They definitely need to stay like this.
I actually agree, even if I love adaptives. But it would be nicer, if the hull effect is just slightly below shield.
I think the booster nerf, which took away the offensive/defensive booster choice also had a slight impact.
So did the change in healing dynamics, because shield beacons used to drop faster than hull beacons, now both modules seem to have the same values, while shields are still weak compared to hull.
The problem with adaptives is clearly, when it is actually used to make an already strong hull fit impossible to break on retreat.
Albeit, in my subjective observations of T3 pub play, I think a lot of people started to use more tacklers, and the mass spam of slowing fields clearly shows, people have hard times coping with hard-to-catch cov ops fits. But they get more skilled with the already existing tools, so I welcomed the anti-tackler implant buff.
b) In RU patch discussion: Adaptives are not nerfed, it is a bug and should be fixed in next patch to work on shield and hull.
If this is true, why was the description changed and translated, and seemingly also the ingame effects altered? A bug is something different. This would be in this case either called an experiment, or a mistake, but not a bug. But it would not be such a bad mistake. It would actually go into a good direction.
Because as stated by some, adaptive on top of an already tanky fit is overkill.
So my opinion:
Having less adaptive effect on hull than on shield would be actually a good fix, I would not change the numbers for shield.
Or finally a good look at the shield dynamics.
Certainly the community is right about fed fighter hitboxes in higher tiers, in any case, no matter what adaptive does.
And I think they should still re-add the double booster for credits option, especially with Crews, because it would be nice to have a choice back over the whole deck, which is strictly optional and was a good system (offensive/defensive choices (speed/damage/both) vs. (hull/shield/both)).
