All that aside I do wish the hulk had actually been left alone base HP wise and the focus shifted abit to just enhancing fittings. would be much more interesting IMHO.

Yep grab the tear bucket & start collectingthe delicious lazy gankers tears lil' piggies

any plans for goons to raise rewards for hulkageddon in order to somewhat bankroll bigger ships to continue ganking miners?

Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).

i nearly took you seriously until you said miners could be afk for hours demonstrating you've never mined for more than 5 mins in your entire life.

and you still can't go afk for hours because asteroids will pop after about 6 mins. less if you're not using a hulk.

After the changes, mining profitability will drop off a cliff because the only people doing it will be those asleep at the keyboard or whose cats are playing for them.

the fact still remains; mineral prices will be going down.

Good stuff. Soundwave should try and absorb what I have to say.

the problem is, you can't have belt rats that will 1shot new players. in terms of belt rats even the regular mining barges with no tank at all are overtanked for high sec belt rats. a flight of light drones will take out the high sec belt rats in a single volley, maybe two depending on your drone skills. however with rats not spawning in 1.0 systems i guess we could justify throwing battleship rats in to high sec.

really? i guess it has been a while since i've been mining in a retriever in high sec; still my drone skills aren't any thing special and 0.7 space rats pop within 2 volleys. it's about what, 9 days training for 5x t2 light drones? and up to 14 days if you add drone interfacing IV to that. i'm sure new players can tolerate mining in 1.0 systems for 2 weeks. it's skills they want anyway.

not to mention the lucrative ores (atm, scordite) can be found in 0.7 systems which have laughable rats.

1day 17hours to get in to an osprey (give or take if you're not caldari) that'll have more durability than a frigate. also we've no idea how durable the new mining frigate will be. again; the real issue here is that exhumers must be able to tank belt rats in 0.0 which means a triple bs spawn which in turn is just pure overkill for high sec belts.

however i see no reason why we shouldn't put battleships in high sec ice belts; nothing less than a mining barge can mine in those belts anyway.

AND NOW

You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.

and it's not wrong that a 3m ship can take down a 250m ship in a matter of seconds? i have no issue with a 3m ship taking down a 250m ship, i just have an issue with it happening in seconds.

that assumes the destroyer doesn't get it's ass handed to it by a ship that can shoot back; miners don't have that option. combat ships don't *have* to fit tanks to win fights, barges do since we have no control over our "guns" (concord).

if you're turning your ship in to a tank it defeats the purpose of the ship to begin with. you may as well be mining in a battleship which ccp obviously think is ******** due to the fact that they then introduced dedicated mining ships.

no. however the point of it is that you're effectively mining in a battleship, which is not what ccp want as evident by the fact that when that was the only option they introduced ships that were dedicated to mining. however then we come to the issue that i just put in my other post in order to tank rat spawns you need deadspace modules etc

the tank buff was inevitable. have they gone too far with the skiff? yeah probably, however in their current state their tank is just bad.

yeah, you do. you can't be cap stable without a deadspace/faction booster.

self entitlement? how? all i said was it's not what ccp want you to do, and i've stated why it's obvious ccp don't want you to do that.

nor suicide gankers.

nor suicide gankers.

[quote=Tyrton]You spend time repeating the same boring 3 points

So here we are with an exhumer that can field a 100k EHP tank yet still get 5/6th the yield of a Hulk. For the tank & capacity roles, I'd have expected 1/2 the yield of a Hulk (through a cycle bonus on strip miners and ice harvesters), and I'd have expected the Hulk to receive a slight decrease in EHP to compensate for its extremely high yield.

actually it's more than that, iirc you can only fit 2x mlu IIs on a covetor with an implant.

yeah but the fact you can't fit the 2nd mlu means the difference between the two ships is greater than 15%.

Currently, on SISI, a completely untanked hulk has 12k EHP. Considering the vast majority will more then likely still fit max yield/no tank, I would say they will still be gankable. I'm not a professional ganker though, so I don't know.

Edit - Sorry, I had low-grade slaves plugged in when I got that number, so it would actually less EHP.

Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.

As a Ice miner I welcome the update, as finally CCP recognizes you should have some ability to not instantly die the minute anything shoots you.

All I see is miles upon miles of butthurt, with no end in sight.

the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter?

Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).

no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship.

that's not really the issue that a small ship can kill a big ship. that's fine. a small ship killing a bigger ship so quickly is the issue, to be honest.

if you're time limited; bring bigger guns.
personally i don't think it's unreasonable for a hulk to be able to tank a ship worth more than it's module drops until concord arrives without giving up anything. being able to tank a ship of equal value until concord arrives without fitting for it would mean the ehp buff has gone too far.

obviously you may feel differently to me about that.

no, you fit your ship to do missions as efficiently as possible. that's the same thing as fitting to mine as efficiently as possible.

i have no problem with hulkaggedon, if you want to gank me i think you're perfectly entitled to do so; provided you actually have to put some effort in to it and not just use ships costing less than the contents of my jetcan. the tears from the gankers about this buff is the fact that they're no longer able to do it in throwaway ships and have to put some kind of investment in to ******* up some one's day. hard life isn't it?

if you're time limited; bring bigger guns.

yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok.

ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.

a ship destroying another ship who's modules are worth more than the ganker's ship in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced?

ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.

ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.

oh look; another person that doesn't understand it has nothing to do with cargo.

ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.

it has nothing to do with cargo

neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does.

really? because ganking a 17k cargo space hulk for it's cargo means using a ship worth less than about 2-3m even a cheap destroyer would struggle to find profit in the dropped cargo. unless of course there was a source of income from that suicide gank other than the cargo....

the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter?

it's more to do with the fact that the hulk can't fit a tank without fitting mods that's the issue. having to tank my hulk is fine; however the hulk doesn't have the fitting requirements to do so without fitting mods.

i've never had to use fitting mods to fit a combat ship, ever. combat ships have the power grid and cpu to fill all their mid and low slots without fitting mods, why should a hulk be forced to use fitting mods to fill all the slots on the ship?

Incorrect.

don't try and argue the point with them, they just keep coming up with the same crap.

so whats the price of a skiff nowadays?

i wanna make a fleet of battle skiffs... (maybe for null sec bait ship)

can someone punch this into EFT and let me know its stats?


low:
dcu II
nano II

mids:
1 mwd
1 long point
1 shield extender
1 invul

highs:
1 nuet

5 warrior II

the link does not work...

fit doesn't work with t2 high slots.

and which of your fleet doctrines use t1 guns because of fitting requirements?
sacrificing ihus for tank isn't a problem, high slots really should not be subject to the same absurdity because i'll wager the answer to my above question is none. (yes you may have alternative t1 fittings for low sp players, that's not the same thing though)

i'll stop making dumb comparisons when you stop posting dumb fits.

no, because it doesn't even attempt to have a half decent yield let alone a max yield. ****, i'm somewhat surprised that it actually had both harvesters.

no, what you presented wasn't a choice, it was pretty much evidence if you want a tank you sacrifice the entire purpose of the ship.

let's go back to the mwd drake, to get it cap stable do you give up t2 launchers? no, you don't because it's a combat ship who's most valuable assets are it's guns.

on a similar note, to tank a mining ship you wouldn't give up your t2 ice harvesters, you'd give up the ihus like the drake would downsize to meta 4 shield extenders if it was a fitting issue, or you'd drop a ballistic control unit for a capacitor thing if you were lacking cap stability.

it wouldn't be acceptable for a combat ship to lose it's t2 guns, so why should it be acceptable for a mining ship to lose it's t2 high slots?

much better, perfectly acceptable fitting. there's no way 2k ehp is worth downsizing to t1 harvesters.

edit: now how about one for some one that doesn't have 4 accounts for boosters?

except there are very few people in null that give a flying **** about industry

True, only a measly 70% of the price of a Hulk is from Technetium

All we are going to get out of this are fleets of untouchable mining bots and a massive market crash in low end ore just when it became worth mining.

with crimewatch, ganking idiots who officer fit their mission ships and carry 20 plexes in shuttles will mean that your mule alt will have to deal with being shot at by dudes with neutral logis that you can't shoot at

and you can't really kill that proteus yourself because, well, it's basically you vs everyone in hisec, and his RR alt that you can't shoot will keep him from dying

this guy gets it

who cares if trit is 1isk/unit? that means ships will be pocket change, you'll mine for the same amount of time to buy the same amount of stuff. in real terms nothing has changed.

tech is being nerfed too so prices will still come down. i have no idea how long the tech cartel has around, but a year ago trit was half of what it is now, so were hulk prices, they've both gone up at similar rates.

don't forget if people don't have isk to spend, demand goes down, as do prices. people can't spend what they don't have.

but a year ago trit was half of what it is now, so were hulk prices, they've both gone up at similar rates.

no. i'm merely justifying that the amount of time i had to mine trit at 3.4isk/unit to buy a ship then, is the same amount of time i have to mine trit at nearly 7 isk/unit to buy the same ship now.

No extra effort, just extra money.

The problem is that without the changes, the only reason Hulks were profitable to gank was the bad choices of the miners. CCP is rewarding the stupid choices of miners.

They're giving the Hulk a buff that it does not need.

i don't think soundwave was being a bit ridiculous with what he said. however i don't think he really managed to convey what he meant with such a short statement. i feel he's going to have to elaborate on it at some point [hopefully soon]. people seem to be interpreting what they want for it since it's a rather short and unsupported statement.

Or - and this is an extraordinarily insane idea that's bound to rocket my lowly forum troll to the top of nulsecs most wanted...

You could wardec them? I mean I'm sure this is part of CCP's reasoning. They spend all this time 'fixing' their wardec system for this expansion, and everyone just ignores it and suiganks. Maybe this buff is CCP's way of telling us that if you want to prey on poor helpless miners you have to expose yourself to risk first?

This reply isn't directed at you Dez, but you had I nice segway for my post...

So.

Would give a bit more meaning to where you mine sec wise, even in high sec. As long as it stated it right on the mining laser so miners would read it, look at their 0.9 system and go, "Aww.... maybe I should look into low/null/unknown space for really good yield.."

stop conveying half a story; gankers complained about the ehp, miners complained about crystal sizes.

BOTH concerns have been addressed. both voices have been listened to.

i'm hoping he means it's broken for the fact that in high sec you're able to ruin some one's day; but it should cost you something. as it stands when a catalyst ganks a hulk they can recover the cost of such a cheap ship from the hulk's wreckage and the ganker hasn't paid a thing to wreck the miner's day.

i think people need to also understand the subtle difference of "i will gain from this gank, no matter what. his wreckage is worth more than my ship" rather than "i will gain from this gank, that moron thinks carrying plex in a shuttle is a good idea".
the key difference is the fact that it's only a profitable venture to gank the shuttle because it has a plex, not because it's a shuttle.

Mimimimimi......check out on Sisi rigth now, seems CCP has listened to your whinning thread Herr Wilkus......they lowred the stats from the Miningships down again to something more fitting your needs beeing able to easy gank them.

So again the loudest vocal whiner voices from the PvP fraction have won again......Shame on you CCP.

armour, shield and hull hp has changed (don't have hard numbers on that)

and mining barge bonus seems to have gone from 7.5%/level to 5%/level (ship stats shows 7.5 as the bonus, but fitting window is only giving 5%)

test server values for the hulk
shield: 2530
armour: 2160
hull: 2300

live
shield: 1519
armour: 1013
hull: 2531

(don't forget to add skills like mechanic etc to those when working out your ehps etc)
sorry i don't have yesterdays sisi stats to compare with.

and then it's you mine or you tank

and this is where we go around in circles but i'll answer it; the point is you HAVE to give up your mining bonuses to fit a tank on your mining ship. your combat ships don't have to give up their damage mods; they can give up the utility mods instead.

