Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Darin Raltin
404 Ship Not Found Violent Declaration
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:40:50 -
[1] - Quote
Tl;dr; an objective review of the mackinaw shows it is not worth skilling for compared to a retriever for ore. In the authors opinion, I would never buy a Mackinaw and would never choose to train Exhumers solely to fly one.
First, this post is just going to compare the t1 mining barge with the t2 exhumer. No comments are being made about isk/hour, the value or fun of mining, survivability, etc. Strictly just answering the question "I have a barge, should I upgrade to an exhumer?"
The two ships
Retriever - Active aligned, at the computer, max yield
Role: Maximize your yield, who cares about tank because you're dead anyway, GTFO. Caveat: It uses the drone bay for mining drones. You'll need to kill rats with one of your other mining alts.
[Retriever, LS Mining - T2] Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II
Survey Scanner II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Medium Higgs Anchor I Medium Drone Mining Augmentor II Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Mining Drone II x5
Yield - 1536 Ore Bay - 27,500 EHP - Meh, it's dead anyway
Mackinaw - Active aligned, at the computer, max yield
[Mackinaw, LS Mining] Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II
Survey Scanner II EM Ward Amplifier II [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Medium Drone Mining Augmentor II Medium Higgs Anchor I
Mining Drone II x5 Hobgoblin II x5
Yield - 1667 Ore Bay - 35,000 EHP - Meh
Retriever - 1536 Mackinaw - 1667
An +8.5% yield, 25m3 drone bay, mid slots it doesn't have enough CPU to use, and 7,500 ore bay (27% better) for the trouble of training Exhumers V (1,280,000 SP) and an extra 160-170 million isk.
Is that suitable compensation - incentive - for flying the ship? I can buy a 5% mining implant for 120 million to close most of that gap on a retriever. The best benefit of flying a mackinaw has nothing to do with mining, but drones - being able to use mining and combat drones.
Let's look at the other ships. I'm not listing the fits to save space, but you can infer what I did form the comments.
Skiff (tank, dc2, drones, extender rigs)
Yield - 1513 EHP - 93,000
Procurer
Yield - 1392 EHP - 56,000
Hulk (max yield, drone rigs, what tank?)
Yield - 2122
Covetor
Yield - 1744
The snap conclusions I can make is that the Skiff and Hulk compensate their pilots for flying them. The skiff tanks a lot more and has the drone bay to fit ECMs, Mediums, and Mining to further complement the combat ability. The hulk pulls 22% more than the covetor, which is consistent (literally) with eve's 80 / 20 balancing between the tiers and SP investment.
So, where does this leave the Mackinaw? The only thing I'm getting that a retriever cant do is 7500 ore bay and a fleet of light drones. That's an extra couple of minutes at the belt mining ore and ice. Just a couple. Objectively, I don't think that is worth it.
Proposed solution
1) Add an extra 80-100 CPU so I can actually use my mid slots. If I give up yield to fit the slots, then a skiff out mines the mackinaw and those two ships have their yield equalized between each other.
2) Increase the cargo bay from 35,000 to 45,000. It's supposed to be a ship that sacrifices tank for cargo hold, so widen the gap between the retriever and mackinaw.
3) Alternatively, nerf the retriever to a 20,000 ore bay and give it a 50m3 drone bay like the other barges. Preserves the balance between the exhumers and increase the value of the Mackinaws 35,000 bay.
Thoughts? |
Paranoid Loyd
4037
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:43:51 -
[2] - Quote
No it doesn't, if it's not worth it to you then don't use it. The mining ships are very well balanced right now.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Darin Raltin
404 Ship Not Found Violent Declaration
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:45:16 -
[3] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:No it doesn't, if it's not worth it to you then don't use it. The mining ships are very well balanced right now.
Thanks for reading the subject and nothing else. |
Promiscuous Medusa
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:48:38 -
[4] - Quote
What if someone wanted to passivly tank belt rats in 0.0?
