to maximize defensive values, because fuck Code. Code's nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who claim to hate griefers yet do nothing but engage in griefing. This change was made for THOSE assholes.

Can anyone here think of any time in the course of human history that a defensive culture has gone out of its way to nerf its defenses? Me either. But this is Braben's galaxy - a galaxy in which slavery not only still exists but is institutionalized, where any Joe Sixpack is allowed to kit out his Honda Accord with plasma accelerators, and where moron traders willfully purchase equipment willfully made by manufacturers to be less effective than previous models.

(Okay, the last bit might reflect the state of capitalism under the doctrine of planned obsolescence, but not to a galactic degree. Trade organizations would bitch.)

[Feldspar]

Aren't SCB working for twice the time, thus providing twice the boost? That's what I read somewhere.

The whole point is to make them more tactical, instead of just filling your vessel with magic potions, you have to make the decision to stop generating heat in other ways or fire off heat sinks. Until now they have just been a cheap get out of jail free card.

[Sidenti Taalo]

Aren't SCB working for twice the time, thus providing twice the boost? That's what I read somewhere.

The whole point is to make them more tactical, instead of just filling your vessel with magic potions, you have to make the decision to stop generating heat in other ways or fire off heat sinks. Until now they have just been a cheap get out of jail free card.

I understand that from a gameplay perspective, but it's just another blow to the realism for me. Also, that's what an SCB is supposed to be - a cheap get out of jail free card. It's not my fault GriefvPers can't set limitations for 'em by themselves and have proper fights.

Honestly, those lot should just be told to make their own private group with the rules for how they want to play. That's what WE were told, wasn't it? But no, that's not what happens here. What happens is that a completely irrational change from a realism standpoint is going to be made because for the life of 'em, the game devs can't figure out how to balance the gameplay aspect.

It's a pretty simple fix: Limit to one or two SCBs. We can only have one shield, so module limits are already hardcoded. Flip a bit, set a limit, that makes more sense. It's a lot easier to rationalize something like that in regard to immersion. All of a sudden making SCBs produce far more heat? What's the explanation behind it lorewise.

I don't even know why people would want a short fight, but then again I gave up on figuring out people a long, long time ago. XD

[Corium]

The Changes to SCB is actually rather nice. Shield Boosters are an emergency measure, unlike chaff, which require timing and skill to apply the maximum desired effect. Essentially, a shield booster is a pack of stored energy that's hooked directly into your ship's shield matrix and when one of those pack are initiated a surge of energy is pushed through the ship's systems to regain the lose of energy in the shield capacitor due to being overloaded by gunfire or laser fire. This burst of energy can EASILY fry the system if not managed properly.


This concept is simple, and can be translated directly to a common tactic we use today in the field with computers and OverClocking. By increasing the input of electricity to the CPU, GPU, and RAM, we're able to get a greater output but at the cost of increased heat. Any sensible computer savy person would tell you to increase/upgrade your cooling systems in your computer to compensate for the heat created by overclocking.

The changes aren't Nonsensical, they are well placed and a welcome change to those of us who delight in hunting down people like Code. It makes our job more enjoyable instead of beating our heads against a wall because some shifty shit's got 4 SCBs slotted to their Anny.

[LionOfNarnia]

All they needed to do was limit SCBs to one, just like shields. Problem solved.

But no, they were never going to force the PvP psychos to sell their modules. They would bawl their bloody eyes out like the spoiled little schoolgirls they are if FD did that.

So we end up with a fucked-up compromise that no-one is happy with.

Brabant for Prime Minister?

[UnmarkedBoxcar]

So we end up with a fucked-up compromise that no-one is happy with.

Untrue

Corium just said they were a welcome change in this very thread

I don't mind the changes all that much.

