Why is the Repair Systems skill a two-edged sword?

I just want to see the fit of the ship that goes cap unstable when someone goes from Repair 4 to Repair 5.

And if the ship was that close to cap-unstable, how did this person survive neuting rats?

:roll_eyes: Where did I say GJ/cycle? Just blatantly strawmanning right out the gate.

PER CYCLE only matters if you are taking less damage than HP/s recovered, and you can afford to turn the repper off periodically. I can imagine you giving commentary at the Alliance Tourney and recommending a primaried target taking more damage than they are able to repair to turn their reps off to conserve cap. Again, you completely ignore the scenario presented and the actual points being made, instead arguing against your own imagined strawman narrative.

You can’t make this stuff up. You’ve got to be trolling, right? The fact that you are intentionally not addressing the scenario, but instead making a generalized “easy mode” statement tells me you fully understand you’re full of it. Another L for you.

Thank you. Next.

Level 1: Less reps per/s but for longer time. Infinitely in a surplus situation.
Level 5: More rep/s, but for less time. Not infinite.

A small armor repairer at level 5 is not some over the top drastic improvement over Level 1. With an enduring module the difference is only 3.7 HP/s. Something like 6 HP/s damage over the level 1 skill is not going to be negated by the level 5 skill. At both levels incoming DPS is greater. The problem lies in the capacitor. If keeping the rep running at level 1 is slow enough cap drain to last to a point where you can remove enough DPS to recover, it can outperform level 5. If the capacitor is emptied due to 59s less cap time, the extra HP/s of Level 5 doesn’t matter as you have zero reps once it fails. You’re not going to be able to recover those lost HPs. When you turn it off you’ll loss HPs faster for the missed cycle and you will not be able to recover them under a HP/s deficit. The idea that it’s humanly possible to pulse the module as to precisely match the level 1 GJ/s is ludicrous. Any such attempt will lead to sub level 1 performance.

It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

If you think it’s okay that in some niche situation level 1 would work out better, that’s cool. I personally happen to think this should never be the case in a skill you have to invest into and if you disagree or simply don’t care that’s your prerogative. But to say that it’s impossible for a level 1 to ever be a better option than level 5 is another story.

No, i’m not ignoring it, i’m pointing out that its actually a non-issue

If your rep at level 1 is able to keep up with the damage then a rep at level 5 can afford to skip a cycle as its repping faster, and if your plan is to be cap stable then thats a fitting issue and you need to improve all your skills or change the fit

Again, you’re literally the first person in 2 decades to think this is a problem

So, you turn the rep off for a cycle, like a normal player


We’ve asked, repeatedly for the ship fit and the mission/anom he’s referring to, he just attacks you and makes ridiculous accusations of logical fallacies.

Stop feeding the troll.

1 Like

Wait until he discovers thermodynamics…


Dude, you need to spend your time elsewhere; you don’t have enough intellectual capacity to maintain this atrociously inept argument while accomplishing anything meaningful in your own life.

In all sincerity you have got to stop, for your own health. At this point these are the ramblings of a complete lunatic

smile, nod, slowly back away…

1 Like

That’s trained to level 3. Although I’m not sure how overheating helps if the subject revolves around longevity in a fight.

Please try to catch up, dear.

Let’s make a deal. When you can demonstrate you can actually comprehend the point being made I’ll share the fit with you. The fit ultimately does not matter. It’s completely irrelevant. If I tell you the fit with your current strawman mindset you’re just going to ignore the point and start talking about fitting options again.

What time would that be? I literally visit this forum once a day. My “argument” is so inept that you are completely inept at formulating any kind of cogent counter point. At least it’s clears you know when you’re beat. Still hilarious that you put on airs while running away tail betwixt your legs incapable fo refuting me. Cry more.

And yet, here you are in the loony bin. I guess you’ve earned two L’s. One for being the loser and the other for being a loon according to your own thought process. But, please, go on begging me to stop handing you your arses. You’re in my thread. Don’t like it? Leave.

Oh, right. Your fragile ego can’t walk away. A complete glutton for punishment.

