Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

Discuss anything relating to Elite: Dangerous
User avatar
LionWalker
Novice
Novice
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:37 am
CMDR: LionWalker
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

Postby LionWalker » Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Regardles if I agree with you or not, isn't it rather useless to discuss this here? Should you not talk to FD or the Devs instead? :)
Last edited by LionWalker on Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Sidenti Taalo
Competent
Competent
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:44 pm
CMDR: Sidenti Taalo
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

Postby Sidenti Taalo » Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:09 pm

I find it to be rather useless to discuss things anywhere, and I like you guys. I can't say the same about Frontier at present. So I'll just be useless over here.
Image

TorTorden
Deadly
Deadly
Posts: 4021
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:13 am
CMDR: TorTorden
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

Postby TorTorden » Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:13 pm

This is a classic case of FD's PR department being utter shit.

They lead off with the nerf to shield cells and everybody goes nuts about it.
But you need to dig around to see that they also increase the way shields reform (by drawing more energy out of sys) as well as introducing a less efficient shield generator but with a much higher regen, so scb's for pve is going to be a thing of the past, simply not needed anymore.
Image

Hey I'm Thor -
People call me Bob.

Rule 1: Pillage. Then burn.
Rule 2: No such thing as overkill, as long as there are reloads.

User avatar
Walter
Master
Master
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:54 pm
CMDR: Walter Wall
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

Postby Walter » Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:35 am

Sidenti Taalo wrote: For what reason are we gaining more heat? What changed in the design? Are certain materials no longer available? Did ship design specs change?

No, the game spec changed, just as it changed when more ships were added, or CQC, or different levels of RES and two levels of CZ, or planetary landing, or new commodities. There have been many, many changes to the game mechanism.

You'll just have to change your way of operating to accommodate the changes, just as we all have had to do at various points throughout the past year. We're all playing in the same field, so everyone is affected in the same way.
Image

User avatar
clivewil
Master
Master
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:16 am
CMDR: clivewil + clivus
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

Postby clivewil » Thu Nov 26, 2015 1:57 am

+1 to the 'what the fuck were they thinking' party.

if the whole purpose of a shield is to protect the ship's hull and internals, and firing off an SCB is going to bypass that protection and do the damage itself, i don't really get the point of the changes either. by making heatsinks a necessity it seems like a 'rob Peter to pay Paul' type of mechanic

i always preferred the old suggestion of being able to have only one SCB, which recharged by itself but took a long time to do so. no stacking. no spamming. no need for module damage.
-- Fly safely, shoot straight, kill quickly, land softly --

User avatar
Roger Wilco Jr
Master
Master
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:52 pm
CMDR: Roger Wilco Jr.
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

Postby Roger Wilco Jr » Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:18 am

You can always use a lower rated SCB to avoid heat damage.

This is just another problem with FD not thinking things through. If it takes minutes to form and then fully charge a shield, then if you want to do it in a few seconds it should havealwayscaused a heat problem. This nerf just make things more realistic - apart from the way FD just changes things after they figured out they screwed up.
It's time to give this another go.

User avatar
UnmarkedBoxcar
Master
Master
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 5:18 pm
CMDR: UnmarkedBoxcar
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

Postby UnmarkedBoxcar » Thu Nov 26, 2015 4:46 am

clivewil wrote:i always preferred the old suggestion of being able to have only one SCB, which recharged by itself but took a long time to do so. no stacking. no spamming. no need for module damage.


I've heard the one time use suggestion before, but the recharging itself is new to me, that's kinda cool :)
Image

User avatar
Falcon_D
Master
Master
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:30 am
CMDR: Falcon Darkstar
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

Postby Falcon_D » Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:52 am

TorTorden wrote:This is a classic case of FD's PR department being utter shit.

They lead off with the nerf to shield cells and everybody goes nuts about it.
But you need to dig around to see that they also increase the way shields reform (by drawing more energy out of sys) as well as introducing a less efficient shield generator but with a much higher regen, so scb's for pve is going to be a thing of the past, simply not needed anymore.


Hello,
Not really understanding this part much. I've heard somewhere that they were going to increase shield regen rate, but not really clear on the mechanics.
Is it possible if you could share a link?

Thanks,
Have fun, fly safe.
Image

User avatar
Walter
Master
Master
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:54 pm
CMDR: Walter Wall
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

Postby Walter » Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:01 am

Falcon_D wrote:Hello,
Not really understanding this part much. I've heard somewhere that they were going to increase shield regen rate, but not really clear on the mechanics.
Is it possible if you could share a link?

Thanks,
Have fun, fly safe.

First announced 12 Nov Dev update here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=199155

Lots of subsequent discussion on all sides since (for example: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=201507), so a little surprising that this issue has been resurrected here on Mobius where the issue is of far less relevance than in PvP. As it's only in the beta test, a lot of commentators have yet to experience the modifications in action.
Image

User avatar
Loriath
Dangerous
Dangerous
Posts: 2896
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:12 pm
CMDR: Loriath
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

Postby Loriath » Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:49 am

The whole changes are because in battle (PvP), it is not a battle of skill but a battle on Whom has the most Shield Cells. 2 ships, loaded the same, and pilots of the same calibre, should be a great fight of skill, keeping from getting hit and scoring hits. Instead, its he whom has the most shield cells will win.

It has needed to be changed for a long time. I don't think these changes are what is needed. I think it needs to be changed to a dedicated slot, and you should only get one bank. But I am not really into PvP, so no matter what changes they make, they will not really affect me. But even I can see the supposed balance is out of whack. Part of the issue has been partially addressed in not allowing sniping of the power plant to cause instant death. Armour doesn't help, hull reinforcement doesn't help. The only hope you have against Sniping is keeping your shields.

Two ways to keep your shields. 1) Keep from getting hit (chaff, skilled flying, luck at times) 2) Used Shield Cells.

Which is Easier? Of course #2. But it is out of balance since you can shove SCB's in every part of your ship. Larger the capacity of the ship, the more shield cells. They created the mess they are in by allowing multiple SCB's and making sniping the way to do things.

Now they have to fix it.
Image
My Commander has Small Feet
"You're doing it wrong". No, we are having Fun OUR way.
~-~The A-Team Board ~-~
12 year olds tearing around the woods on dirt bikes have LESS FUN than we do!


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

i