Reduce cycle time of core armor repairer

in a size (say medium) of armor repairer, a quality(say C), the corelum C-type medium armor repairer is just worse than the corpum/centum C-type medium armor repairer.

They have the same stats besides the HP gain and the activation cost. However the ratio is almost the same, meaning the core line is just plainly worse than the two other lines.
I only talk about the cent line because the corp is exactly the same stats

looking at the HP/GJ stat and comparing HP/cycle ratio of core/cent for the C-type quality :
small :
core is 101/40 = 2.525
cent is 114/45 = 2.533
HP/cycle ratio = 0.886
medium :
core is 405/160 = 2.531
cent is 455/180 = 2.528
HP/cycle ratio = 0.89
large :
core is 1012/400 = 2.53
cent is 1139/450 = 2.531
HP/cycle ratio = 0.889

small A-type :
core is 120/40 = 3
cent is 135/45 = 3
HP/cycle ratio = 0.889

large X-type :
core is 1288/400 = 3.22
cent is 1449/450 = 3.22
HP/cycle ratio =0.889

basically for all those size/quality, the core is just 10% less HP/s than a cent, with the same HP/GJ.

I thereby propose to enhance the core lines by removing +6-9% of its activation time. It will still be less hp/s than the cent, will still have the same HP/GJ, but at least it will have one positive side. number would be :

S : 6 → 5.5s activation time, so -8.34%
M : 12 → 11s activation time, so -8.34%
L : 15 → 14s activation time, so -6.6%

if you look at the HP/s stat, then Core(lii/lum) armor repairs are worse but if you look at GJ/s consumption - they are better.

What you propose is to remove GJ/s benefit to have essentially same modules (same HP/GJ, GJ/s and HP/s) with slight variance of cycle time and no real benefits over each other.

1 Like

but GJ/s is a worthless metric for armor repairers. They are not supposed to provide cap. They are supposed to provide rep. That’s why HP/s and HP/GJ matter, not GJ/s .

What you want is either a sustained HP/s(with limited cap consumption) or a burst HP/s(that is raw HP/s at max). In the first case, core is the same at best(it’s worse as soon as the cap consumption limit is above its consumption), in the second it is always worse.

The only case when you want core is when you know exactly how many damage you will take, and that damage is lower than what you heal from the core but close enough so you can’t swap a module/rig for a cap one. I have a few example of those but other than those niche examples, the core is just worse than the cent/corp.

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

I believe the purpose was to have that unit as a lower cap usage option for second repairer. It heals less, but takes less cap to run however has superior fitting to Armor rep II.

yeah but the core takes as much GJ to rep as the cent ; it just heals slower

? it costs less per cycle and heals less per cycle. Yes, it costs the same amount to heal the same amount, but that’s not the point. As a secondary rep sometimes you just want something that requires less cap.


Actually, that is : if it is as efficient in terms of HP/GJ but heals slower, it’s plainly worse. You can always pulse your second rep, so the increased max consumption gives you choice, but does not force you to consume more.

If you want an additional smaller rep, most of the time you are better with a hardener, (RAH eg) that will increase your ehp/s and your EHP/GJ. This is the reason why you don’t fit small reps on battleships.

That’s assuming someone doesn’t already have a hardener and is subject to diminishing returns. Plus a hardener doesn’t give you alternating cycle repair benefits. In PvE content sometimes you just want to toggle on a second repairer till you clear some of the wave then turn it off and saving the 20GJ per cycle means you can stay cap stable while doing so compared to a Corp or Cent.

If you activate the second rep a short moment to restore HP, that’s called pulse, and if you have repped the same amount you are just as cap stable because it consumes just as much GJ per HP. But if you NEED to overcome the DPS, then the one that gives it faster is just plainly better.

There is no way a small armor rep is of any use on a battleship. Even though they have the same HP/GJ. Even though the small uses less GJ. Because the raw GJ/s is meaningless for a rep.

If you really cared about the GJ/s you would use civilian . They consume base 0.5GJ/s

Your suggestion removes a choice of fitting lower cap hungry rep. And less choices there are = the less game there is to enjoy. There is no real need to turn all (deadspace)repair modules in homogenized pile of crap: if you want more rep per second - you have a choice (2 of them), if someone prefers cap stability on their semi-afk PvE boat - they also have a choice.


P.S. If you want for Core reps to cycle faster - fit nanobot accelerator rig instead of nano pump.

The reason the large core line is good is because if you’re using 800s you can double rep no matter how much neut pressure you’re under. I would prefer that instead of a stat buff the core line just dropped more frequently making the price go down.

To the people saying the core is more cap stable, it is not. It uses the same amount of energy to produce the same amount of armor. The fact that you might have to skip a cycle on the corp does not make it less cap stable if they’re providing the same resulted HP.

Well with this proposal, the rep cost would be the same, just faster cycling. The maximum HP/s would still be lower than the cent so if you want maximum tank you need the cent(or corp but they are the same).

I personally use core, but it’s only because it’s cheaper when I know it’s enough tank. if centum was cheaper I would use centum 100%.

I did not know of this specific use of the core.

dude you are out of topic. Go drunk, you’re home. I can fit a nanobot on the cent too. and with a nanobot, the cent is just better than the core.

The problem is by reducing cycle time you’re essentially merging the two flavors into the same thing. If the corp and core had the same hp/s and gj/armor ratio that would be boring. Instead of the hp/s maybe the core line could do something more to it’s current strengths, like further reduced fitting for example

Also lmfao thank you for saying that regarding the nano comment. Beat me to it. No offense steak :smile:


this. A compact+enduring deadspace repper.

Yeah that’s another possibility. But I was thinking about that for a difference between cent and corp :stuck_out_tongue:

Please note that my proposal does not make the core as good as the cent. This would require -10% on the cycle duration, and I chose lower values for this reason (because I think having faster cycles is actually an interesting “line” feature and does not require much balance).

What if the core line repped immediately like a shield booster? :slight_smile:

Regarding the duration thing, why not go to an extreme? How about half the armor and half the duration and cap usage. That would make it stand out a lot more I think.

Sorry I’ve entered fantasy retard world.

Cent can be made easier on PG,
Corp - on CPU,
Core on both + easier cap, but less HP/s.

But then we are back to square one because fits are usually short on one or the other and seldom both.

I think it would make them overpowered. to the point everybody would use them.

yeah but then we need to be careful because that’s already the step from faction to c-type, eg medium :
PWR goes from 120 to 132 (+12)
CPU goes from21 to 23 (+2)
HP/GJ goes from 2.3 to 2.53

The pwr increase present again when going to b-type but not the CPU

Maybe we could have something similar to invulns : gistum A-type is as good as pithum b-type in terms of resists, but consumes 1 more CPU to trade for the decreased -10% cap cost.

Not sure what is balanced here :stuck_out_tongue:

Just use implants.