Guardian FSD booster question

They realised it was too easy to get, so therefore need to introduce a whole new set of materials with some "challenging" gameplay involved to "earn" them...

Nahh. They will simply triple the amounts required and make it that you have to pay for each module you buy.
 
Unlock requirements:


The modules:

Module limits:

Only one can be fitted at a time.

https://i.imgur.com/CmXccZw.png

What I would like some clarification on is the increase in fuel use...
For the c5 is it a 25% increase, as in 1t is now 1.25t used, or is it really a 125% increase meaning 1t normally is now 2.25t used? If it's the later, thats a pretty huge downside to using this module.

Edit: From the bug on this module and the screen shot earlier in this thread, it appears that it is indeed the later, which means that it won't work on any jump requiring more than 38%? of your FSD fuel use. I would assume the module is supposed to be 25%, but it got entered as 125% by the dev who set the values.
 
Last edited:
They realised it was too easy to get, so therefore need to introduce a whole new set of materials with some "challenging" gameplay involved to "earn" them...

Nah, they probably went to fix it. The way they intended to work is quite sketchy against FSD mechanics.
 
Nahh. They will simply triple the amounts required and make it that you have to pay for each module you buy.

Probably... damn, are we lucky that all guardian modules suck. Power Plant, Power Distributor, FSD booster... all useless. Weapons are useless too if you're not interested in fighting goids.

Hope they will never become engineerable. If they were better than current g5 modules, we could throw everything away and do the engineer-grind again.... for the third time.

For the c5 is it a 25% increase, as in 1t is now 1.25t used, or is it really a 125% increase meaning 1t normally is now 2.25t used? If it's the later, thats a pretty huge downside to using this module.

Its the latter. And yes, it makes the module almost entirely pointless as you are going to lose more time for the additional scooping you have to do, than you can potentially save with the increased range.
 
Last edited:
Its the latter. And yes, it makes the module almost entirely pointless as you are going to lose more time for the additional scooping you have to do, than you can potentially save with the increased range.

Imagine it might be of good utility on a trade ship at CGs making repeated hops to large supplies since it is a flat increase not effected by cargo mass, and you likely would be refueling at each stop.

Trade 16 tons to give an unengineered Type 9 a 21 light year jump range with 700 tons cargo and it can make three jumps on a tank
 
This set of modules looks like it was designed the same way that limpet controllers were, i.e. pulling numbers out of an orifice without any real thought. Though they are an order of magnitude better, as they only double in size for a linear increase.
 
if i can get my corvette to 28ly range, i will grind like a ...... on a stripper pole, who hasnt had her or his fix for 4 days.
 
I have to say, the FSD booster is very appealing, but the materials required seem to be about 10x too high, imo. I'm far from the bubble, so it doesn't tempt me right now.
 
Last edited:
I have to say, the FSD booster is very appealing, but the materials required seem to be about 10x too high, imo....

The only problem on the materials for the Guardian modules are the Blueprints, or rather the repetitive way to get them - and everyone is complaining about this. It's understandable the FD is proud of the sequence necessary to get one of them, but repeating exactly the same stuff 8 times over (up to 10 times for some modules) doesn't make it better.

In any case, the booster is down again for review, as it plain and simple doesn't work at all.
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: NW3
In my opinion they should have made them fitable in the utility slots. That would be an improvement for explorers. Like shield boosters for combat ships. The optional slots are crowded enough with the stuff we have already.
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: NW3
I am 99% sure that +105% fuel cost for +2 LYR is a mistake. Most likely +5% for +2 LYR.

5/10/15/20/25 feels much more natural than 105/110/115/120/125


I hope so, it just HAS to be that way. If it was really +105% for the c1 and +125% for the c5, that would be quite stupid.
 
I've not exhaustively read through the thread (I gave up on page 5) but the question I had was this: Can you disable the booster module in the modules panel and have your FSD revert to normal operation?
If so this might be useful as an optional boost for exploration, travel on the regular FSD in most cases and conserve fuel but enable the booster for that extra kick should you need it.
Is that an option?
 
I've not exhaustively read through the thread (I gave up on page 5) but the question I had was this: Can you disable the booster module in the modules panel and have your FSD revert to normal operation?
If so this might be useful as an optional boost for exploration, travel on the regular FSD in most cases and conserve fuel but enable the booster for that extra kick should you need it.
Is that an option?
Yes, that was confirmed before they took it offline.
 
More stupid, or less stupid than the "repeat same puzzle 8 times" design decision ?

I'm on the fence on this one...

Sshhh... quiet! You don't want them to change it. Their solution will be to disable the respawning and force us to do the puzzle on 8 different sites ;)
 
More stupid, or less stupid than the "repeat same puzzle 8 times" design decision ?

I'm on the fence on this one...

This is the Personal Narrative FD mentioned?

I will once again raise the matter of the needless introduction of yet new specific materials and specific tasks just for an FSD related module? I see no reason why this module couldn't have just been a regular (non-Guardian) module (or utility) obtained via the already massive list of materials within the game? It just smells of needing to get as much worth out of Guardian Base assets as possible, not matter how shallow/clunky the outcome.
 
Back
Top Bottom