Proposed SCB Changes Are Nonsensical

[FANTA5M1C]

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?

This is where you have to remember that it's a game in development. This rebalance is not something happening to SCB production across the universe, it is an adjustment that retroactively applies to SCB's in the past lore-wise. Just like how Corvettes and Cutters are already a part of their respective navies although they aren't in the game yet. When 1.5 hits the first keelbacks won't start rolling off the line, they'll be populated throughout the galaxy as if they had always been there. It's the same with the SCB changes.

[Sidenti Taalo]

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?

This is where you have to remember that it's a game in development. This rebalance is not something happening to SCB production across the universe, it is an adjustment that retroactively applies to SCB's in the past lore-wise. Just like how Corvettes and Cutters are already a part of their respective navies although they aren't in the game yet. When 1.5 hits the first keelbacks won't start rolling off the line, they'll be populated throughout the galaxy as if they had always been there. It's the same with the SCB changes.

You're right. I DO have to remember that this is a game that is still actively in development, despite being told by the company that they're shipping a finished product. I also have to remember that this is a game being actively developed by a company with no previous online game development experience.

What the COMPANY needs to remember is that not everyone is interested in PvP. I'd say there's at least 14,000 players who would prefer their PvP structured at the VERY least. I'm really sick and tired of game developers, experienced or not, seeming to neglect this facet of things. Balancing PvP at the expense of PvEers is simply bad design practice.

Frontier's not going to get a pass from their fans forever. Eventually, they're going to have to step up quality control, which means putting a bit more thought into game balance than "just make 'em run hotter".

[TorTorden]

That might be you, but I honestly only find chaff to be a mild annoyance.
Just Deselect the target and shoot manually.

Might not power plant them but you can sure get their shields and hull down regardless of chaff.

Yeah, yeah, deselect, blah blah...problem is weapon convergence is crap on a lot of the ships, especially the bigger ones that are exactly the ones that find chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff chaff annoying.

I have found that rather than waste precious capacitor with half to most of your weaps missing due to convergence, even if you aim is good, it's more effective to wait it out and fire when chaff expires. Except in pvp, it never does. You know what I mean, I'm sure. People in wee ships won't get it though. *shrug*

Well yeah weapon convergence on turret hardpoints are shit, which is why I have weapons group so I can only fire my twin c3 beams when they drop chaff, silence the turrets and I build wep energy for when the chaffing ends.

The issue is pve'rs only use scb's since shield regen is shit for larger ships right now (heck vulture and above imo), I have 5+ banks of shield cells in my combat conda and that's barely enough to get my shields back one and a half time, with the new shields and new sys drain it's not going to be an issue, an anaconda post 1.5 will look at shield regen from 0 at less than 6 minutes instead of 18, if not even less.

But no, everyone is completely ignoring all the other changes and focusing on the scb nerf but in all honestly from what I can gather from reading between the lines of beta patch updates and mostly from grilling people with beta access about this on TS.
This is a giant leap in the right direction for both pvp and pve

I too started off livid from the nerf announcement but as I digged deeper, a lot deeper than I ever should have had too, I honestly can't wait.
(seriously FD suck at documenting their changes)

[FANTA5M1C]

You're right. I DO have to remember that this is a game that is still actively in development, despite being told by the company that they're shipping a finished product. I also have to remember that this is a game being actively developed by a company with no previous online game development experience.

What the COMPANY needs to remember is that not everyone is interested in PvP. I'd say there's at least 14,000 players who would prefer their PvP structured at the VERY least. I'm really sick and tired of game developers, experienced or not, seeming to neglect this facet of things. Balancing PvP at the expense of PvEers is simply bad design practice.

Frontier's not going to get a pass from their fans forever. Eventually, they're going to have to step up quality control, which means putting a bit more thought into game balance than "just make 'em run hotter".

They make no secret that they intend to continue development for at least the next 2 years. In what way does that imply a finished product? Besides, you've missed the whole main point about how to look at patches.

Would you mind explaining what this change does to severely penalize PvE players while benefiting the PvP ones? From where I'm sitting things look fairly equivalent

[Sidenti Taalo]

You're right. I DO have to remember that this is a game that is still actively in development, despite being told by the company that they're shipping a finished product. I also have to remember that this is a game being actively developed by a company with no previous online game development experience.

What the COMPANY needs to remember is that not everyone is interested in PvP. I'd say there's at least 14,000 players who would prefer their PvP structured at the VERY least. I'm really sick and tired of game developers, experienced or not, seeming to neglect this facet of things. Balancing PvP at the expense of PvEers is simply bad design practice.