Or murder for a lolsy KM? |
Paranoid Loyd
4037
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:48:39 -
[5] - Quote
The main advantage of a Mack is it's ore hold, the increase is in line with your 80/20 statement, just because that is not good enough in your eyes doesn't mean it's not balanced.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
64
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:50:35 -
[6] - Quote
Define "active align" for me. Is there some form of being aligned I'm not aware of?
I'm peeing in the pod of anyone that says " passive align." |
Darin Raltin
404 Ship Not Found Violent Declaration
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:The main advantage of a Mack is it's ore hold, the increase is in line with your 80/20 statement, just because that is not good enough in your eyes doesn't mean it's not balanced.
Thank you for elaborating, certainly a valid opinion. You are correct that I do not value the 7,500 m3 increase from the retriever. |
Darin Raltin
404 Ship Not Found Violent Declaration
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 00:53:04 -
[8] - Quote
Yazzinra wrote:Define "active align" for me. Is there some form of being aligned I'm not aware of?
I'm peeing in the pod of anyone that says " passive align."
With a higgs anchor, the mackinaw moves 28 m/s. I was implying that the ships "tank" is taking advantage of the slow speed, a higgs anchor, and aligning. The word 'active' was redundant, but I wanted to imply that this ship wasn't AFK. |
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
442
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:30:19 -
[9] - Quote
Darin Raltin wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:The main advantage of a Mack is it's ore hold, the increase is in line with your 80/20 statement, just because that is not good enough in your eyes doesn't mean it's not balanced. Thank you for elaborating, certainly a valid opinion. You are correct that I do not value the 7,500 m3 increase from the retriever. It can fit more tank too. You need a small gang to kill a fully tanked Mack in a 0.7
~ Bookmarks in overview
~ Fleet improvements
|
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:35:32 -
[10] - Quote
No it does not need a change mining barges are one of the best balanced parts of eve right now.
-1 |
|
Kiddoomer
ScrewWork Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:13:34 -
[11] - Quote
A mackinaw, as long as it mines while aligned with a anchor riggs, is valid for both high and null sec to me. In highsec I just use passive shield amplifier (TH and KIN for void), and in nullsec a gistum-c medium shield booster to be able to tank rats, and only use combat and ecm drones.
Of course it's a very expensive ship for "just" a larger ore hold, but for solo mining this is a beast
A simple survey scanner proposal : post
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1464
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:25:48 -
[12] - Quote
At current prices, when you objectively look at the benefit provided by Exhumers over Mining Barges compared to their cost, none of them are really worth it. When you factor in extra ore mined, the cost of the hull, and, more importantly, the cost of replacing lost hulls, the math just doesn't add up unless you can somehow mine in 100% safety. The Mackinaw is not alone in this regard.
I feel that the barges are reasonably well balanced ATM, although the Procurer/Skiff could both do with a slight nerf to their ore hold to bring them more in line with the Covetor/Hulk.
My Many Misadventures
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I seek to create content, not become content.
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
217
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:33:04 -
[13] - Quote
Darin Raltin wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:The main advantage of a Mack is it's ore hold, the increase is in line with your 80/20 statement, just because that is not good enough in your eyes doesn't mean it's not balanced. Thank you for elaborating, certainly a valid opinion. You are correct that I do not value the 7,500 m3 increase from the retriever.
yeah the mack should have a little more than 100m3 difference in boost. and to the passive align reference, a passive align is you are pointed to a station (or other warp point) with engines off an active align is you have engines on and moving in the direction of a warp point. Actives aligns are annoying with out the Higgs, which hasn't existed for years and now we have it.
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2315
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 15:35:39 -
[14] - Quote
You can tank a gank in a mack whilst pulling in more yield than a rettie and with fewer trips to station than a skiff.
TL:DR: You're doing it wrong.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi
1280
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 16:32:28 -
[15] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:You can tank a gank in a mack whilst pulling in more yield than a rettie and with fewer trips to station than a skiff.
TL:DR: You're doing it wrong. Absolutely agreed. A Mack can tank 2 Catalyst gankers in 0.6 systems if you pilot and fit them correctly and if you have proper skills.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |