If ccp's 'barge buff' goal was to kill off hulkageddon? Congrats, mission accomplished.

If ccp's goal was to balance the exhumer/barge classes? Bigtime miserable failure.

Prior to august 8, we would find a fair number of both macks and hulks.
Today mining is turning into mackinaw online.

Why? Simple.

Miners only care about three things: cargo, yield, ehp. And not equally.
After scanning thousands of hulks/macks over the years, I found:

-Cargo fits (about 60% of the time)
-yield fits (about 30% of the time)
-ehp fits (about 10% of the time)

Clearly, cargo is the most 'desirable trait'.

So, enter the august 8 mining barge fail-patch:

Each 'trait' became the specialty of a different exhumer.

Hulk = yield exhumer
mack = cargo exhumer
skiff = ehp exhumer.

Heres the problem:
when you rank each exhumer by 'trait', the imbalance becomes clear. Imagine its the olympics and gold, silver and bronze medals are awarded for each characteristic.

Cargo event, (most desired trait): mack #1, skiff #2, hulk #3
yield event, (2nd most important): hulk #1, mack #2, skiff #3
ehp event, (3rd most important): skiff #1, mack #2, hulk #3.

Mackinaw is #1, #2 and #2. (A gold and two silvers, with the gold in the most important category)
hulk is #1, #3 and #3, (a gold and two bronzes, and distant 3rds at that.)
skiff is #1, #2 and #3, (gold, silver, bronze - a nice balance if the mack wasn't 'just better')

Mackinaw clearly comes out well ahead of the other two.
Not only is it, by a large margin, the best in the most important category, its a strong second in the others. Hulks and skiffs fall by the wayside as the mackinaw becomes the obvious choice.

This same mistake is repeated in the t1 mining barges as well.

(Note to resident isd: here's where I provide a helpful solution, hopefully placing this thread outside of your ever-flexible definition of a rant)

Easiest solution?
Swap the ehp of the hulk and the mackinaw.

Each exhumer becomes: 1st in one category, 2nd in another, and 3rd in the last.
1-2-3 For each exhumer, and the goal of tiericide is achieved - 3 exhumers without a 'obvious' best choice.

While the mackinaw will still likely be the most popular (best in cargo) the imbalance would not be quite so obviously pronounced.

As a bonus, the abusive 'afk' nature of the mackinaw would be balanced by its lower ehp and vulnerability to solo ganks when failfit. Pit the natural desire to lazy-afk mine vs higher risk of getting ganked. Hulk miners earn their keep through cargo management, mackinaw miners earn it by fitting tank and watching out for danger.

Its balance 101 - class dismissed. Study harder next time, devs.

Oh, and I'll do a pre-emptive strike: am I mad? No.big smile

My personal comments to the subject:
I believe that this post has some very valid facts and the suggested swap could be something worth thinking about. At least it is definitely something worth discussing about and not something you lock as "rant".

It might contain some valid info, but not calling the above tripe for a rant is silly.

If there was some validity then please present it, in less than a wall of ranting.

Admittedly, Caps was a bad idea.

Read a lot worse "rants" to be honest.

It's blunt, but its feedback.

Actually bothered to read the tripe.

And no, it fails to contain any value at all.

Please point out one single valid point in that wall of text.

Essentially the problem is this:

Mackinaws are ranked 1-2-2 in all categories that matter, while the Hulk is 1-3-3 and the Skiff is 1-2-3.

The imbalance is further compounded by the Mack being far superior in the most important category. (cargo)

My feeling is that CCP made the mistake of thinking 'Yield' was the most desired trait in an Exhumer, when it clearly was not - and any experienced ganker could tell you that. So when they gave the Hulk the best 'yield' they thought making it the worst in the two other categories was 'balance'.

As is, Mack/Retriever is the clear winner and markets and belt populations are reflecting that.

Had the additional affect of killing Hulkageddon, because while CCP made a point of hinting, "Well, you can still kill Hulks, we only buffed them a little...."
Then, due to the above balance issues and cargo issues - almost nobody flies them anymore...

A 1-2-3 layout for each Exhumer, would go a long way to fixing the problem: (possibly, also with a slightly larger gap between Mack Yield and Skiff Yield.)