Frontier's not going to get a pass from their fans forever. Eventually, they're going to have to step up quality control, which means putting a bit more thought into game balance than "just make 'em run hotter".

They make no secret that they intend to continue development for at least the next 2 years. In what way does that imply a finished product? Besides, you've missed the whole main point about how to look at patches.

Would you mind explaining what this change does to severely penalize PvE players while benefiting the PvP ones? From where I'm sitting things look fairly equivalent

My trade ships don't run weapons. I have ZERO interest in fighting another player, for multiple reasons. Anything that harms my defensive capacities is a severe penalty.

As far as the company making it "no secret that they intend to continue development for at least the next two years", yeah, they kinda have. To the paying public, anyway. When you go to the website, you see a company advertising a finished game. That is how Elite: Dangerous is marketed to the general public. I can understand why they'd be dishonest about it - few want to pay to support a living beta - but that combined with the ham-handed approach to gameplay balance, the complete lack of interest in PvE, and the amateurish approach to quality assurance doesn't inspire my continued support.

If that offends you, it's not my concern.

[FANTA5M1C]

*snip*
My trade ships don't run weapons. I have ZERO interest in fighting another player, for multiple reasons. Anything that harms my defensive capacities is a severe penalty.

As far as the company making it "no secret that they intend to continue development for at least the next two years", yeah, they kinda have. To the paying public, anyway. When you go to the website, you see a company advertising a finished game. That is how Elite: Dangerous is marketed to the general public. I can understand why they'd be dishonest about it - few want to pay to support a living beta - but that combined with the ham-handed approach to gameplay balance, the complete lack of interest in PvE, and the amateurish approach to quality assurance doesn't inspire my continued support.

If that offends you, it's not my concern.

Sooo... the problem is that you can't charge your FSD, run full boosters, and activate 3 class 3 SCBs at the same time? I dunno what to tell you other than give up a single booster for either chaff or a heat sink. I don't know why you're not running one of those anyway, and for the record the 20% capacity boost only applies to your base shield strength. So if you use 3 instead of 4 A boosters it's misleading to say you've given up 20% of your shields. In that exact scenario you're losing much closer to 10% of your shields for a device that will either let you do your normal thing without overheating or save you a lot of shield damage from tracking weapons. Either way the change feels pretty minor for anyone not trying to fill a condas shields from 1MJ in one shot.

Really? It was no secret to me when I bought it in 1.2 or at any time I've looked at their store since. What do you think is implied by the horizons description "a new season of updates"? You misunderstanding what you're told is not the same as being lied to.

Whoever said I was offended? It sounds like you're either projecting or looking for a fight. In either case, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Avago-Earo]

If Frontier want to keep this mechanic, maybe this would be a fair addition to balance things out:

A ship's SCB's cooling efficiency is dependent on the number of weapons installed (according to Class and Rating) as this dictates the amount of power to systems that is available so if a trader is travelling with little to no weapons they can use their SCB's with more heat efficiency.

This is so badly worded and probably doesn't make sense but I've been up all night.

[moarbeer]

This sounds like a big ship issue. I have trouble running even 2 SCBs in an Asp, whilst keeping my energy weapons, max shield and twin shield boosters all powered, as it is. Or am I wrong?

If so, are smaller ships suffering an unwarranted penalty?

[TorTorden]

This sounds like a big ship issue. I have trouble running even 2 SCBs in an Asp, whilst keeping my energy weapons, max shield and twin shield boosters all powered, as it is. Or am I wrong?

If so, are smaller ships suffering an unwarranted penalty?

The trick is in power managent.
If I can I either put in group 5 so they turn off when guns are deployed, when I need to fire them I have to retract guns first.
Another option is to put the shield banks in group 3, power hungry guns in group 4. Usually those banks are turned off, when I need them I flick open the modules page and turn them off, powering down whatever is in group 4.

On most ships but the conda I use up one bank, and then the next one etc etc.

[JohnLuke]

This sounds like a big ship issue. I have trouble running even 2 SCBs in an Asp, whilst keeping my energy weapons, max shield and twin shield boosters all powered, as it is. Or am I wrong?

If so, are smaller ships suffering an unwarranted penalty?

Are you keeping both SCB's powered up at the same time? If so, you may want to turn one off and see how that affects your power management. I have multiple SBC's on my ships but only power one of them at a time.