Test Server Feedback

thanks:)

I hope there's plans for more than just T1 modules. Can we expect Meta/T2/Faction/Deadspace?

Edit: And is this module at all affected by Armour Compensation skills?

We'd love to make a T2 version also before Inferno, we only have this one version now because we're still tweaking it, but once we're happy with it as a T1 version we should be able to do a T2 version also (no promise though ) But we're not making faction versions for Inferno (hopefully later).

As for the armor compensation skill, then the answer is no. This is for a technical reason of how passive and active resistances are calculated differently and to use it would require a constant recalculation which would override the adjustments made by this module.

We'll look into creating a new skill (or adjust an existing skill) to work with this module, but it might not make it in for Inferno. Btw, the skill requirement for the item Hull Upgrades Lvl 3.

Finally, we're in the process now of seeding the items on Sisi (a special seeding script has to be run to get things on Sisi), hopefully the items will be in tomorrow.

This isn't Duck Hunt! In Eve war targets can shoot back. Small corps many times are taking a huge risk by war dec'n a larger entity. The larger corp has the advantage of numbers, and resources, they should not also get a price dec shield built into the game for them too.

That seems a little crazy, tbh. Theoretically, that means that the plain meta 0 t1 hardener can provide better resistances towards a specific damage type (60%) than a single-purpose T2 active hardener (55%). If the T2 version gets the same 10% increase over T1 as occurs with existing hardeners, that'd mean the plain jane T2 adaptive hardener could potentially provide a bigger resistance increase than a current X-type hardener.

But it does have important weakness normal modules don't have: FC commands fleet to use 1 damage type, then commands everyone to switch damage to something else which now has 0% resistance.

Also I havn't yet seen mentioned how long it takes for module to reach that 60%. Will it happen during single cycle or does it take several cycles to fully adjust.

EDIT: Also you can't just use 2 of them to cover 2 damage types effectively. They would both adjust to 30% (I believe), and because of stacking penalty 2nd module would only give 26.1%, which is 48.3% total from those 2 modules (if I calculated this right).

not to mention the bigger issue, especially in alpha warfare and high dps warfare... that first 10 second cycle of the module is gonna be HORRIBLE for you, i mean your talking what 12% resistence, and god forbid you just got done fighting someone that was using fusion, and run into someone thats using EMP, 0 resists SOAB lol

I think the only major mod things that really need to be discussed involve the tanking mods.
The drone mod simply needs to be better (less fitting, more bonus), and the CPU rig needs to be balanced so we don't have people getting fits that shouldn't be possible (ie: cov-ops titans).

ARMOR ADAPTIVE HARDENER
Simply put, it needs to be better. For starters, this module is only effective in small fights where the damage types are more concentrated as opposed to fleet fights. For this reason, these are never going to go on Capitals over a nice EANM.

With that said, the module needs to be more effective. The reason being is that this is a module that would act as your tertiary tank mod, for ships that would normally be plugging a small hole (ie: EM on T2 Gallente). It needs to be better because right now it's better to take your chances with a stacked EANM. The problem is that the adaptive module takes too long to react.

It has a 10 second cycle time and adjusts 1% into the respective spots per cycle.
It takes far too much time it takes to adjust to a level that would exceed that of a stacked EANM or simply another active specific hardener.

For starters, I would give the module significantly more HP for overloading. It overheats WAY too fast, and right now it's so weak that it NEEDS to be overloaded. Next, I would say at least double the rate it adapts. Either by percentage OR by reducing the cycle time. The mod is simply too weak at the moment to be taken seriously, as it's pretty much useless on T1 ships.

ANCILLARY SHIELD BOOSTERS
I'm hoping these are unfinished...

The first glaring problem is the reload time, and there are a couple reasons why.
I know why you've picked 60 seconds. It makes sense that since the maximum you can squeeze in is 6 tiny (navy) charges, you would make the reload time a combined amount (6 x 10) of a normal injector. the problem with this method is that, in fights where active tanking is useful, you cap out WAY too fast, and fights generally don't last much longer than 2 minutes or so. That is a HUGE amount of time where you can't boost.

That brings us to the second issue with the reload time. This has less to do with the module, but more to do with the reload mechanic. You can't do anything during the 60 seconds. Once your module starts to reload you can't use your ships cap in the meantime. This is a big no-no as far as I'm concerned, and for obvious reasons will always* result in the ship exploding long before it finishes reloading and starts to tank again.

The next issue is the cap charges themselves. Right now there is no reason to use the larger cap charges unless you LIKE to reload for 60 seconds. The cap doesn't overflow into the capacitor, so for using something like 800s (2 or 3 navy), you need to reload after a few seconds and have effectively burned through 800 cap PER CYCLE. That's an expensive shield booster. If boosting with larger charges would overflow into the capacitor & we can keep boosting, using ships cap, during the reload THEN there would be a reason to use them. Right now, small charges are ahead by a mile and larger ones are useless.

Lastly, I was under the impression that these things would just be drinking fuel from your cargo and not need to be reloaded after a few cycles like they do now. The balancing factor being that they would drink cap way faster (which they do) than the traditional types.

I mostly agree with Prometheus.

I was also under the impression that these ancillary boosters did not use cap boosters, but rather hydrogen batteries or whatever that commodity is called.

You would keep them in your cargo, and they would be consumed like fuel is for other modules on a per-cycle basis, with the ability to load a script to use capacitor instead of fuel.

The inability to rep during the 60 second reload timer is absurd, as nearly every ship I can think of that would benefit from these modules will die during this time. In practice (for example, with a large ancillary booster), you get five capless rep cycles in a fight, and then you're on cap for the rest of the fight, completely prone to energy neutralizers. If you turn off "auto reloading", you are able to consume the cap boosters and then continue to rep normally without reloading and locking yourself out, but this is extremely unintuitive.

Given the current reloading mechanics and the proximity of the Inferno release, I think the best bet is to make the module not hold cap charges, but simply consume them from the cargo like triage/siege modules.

The variety of charge sizes you can load also make no sense, as Prom outlined. The module itself would be more intuitive if it consumed X number of hydrogen batteries based on booster size, directly from the cargohold, with no reload time. So long as you have hydrogen batteries, you should be able to rep without using cap.

Regarding the fueled shield booster - the first version I made actually used Hydrogen Batteries as fuel directly from the cargo hold, using a script. But there were several issues here, the most serious one being that it didn't fit one of the key criteria of the module, which was this is supposed to give temporary boost only. I.e. the intention was not to create a module that could be run non-stop throughout the whole combat. Instead, the thinking is that timing is important where you can temporarily tank more heavily than normally.

Now, whether cap boosters are the right choice or not can be debated, it has its pros and cons. Yes, it doesn't make sense to use an 800 instead of 400, but that isn't a bad thing per se - people will just use the 400 and that's fine. That being said, it is still in the picture to tweak stats and even create new kind of fuel charge, but fueling from the cargo hold didn't really work out when we tested it, i.e. it either allowed for endless boosting, or you having to fill you're cargo hold with a handful of fuel charges.