EHP: Skiff > Hulk > Mack
Cargo: Mack > Skiff > Hulk
Yield: Hulk > Mack > Skiff

This is achieved by simply switching the Armor/Shield/Hull stats of the Hulk and the Mack. Easy.

Yea I actually mined a while with hulk last week and you have to be pretty focused to keep the cargo hold from not filling up. It takes only one cycle before you have to transfer to orca/jetcan. If you accidentally forget to do this, you will lose plenty of ore when next cycles finish. This obviously is something they planned as hulk is meant to be a ship you use in fleets and with orca/roqual support.

However after said that - I too would currently choose mack even for that purpose because of bigger tank and stronger tank. The "lost" yield most likely is gained back on one "hulk cycle" where you forget to empty the ore hold.

If suggested change to tank would be made, my selection process would be more fair towards both ships again.

...so yes - I understand why people prefer to use macks over hulks now.

First off, had to remove another troll post. Please do not derail peoples threads.

It may also be worth noting that when it comes to the Hulk lacking the tank that the Mackinaw has, as Bart points out the Hulk is designed around being in a fleet, most likely a player corporation fleet. However that fleet would comprise not just Hulks and Orcas/Haulers, but also protection in the form of combat vessels.

The Mackinaw on the other hand, whilst having a larger hold, is for use by solo miners or people not in player corps. Not being in a player corp would mean that combat defence ships would be unable to come to the miners assistance, thus the requirement for a better tank.

Hulk needs to have a stronger base and potential EHP than Mackinaw. The 150m sig radius vs Mackinaw's 250m isn't guaranteed effective like EHP is.

It may also be worth noting that when it comes to the Hulk lacking the tank that the Mackinaw has, as Bart points out the Hulk is designed around being in a fleet, most likely a player corporation fleet. However that fleet would comprise not just Hulks and Orcas/Haulers, but also protection in the form of combat vessels.

The Mackinaw on the other hand, whilst having a larger hold, is for use by solo miners or people not in player corps. Not being in a player corp would mean that combat defence ships would be unable to come to the miners assistance, thus the requirement for a better tank.

It may also be worth noting that when it comes to the Hulk lacking the tank that the Mackinaw has, as Bart points out the Hulk is designed around being in a fleet, most likely a player corporation fleet. However that fleet would comprise not just Hulks and Orcas/Haulers, but also protection in the form of combat vessels.

The Mackinaw on the other hand, whilst having a larger hold, is for use by solo miners or people not in player corps. Not being in a player corp would mean that combat defence ships would be unable to come to the miners assistance, thus the requirement for a better tank.

Hulk's Exhumer skill yield bonuses need to be a tad higher. That extra training needs to mean something.

The extra micromanagement needs to mean something.

The Mackinaw hull is of finite size. That means as cargo room goes up for more ore they need to throw something else overboard, or else the poor thing would burst open. So I propose a change to its bonuses to reflect that.

For each level of the Mining Barge skill:

5% bonus to ore hold capacity
-5% malus to all shield resistances
-10% malus to shield capacity

Shield generator or cargo. Pick one.

Why? A hulk is supposed to be used i a fleet op and and with a mining director sitting in an Orca.

Which means fat EHP support unless the pilot in the Orca isn't trained as a pure donkey.

How can anyone refer to the shuffling ore once per cycle of a Hulk as micromanagement?

A Rohk with staggered Miner II and having to shovel ore every 30s seconds is bordering on micromanagement, but a Hulk with unstaggerred strippers?

Which extra training? There are no skill requirement differences between a mack and a hulk.

Which extra micromanagement? Moving the ore into the corp hangar of the orca? You're getting higher yield as it is, the minor added work over a mackinaw isn't sufficient to warrant even further yield increases.

What does Orca support have to do with EHP? I could have an off-grid T3 boosting Mackinaws instead of an aligns-like-a-bowling-ball Orca sitting in belt.

It's micromanagement. Not all micromanagement is measured in APM.

I look at the Hulk bonus and go "Oh man that extra yield is totally awesome over time!" I look at the Mack's bonus and go "Lets put that Face Melting V back in the queue." Would YOU train Exhumers V if you had no future vision to mine in regular fleet ops?

It IS significantly higher effort/yield.