A preference is a statement of opinion - not fact.
Very different things.

–Helpful Gadget


Using less power is objectively better than using more. Fact.

–Helpful Murasame

“Better” the the comparative form of “good”, which is a statement of opinion - not fact.

–Schoolmarm Gadget

“Better” is synonymous with “superior”. Relevant definitions include:

: more advantageous or effective

: improved in accuracy or performance

Again, the use of less GJ/s is better than the use of more. Objectively so. As I’m sure you are fully aware. Not an opinionated take.

–Intellectually Honest Murasame

Again, Better is a statement of opinion - not fact.

100 miles per gallon for a car is more efficient than 2 miles per gallon.
That’s measurable - and “efficient” has a specific definition, so this would be a factual statement.

However, while it’s most likely BETTER for the driver, it’s most likely NOT BETTER for the gas seller.
One’s view of the specific measurement being better or worse for their purposes is opinion of the observer.

–Buy GadgetCorp Gas

It depends on what you’re addressing as being better. It can be a statement of opinion depending on how it’s used. Unfortunately for your argument, we’re not talking about gas mileage nor its effects on buyers vs. sellers.

“Objectively better” is NOT a statement of opinion. The adverb “objective” is an important element you leave out. That less GJ/s used is objectively better than more GJ/s used in EVE Online is empirical fact. Flawed semantical arguments will not save you.

–Empirically Factual Murasame

Modifiers do not change an opinion into a fact.
It’s that simple.

“More efficient” would have been a more appropriate word choice and measurable - and therefore capable of being a factual statement.

Better is still a matter of opinion, because I WANT you to have a less efficient system. You’ll need to buy another when you get it exploded… This is ‘objectively better’ for everyone involved.

–Buy GadgetCorp Armor Repairers


No, they don’t. Especially when you intentionally misuse words. But an opinion is an opinion, and a fact is a fact. And the fact that less GJ/s being used, in and of itself, is objectively better (or “more efficient” as you’d say) than using more GJ/s was never an opinion. It is empirically factual. Your empty assertion that a fact is an opinion does not change that fact into an opinion. It’s that simple.

The very notion that “better” inherently denotes an opinion is a false premise right out of the gate. Let’s look at the definition of “better” again, since you missed it the first time, and consider the context.

Better (1) : more advantageous or effective

Better (2) : improved in accuracy or performance

Neither of these definitions denote an inherent personal bias (i.e. opinion). Especially in regard to capacitor usage in EVE Online. Let’s throw in a new one.

Obectively : in an objective rather than subjective or biased way : with a basis in observable facts rather than feelings or opinions

Something being “objectively better”, means it is factually observable to be more effective or perform better.

If you disagree, I will need you to explain how requiring less GJ/s is not objectively better than requiring more. Explain how that statement is an opinion. Give an example in the context of the actual subject matter as opposed to random unrelated topics, which is simply intellectually dishonest on your part.

Better is a matter of opinion only when used to state an opinion. It’s not some universal truth. I can actually explain how a person having their ships explode a lot is not objectively better for them. In fact, you can do that yourself. You already have in your own head. That’s the whole point of you misusing the phrase in hopes of making some point. However, what you continue to avoid is providing an example of requiring less GJ/s, in and of itself, being inferior to requiring more – in EVE Online.

It would be like me taking the sentence, “Peter Dinklage is objectively taller than a Slinky”, and using that statement to claim another statement, “The Burj Khalifa is objectively taller than the Washington Monument” is a matter of situational subjectivity. The intentional misuse of the word “objectively” in the first statement does not negate the factualness of the second.

–Truthteller Murasame

How is this thread still going?

*also side note.
Love the statement made by Wesfahrn
“A battleship should be able to tank at least 3 destroyers fitted for maximum dps but it cant even tank 1.”
By far the smoothest smoothbrain take ive seen in a looong time.

Thanks for the entertainment :slight_smile:



–Gadget doesn’t have time for the rest of your screed today - we can play tomorrow

This is absolutely a matter of opinion.
In my opinion, repairing more ehp/ second is better than repairing less.

  • buy meph’corp a-type reppers