Survival Module Slot

I put “restoration module” in the search bar yet found nothing in regards to this, which I found surprising so I apologise if I’m going over stuff that’s been covered already. 



Add a dedicated restoration and survival module slot that unlocks when the ship reaches max synergy.


There are enough restoration/survival modules, flares, resists n repairs, I believe to make a survival module slot viable.

However, I believe for certain roles it can be considered not a viable option to bring resto/survival mods over an active role module.



-Extra active module dedicated to restoration and survival modules only.

-Modules added to the survival slot take longer to recharge. Let’s say, for now, 50% longer.

-Becomes available at T2.

-Module is unlocked when ship synergy is at maximum. (Premium ships come unlocked)



What I think the pros’ are :

-Increased diversity in engagements

-Adds demand for additional survival modules

-Flares for engineers :slight_smile:

-Allows a small degree of self maintenance without solely relying on engineers. (Apologies, but I can’t remember the last time I saw someone with a repair kit equipped)

-Rewards the player for achieving max synergy with their ship.

-Players are not forced to drop an Active Role Module for their first resto/survival module, however to get more survivability the player may still sacrifice Active Role Modules for additional resto/surv mods in the standard active slots.


And the cons’:

-Worst case scenario, everyone simply equips the resistance for 8sec mods and nothing really changes aside from longer fights

-Another button to fit on the ‘neighbouring keys’

-Current survival modules may have to undergo changes so that they’re balanced.

-Engineers repair rates may have to come down to compensate for self heals, I’m purely conjecting on this one, though.



Ideas for more survival modules:

(All numbers are hypothetical

 and not to be taken literally)


Energy booster. CD 60s

Regenerates your energy by 70/s for 8 seconds for a total of 560 energy.

Intended to counter energy siphon missiles and offer a window of opportunity. Also helps against ECM siphon unless if you’re using afterburners,


Auxiliary shield siphon. CD 90s

Siphons pilots own shields at a rate of 500/s and transfers them away to the nearest ally within 700m at a rate of 350/s. Lasts 6 seconds.

Removes 3000, gives 2100. The close proximity 700m requires a skilled pilot to use this to back up bomb carriers. In less heated situations such as topping off a guard frigate, it is easier to use.


Anti-mine missile. CD 20s.

Removes a total of 4 minefield-ticks/mines per missile. Can equip a stack of 2 (maybe 3) in the survival slot.

So for example, one missile will destroy 2 ticks 2 proximity, or 3 proximity 1 tick, or 4 ticks aka 1 minefield. 


Debuff remover. CD 90s.

Removes 1 debuff from the pilot, ignoring auras such as the weapon and engine inhibitors. Targets most recent debuff.

Take that, spy drones! Wait they’re still there… Screw you, plasma web!


Emergency reverse. CD 60s

Diverts all engine power to front thrusters and slams the spacecraft into reverse. For 3 seconds the ship can travel in reverse at 50% of the ships afterburner speed.

The manoeuvre is not without consequence, the ship’s receives a “systems cooling” debuff and speed is reduced to 75% for 10 seconds while the engine cools.

For a light craft like inty the reverse is almost instantaneous, for a frigate it should take about 1 second to go into reverse, fighter somewhere in-between.


The Dogfighter. CD 120s

Increases rotation/manoeuvrability by 30% for 15s.

Giving fighters the option for that edge against intys, every now n again.



I could probably think up more, but… I really want a joint. 


this should be placed in “imbalance”  :taunt:


We don’t have balance as is, let’s not create even more imbalance please >.< This could work fari n the future, but definitly not now I think.

The problem with giving many/all people access to these modules is that it can vastly reduce the usefulness of existing modules as they are too easily countered. As such, we’re actually limiting the number of useful builds and forcing people down ‘cookie cutter’ set-ups even more than before. Which I assume is the opposite of what you are trying to achieve. I do like the idea of an additional slot opening up at max synergy level though - it makes working towards that max synergy that little bit more interesting.

I’m just not sure the proposed modules will work out positively in practice. I’ll try to give two examples:



Anti-mine missile. CD 20s.

Removes a total of 4 minefield-ticks/mines per missile. Can equip a stack of 2 (maybe 3) in the survival slot.



If everyone has these, it will make minefields too easy to remove. If anyone gets a ‘minesweeper’ ability, it should be guard frigates. (They’re pretty slow which compensates and ensures you don’t see minefields vanish faster than they go up. Bear in mind they have a limited duration already, if they were permanent features in matches I would agree that some sort of more accessible minesweeping would be a necessity. However, they are not and are easily spotted to boot.



Energy booster. CD 60s

Regenerates your energy by 70/s for 8 seconds for a total of 560 energy.



Limits the usefulness of the aura ability the Engineer class already has - and makes it less useful to equip any energy-draining modules.

I think your new module ideas need a *lot* of work, but I quite like the basic idea of a dedicated resto/survival slot. Not so sure about opening it up at max synergy though, I think if it’s done it should just be baseline.

You want balance and brought this up? o.O


There aren’t enough Flares flying around because pilots like other modules a lot more than simple Flares, basic repairs are mostly useless (a point in favor can go for T3 Gunships) and the 8sec resist buffs are so woefully underused, it’s not even funny…


But having that extra slot on ships does not look appealing at all, unless it was for a module providing a passive bonus to something, say…

  • Smaller cooldown on actual Survival/Restoration modules;
  • A larger bonus on the modules effectiveness (meaning Flares would probably have to have their effectiveness reduced);
  • A fixed, permanent bonus to some stat (speed, energy, synergy, etc).

My 2cents to this “survival” slot. Though, if you go with the stat bonus option, it wouldn’t quite be a survival slot, any longer, but more of an incentive to get your ship to full synergy just so you can get that extra edge…

Balance is the only sub-forum that says “Suggestions for weapons, modules , ships, and general matchmaking”. There, my logic.


EvilTactician I agree, hypothetically speaking if said modules were in the game it would be more balanced to limit them to certain spacecraft. Such as the energy booster for intys and minesweeper missiles for guard etc.

Yes but the engineer’s is a constant passive aura, until interrupted. The survival energy booster is intended to be used at crucial moments to escape energy drain fields. If this system were implemented, it would be like saying hull regen mods make engineers less useful :stuck_out_tongue:


Binky, don’t take anything too literally, they’re rough ideas. If the devs did read, like n want to use my ideas then I’ll leave it to them to crunch the numbers as they get paid to do it. :wink:


The idea is that you get an extra module slot just for maxing out synergy, Oryngton, I don’t see what isn’t appealing about that. The prolonged cooldown is to compensate for the fact that you’re getting another module for free and to give reason for equipping survival modules into the standard active mod slots. They could have reduced cooldown in the survival slot, sure, but seeing as it’s apparent that balancing is an issue, that may not work.

The idea is to introduce survival modules into the game more then they currently are and to give things more variety and make it more interesting, nothing more. more



Meh, thanks for the feedback :slight_smile:


You have to make a poll in such topics

I have in previous topics, I figured this would garner more quality verbal feedback n’ objective ideas rather than going for quantity and statistical feedback that may be contaminated by irrationals.