[Sidenti Taalo]

The Changes to SCB is actually rather nice. Shield Boosters are an emergency measure, unlike chaff, which require timing and skill to apply the maximum desired effect. Essentially, a shield booster is a pack of stored energy that's hooked directly into your ship's shield matrix and when one of those pack are initiated a surge of energy is pushed through the ship's systems to regain the lose of energy in the shield capacitor due to being overloaded by gunfire or laser fire. This burst of energy can EASILY fry the system if not managed properly.


This concept is simple, and can be translated directly to a common tactic we use today in the field with computers and OverClocking. By increasing the input of electricity to the CPU, GPU, and RAM, we're able to get a greater output but at the cost of increased heat. Any sensible computer savy person would tell you to increase/upgrade your cooling systems in your computer to compensate for the heat created by overclocking.

The changes aren't Nonsensical, they are well placed and a welcome change to those of us who delight in hunting down people like Code. It makes our job more enjoyable instead of beating our heads against a wall because some shifty shit's got 4 SCBs slotted to their Anny.

Really? You're gonna use overclocking as your example? I mean, you kind of defeat your own argument by recognizing the cooling mechanisms. We wanted more out of our components, and got more without producing unacceptable heat damage. The cooling mechanisms are part of that. I mean, it would take a complete moron to overclock their rig without proper cooling. (I'm not saying there aren't people who would try.)

Surely, the engineers who created a mechanism for force-feeding a bunch of power to something like energized shields would have figured there's going to be a heat rush that goes along with it. Why all of a sudden are manufacturers ignoring what they know about heat damage? Why make an inferior SCB in that regard? The concept just has no basis in common sense.

[UnmarkedBoxcar]

Really? You're gonna use overclocking as your example? I mean, you kind of defeat your own argument by recognizing the cooling mechanisms. We wanted more out of our components, and got more without producing unacceptable heat damage. The cooling mechanisms are part of that. I mean, it would take a complete moron to overclock their rig without proper cooling. (I'm not saying there aren't people who would try.)

Surely, the engineers who created a mechanism for force-feeding a bunch of power to something like energized shields would have figured there's going to be a heat rush that goes along with it. Why all of a sudden are manufacturers ignoring what they know about heat damage? Why make an inferior SCB in that regard? The concept just has no basis in common sense.

Buy a heat sink. Problem solved

[Corium]

Keep in mind, the SCB's are relatively new in terms of loadout availability. They were -never- meant to give a boost to shields without producing large amounts of heat... their first implementation was flawed, and now it's been fixed.

I'd direct you to some of the Beta Discussion and Gamma Discussion forums where this was talked about in length, but I'm almost sure that they've either been archived, or your access to them will be limited if not outright denied.

[Sidenti Taalo]

Really? You're gonna use overclocking as your example? I mean, you kind of defeat your own argument by recognizing the cooling mechanisms. We wanted more out of our components, and got more without producing unacceptable heat damage. The cooling mechanisms are part of that. I mean, it would take a complete moron to overclock their rig without proper cooling. (I'm not saying there aren't people who would try.)

Surely, the engineers who created a mechanism for force-feeding a bunch of power to something like energized shields would have figured there's going to be a heat rush that goes along with it. Why all of a sudden are manufacturers ignoring what they know about heat damage? Why make an inferior SCB in that regard? The concept just has no basis in common sense.

Buy a heat sink. Problem solved

No, problem created. I run full shield boosters. Cutting one to put on a heat sink - which I didn't need before - will take my shields down permanently by 20%.

Let's try a logic exercise instead: How can we rationalize the proposed change? This is supposed to be a realistic game (FTL travel aside - I just assume we managed to get Cubie engines working) so we need a realistic plotline here. We currently have access to a product as traders and pilots in general that allows for a boost to shielding, with a certain amount of heat gain. For what reason are we gaining more heat? What changed in the design? Are certain materials no longer available? Did ship design specs change?

I mean, hell, even when SWTOR turned off the capital ship turrets in GSF, they had a reason for it (as terrible as it was - the gunners "went on strike"). And we can't run around calling it what it is (GriefvPers crying that they can't grief in a time frame that suits their twitchiness), so, why?