Because at the moment you do make a profit if they dont fit a tank.

actually the mack just gets a flat 25% bonus, it's 5% per mining barge level not exhumer level and mining barge V is a pre-req so it's basically default for every mack to have the 25% bonus.

I can assure you that the stupidity of people is such that in 9 years they indeed never learn a very simply lesson. Fit a damn tank.

Hulk will be for fleet mining ops after the patch. No need to fit a tank because ships protecting those Hulks will be doing the tanking stuff.

but i'm in a fleet with my orca alt. i'm flying my hulk!

10 + medium ecm drones!

more jammy than a sticky situation in a jam factory after a jamtastic afternoon.

After the patch Hulk with two MLU's will have ~9500 EHP. You can't gank that?

that hasn't happened since the hp buffs at the start of tbc nearly half a decade ago.

you simply don't have enough combined stuns and dps to 100 -> 0 some one with the larger hp pools.
then came resilience etc...

that hasn't happened since the hp buffs at the start of tbc nearly half a decade ago.

you simply don't have enough combined stuns and dps to 100 -> 0 some one with the larger hp pools.
then came resilience etc...

a fully tanked hulk still out mines a max yield skiff, and a fully tanked hulk shouldn't die to suicide gankers unless they're packing more pewpew than they are now.

the ret will be gank fodder, but as a t1 barge that's to be expected. it costs pocket change, for that kind of cheapness you're not going to get a gank resistant barge, that's the purpose of exhumers.

very pretty, but you know what i meant. it's role isn't to be a tanky ship and as such it's paper thin unlike an exhumer.

agreed i was disappointed when it vanished, it seemed appropriate for a ship that promotes survivability.

and now a fit that can actually mine. forgot how much cpu a cyno takes but is there enough cpu left for 2 strips? (t2 strips)

check the requirements, check the remaining cpu once the cyno is off and do the maths. i trust you to add up properly.

There appears to have been a sharp reversal in trends here. Now, with CCP announcing that it is actually going to do something about the mining problem (which makes perfect sense, considering their shift towards minerals coming mainly from mining and not other sources, e.g: gun mining), there are far less threads from miners "whining" about being ganked, and then being trolled and heckled by gankers, and a proportionately larger number of threads from gankers "whining" about not being able to gank, and being trolled and heckled by miners, carebears, and people with sense.

The HS gankers include a large portion of low sec folks, null sec folks, and HS folks. Remember, a lot of gankers are alts.

Fit a 100k EHP tank skiff on test server
tbh I preferred the mercoxit bonus

Everyone in this thread, because...

The people who aren't aware of the patch notes/dev blogs will rage-post on the 8th about how the patch introduced a bug that reduced their Mack's ice mining bonus from 100% to 1%.

The shiptoasting will be epic that day.

So who won?

ergh yeah, he was calling it a bug even after repeatedly being told to read the ship's description.

CCP have rolled back the HP buff to something far better. Before the latest change there was no point in getting a skiff because the two other exhumers could tank far too much. Now the skiff has a roll to fill and miners will continue to require to fit a tank of they will be a tempting target for a ganker.

The t1 barges are all in good shape too as they can now fit a good tank.

tldr;
GÇótech 1 barges now only require Astrogeology III and Mining Barge I
GÇóCovetor and Hulk lose -500hp from shield, armour and structure (about 20% less effective HP than last build)
GÇóHulk gets increased yield; one of the +3% bonuses gets buffed to +5%/level
GÇóProcurer gets a massive 4 mid slots (+3 from last build) making it quite tough
GÇóRetriever ore hold goes from 30k to 28k, but more forgiving of those with low barge piloting skills
GÇóExhumer shields reset to t1 resists + 5% per level (I think GÇô hard to read diffs sometimes)
GÇóMining crystals reduced to half the volume (inb4 mineral compressionGǪ.)

Yeah the "discussion" in the feedback forum is going strong.

I don't get why a T2 ship should get T1 resists plus something. T2 ships are meant to get T2 resists else they should drop the cost from 250M to 25M and be T1.

