Is there any information on how the resistance shifting armor hardener works?

Are there diminishing returns on the increase or do you get the 'full' 15% from each resist that you're not being hit on? Specifically, if I were being hit exclusively with pure kinetic damage, what kinetic resist would the module confer?

Extrinsic Damage Modifier II:

Should get:

30 CPU req.

10% ROF
12% Dmg

Nice mod, has a lot of potential. At the moments it's not in line with other damage mods.

Guys and Girls,


the Ancillary Shield Booster I needs to be looked at.

60 s reload time is way to much. The amount of boost for this kind of mechanic is to low on the other hand.

I can run 3 cycles on a large one, which takes 4 seconds per cycle and then reload it, which takes 60! seconds, while it boosts like a T2 LSB?

If you don't want it to be used in PvE, raise the fuel cost by changing the type of fuel.



At the current state of parameters, I don't see any circumstances, where this mod is more useful than any module we already use.


UI Inventory is great, not regarding the "in space", need to be done adjustments


o/

yeah I know -->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPJDmTQC6I&feature=related

mimimimi...

@SoniClover
Okay, if you doubled all the stats I'll give you the benefit of the doubt up until Monday when it goes up
Did you adjust the DURATION as well? Because I think that should stay put if not be a second longer.

Also, I highly recommend restricting ships to one ancillary booster.
I know they aren't the easiest things to fit, but with such mechanics tanking quite hard with multiple boosters is a real possibility.

Also get that Tengu some reduced CPU

CCP SoniClover said that the adjustments he made to the Ancillary Shield Boosters would be on SiSi today, but alas they do not appear to be.

Any word on this?

I know it was stated that the details of how the war dec changes work on sisi will be posted . My question is could you give a heads up as to when this will be posted. Or have i missed it somewhere.

Edit: Any chance you can squeeze in a new build before you close up shop for the night?

Can a dev confidently confirm that this 'attacker cannot drop war' mechanic is intended?
If so, awesome. That is a step in the right direction.

By the way, this one @CCP SoniClover

The drone damage amplifier module, will they have stack penalty with the Sentry Damage rig?!

It looks like they are mutually stacking penalized on sisi, when do you plan to have build where they are not?


Also, could you answer question from old thread?

MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module).

OK, what happened to the option to make a war mutual? I think I'm getting crazy, because I did made a few wars mutual during testing but now I either completely forgot how, or the option is missing.

Are any of the newly rebalance models modules even ready to go live? cap batteries, tracking disruptors an approve hardeners look to be on a pretty poor state imo.

I'm still curious about the BS-only restriction, and what role you envision the module playing. When I first saw the module described, I thought it would be perfect for non-FC command ships. No BS class ships can fit links, however, so there goes that idea.


Something that I haven't tested yet on SiSI: If you have two ship equipped with cap batteries, and one uses a neut on the other, is there a chance for the reflected effect to be reflected in turn by the originator?

I noticed that inventing the Drone Damage Amplifier II requires Caldari Encryption Methods. Since this is a drone module, should it require Gallente Encryption Methods?

The small, medium and large versions of the Processor Overclocking Unit blueprints are inconsistent. The small requires charred micro circuits, damaged artificial neural networks and fried interface circuits. The medium requires conductive polymer, damaged artificial neural networks and tripped power circuits. The large requires charred micro circuits, conductive polymer and damaged artificial neural networks. No other rigs change what goes into making them as the size of the rig changes, just how much of each. Is this intentional?

Also, the finished product itself: t1 has a -5% to shield recharge rate, t2 has a -10% to shield recharge rate. First, no other Electronics (or Energy Grid) rigs have a drawback, which is good, as there is no associated skill that can be trained to reduce the drawback. Second, no t2 version of a rig has a worse drawback than the t1 version.

These are breaking patterns that have existed for quite some time. Are these changes to be seen as a new precedent?

CCP SoniClover, thanks for the feedback. Oh... but there seems to be missing something... TRACKING DISRUPTORS!!!

Seriously, you guys are going to cause a mess with those that's going to require a LOT of cleaning.

Why nobody may answer to this question?

@SoniClover.... please could u explain how exactly capacitor batteries work?

ie: i should neut 100 cap.... i neut 100 cap but 12.5 is also neuted from my cap (as reflection)?

OR

i should neut 100 cap... i neut 87,5 AND ALSO 12,5 is neuted from my cap?

thanks in advance.

@CCP SoniClover:


I notice the new shield boosters don't get affected by

A) Ship Boost Bonuses (Making them directly less useful on Minmatar instead of Caldari for example) (Intended to nerf Winmatar?)
B) Are not affected by Blue Pills ?

Any comment. I realize it's late to post any changes now, but you could explain the intention for all to see ? :)

- Riv