You should try flying a current retriever in a low SP character. Triple 0.6 sec frigs seriously risk to kill you - even shield repairing - before you warp away.

You know, the game as also to cater to those so despised and spat in face newbies.

go to 0.7 and nor does the current one.

Blah those are optional extras.

That's one thing I don't quite get, that mining ships are pretty near the only ships not expected to use modules that enhance their primary function to be viable.

your impel is the higest cargo space dst anyway.

Ganking for profit lets see how that works, you have one ship topped out at 120 mil taking down a ship valued at 280 mil. The gank pilot makes a profit the miner loses. It goes beyond that though right? The gank toon grabs another nado and repeats the process, meanwhile that miner that just got ganked is busy grinding to replace his ****. Ok, fine he got ganked, miners arent bitching that they are getting ganked, they are bitching because the gankers lose such a small amount compared to the miner himself.

Granted, this is eve and dark bullshit is everywhere. However, with changes to barges it will take at least 2 nados if not 3 to drop a barge. Even at 3 that puts ship cost at 270 mil for a 280 mil ship. Sounds like a fair deal to me. High sec isnt a pretty playland where you can comb each other's hair, you can STILL be ganked, its just going to cost you just as much as your costing the miner. If you want to be a pirate try your luck in low sec. In a logical sense, why is it so damn important to gank miners for profit?

your analogies are wrong because neither of those things happen in 30 seconds.

i lack the care to keep arguing the point, especially when you're comparing an extremely rare out of game situation to a common in game situation.

the simple fact is destroyers are intended to kill frigates that quickly, not cruiser + sized ships that quickly. mining ships can't shoot back and have to give up pretty much everything possible in order to fit a tank. no other ship has to give up so much just so they can be used.

if people can't see why that's an issue that does need addressing then *shrug* i don't know.

the simple fact is destroyers are intended to kill frigates that quickly, not cruiser + sized ships that quickly. mining ships can't shoot back and have to give up pretty much everything possible in order to fit a tank. no other ship has to give up so much just so they can be used.

*shrug* i don't know.

no, they won't do 500 dps to both targets because the ships will have different resistances.

not to mention the faction battleship can ignore the catalyst because it has enough ehp that concord will be there before the catalyst can even get through it's shield.

there is nothing to be proud of when you CANNOT something. Only ability to do something makes you respected by others.

Ever heard of "more dps in groups"?

no, they won't do 500 dps to both targets because the ships will have different resistances.

not to mention the faction battleship can ignore the catalyst because it has enough ehp that concord will be there before the catalyst can even get through it's shield.

and when do other ships have to sacrifice ALL of their med and low slots to fit a tank? why do people have a hard time grasping this?

to fit a tank to a hulk you have to give up all of your non-high slots. you either end up relying on hull buffer with a damage control, or you have to give up a low for a power core thingy to fit a substantial shield tank.

a drake can easily get a substantial tank and still fit a rack of ballistic controls. a hulk can't fit a shield tank and even half the amount of mining upgrades a drake could fit in ballistic controls.

some thing needs to change whether it's a straight up ehp buff or a fitting upgrade. the current "tank your exhumer" thing is complete bullshit.

and when do other ships have to sacrifice ALL of their med and low slots to fit a tank? why do people have a hard time grasping this?

once you fit a t2 invuln and passive em hardener you're out of cpu with 2 spare mids.

good point; forgot about those rigs.
and now we have to give up a rig slot to mine ice the ehp buffs are totally justified.

just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank.

just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank.

That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw.

Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.

except it can't without both rigs, which is exactly the point. when mining ice you can't fit the tank.

just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank.

i don't want the best safety; i just want to be able to fit a tank without having empty slots because there's not enough cpu on the ship.

i love my drake and it fits 4 bcus and a full tank, that's 4 damage mods. mining barges can't even fit less than that and have a decent tank. do you really not see the issue?

if they are only for mining and not combat, why can people shoot at them and engage them in combat? outrageous statements on both sides.

i don't want max yield and a good tank; i want max yield and be able to fill all the slots. i know as soon as i drop the mlus i can fit bulkheads and damage control and have the best tank. by having mlus you're already trading dcu and bulkheads, why should i be further penalised by not being able to fill my mid slots?
again; i can fit a drake with a good tank and max damage is it really that absurd that miners should be able to fit max yield and a good tank? **** i think i can even squeeze a utility [prop mod, painter, scram whatever] mod on to my drake too with that setup. so saying no other ship can do it it is utter crap, the drake quite adequately does it.

nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly balanced.

Yes I'll get friends to waste their day continuously emptying the minuscule hold for me and one of them will sit in a corner like a waiter for my gracious new crystals order. Read above, min maxed things need to be streamlined else they lose much of their viability in useless micromanagement (because it does not require any skill, it's just imposed burden).

i've said it before and i'll say it again; if you want to go afk do other things, fly a mackinaw not a hulk.

Why more than 1? It's meant to run with hauler support. Either have it in the belt with you or accept the risk that comes with jet cans.

Really hope your joking on the 350m3 cargo hold thats smaller than a SBs cargo hold, think CCP needs to add a specialty crystal hold in that case on the hulks for holding crystals.

and which other subcap needs 2 accounts to work properly?
in fact; think of it as rhetoric i don't want your answer. it'll just be stupid.

defeats the entire purpose of the ship's role. if i wanted to warp back and forth i'd get in a mackinaw and just go afk. until my 30 min alarm goes off.

defeats the entire purpose of the ship's role. if i wanted to warp back and forth i'd get in a mackinaw and just go afk. until my 30 min alarm goes off.

infact, if the 3% -> 5% yield modifier happens then i might actually accept this almost stupid answer because it'd be an absolute mining behemoth and the yield bonus would make up for the inconvenience.

exactly there's a ship to let you go afk. the mackinaw is that ship not the hulk. deal with it.

I totally disagree. The Hulk cannot be efficient if its fleet depenency is hardwired into 3rd party providing such efficiency.
Hulk should and has to rely on fleet because of limited cargo hold and thin hull already.

Try making Hulk efficient when mission mining, let's see how fast that Orca will get to give him the crystals at the 3rd pocket, 80km off the warp in point.

it hasn't been redesigned at all. all they've done is created a crystal issue, lowered the resist bonus and gone "there we go". it has been given no bonuses for being in a fleet what so ever.

in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner?
that's the bonus it previously had.

you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet]

you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet]

you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet]

even if you don't need a full set, you can't get a half set in with the current cargo capacity. that's the thing, if we revert back to the old 500m3 cargo bay iirc we still can't fit a full set of crystals however; we can fit enough sets of crystals that there's a wide enough range of crystals for it not to be an issue.

Certainly being able to bring 4 sets of cystals instead of 3 is absolutely as game breaking as T20 or subcap killer fitted Titans.

I mean, look at the opposition, you'll find less opposition at making drugs legal.

it's not a 20% increase, at the moment.

hulk bonuses are unchanged so (so it's mining yield is unchanged) so we can figure out all the mining rates relative to a hulk

these calculations are based on Exhumers V/Barge V char, for mining rock not ice - this is without MLUs


Ship - Strips * modifiers = effective # of strip mining modules

Hulk - 3 strips * 1.15 (barge V) * 1.15 (exhumers V) = 3.9675
Mackinaw - 2 strips * 1.50 (role bonus) * 1.05 (exhumers V) = 3.15
Skiff - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) * 1.05 = 3.15

Covetor - 3 strips * 1.2 (barge V) = 3.6
Retriever - 2 strips * 1.5 (role bonus) = 3 strips
Procurer - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) = 3 strips


or % relative to a hulk

Mackinaw: 79.4%
Skiff: 79.4%

Covetor: 90.7%
Retriever: 75.6%
Procurer: 75.6%

mining, it's as important as goons exploiting faction warfare.

where do you think minerals come from?

no it isn't. that's the issue.