It may also be worth noting that when it comes to the Hulk lacking the tank that the Mackinaw has, as Bart points out the Hulk is designed around being in a fleet, most likely a player corporation fleet. However that fleet would comprise not just Hulks and Orcas/Haulers, but also protection in the form of combat vessels.

First off, had to remove another troll post. Please do not derail peoples threads.

It may also be worth noting that when it comes to the Hulk lacking the tank that the Mackinaw has, as Bart points out the Hulk is designed around being in a fleet, most likely a player corporation fleet. However that fleet would comprise not just Hulks and Orcas/Haulers, but also protection in the form of combat vessels.

The Mackinaw on the other hand, whilst having a larger hold, is for use by solo miners or people not in player corps. Not being in a player corp would mean that combat defence ships would be unable to come to the miners assistance, thus the requirement for a better tank.

I can't believe people are still squalling about this.

CCP gives miners a superb hisec mining pimpmobile in the new Mackinaw, and they cry that their hulks are no longer king of the hill.

Trade your Hulk(s) in on Macks if you're a solo or small-gang miner. Problem solved. If you're in a fleet, continue on as normal because Hulks are still the king of yield. Mining hulls are role-based. Get used to it. It's no longer necessary to just skill into a Hulk and then use the Hulk for everything -- other ships actually have a purpose and a use-case now.

I keep several Procurers on hand to put in my Orca for on-the-spot mining opportunities during missions, and I have Retrievers salted all over the place as a low-cost way to do cheap mining ops. I have a Skiff that's saved my hide more than once in some lowsec mining scenarios. My home system's mining crew runs Macks as a rule, but on weekends when I get everyone together we run Hulks + an Orca.

...Mining hulls are role-based. Get used to it. It's no longer necessary to just skill into a Hulk and then use the Hulk for everything -- other ships actually have a purpose and a use-case now....

You utterly missed the issue here.

I don't think so. People are complaining that the Mack is OP, and encroaches on the roles laid out for the Skiff and the Hulk. I don't think that's the case -- people just can't get their heads out of the old model where the Hulk reigned supreme over everything else. Just because you can tank a Mack to a decent level doesn't make it better than a Skiff -- my adventures in lowsec convinced me of that. And just because you can out-mine Hulks in certain scenarios doesn't mean that the Mack out-yields the Hulk -- it doesn't, if the Hulk is being used in its proper role.

The problem here is not the ships. It's with the tactics of the players. Miners are notoriously lazy, hisec miners even more so. They default to the Mack because of the huge ore bay, irrespective of other factors. Should they be doing this? Probably not, if their intent is to maximize yield. But, as ever, laziness trumps all else and so the Mack becomes the default mining vessel in the same way the Hulk did before. Smart players will leverage the other hulls according to their respective strengths and prosper accordingly.

I don't think so. People are complaining that the Mack is OP, and encroaches on the roles laid out for the Skiff and the Hulk. I don't think that's the case -- people just can't get their heads out of the old model where the Hulk reigned supreme over everything else. Just because you can tank a Mack to a decent level doesn't make it better than a Skiff -- my adventures in lowsec convinced me of that. And just because you can out-mine Hulks in certain scenarios doesn't mean that the Mack out-yields the Hulk -- it doesn't, if the Hulk is being used in its proper role.

Supposing there was a future where some magic force distributed ores properly across high/low/null according to an ideal risk/reward ratio, would it matter that the Mackinaw had a bit too much tank in highsec?

Is the Skiff actually useful for its tank in low or nullsec? I heard it's common for people to just bubble gates and watch local in null. Because they can warp to safety before an attacker can reach them, they don't need extra tank and can use a Hulk. In lowsec, it seems that if you're caught in a mining ship you're dead anyway, the extra tank just holds it off a few seconds.

If that's true, the extra tank is only useful against suicide ganking in highsec. It's said that because the tank on the Mackinaw is so high, the Skiff's tank is redundant. Does this mean only someone who wants you dead will suicide gank you? If this is the only case where somone will gank you, does it really matter how high the tank is? They don't care about profit and so will bring whatever it takes to kill you, ten dessies or ten Brutixes (Brutices? w/e)

Is this why the Skiff is considered useless? Please correct me where I am wrong

Er it looks balance to me.

Cargo hold is a very silly thing to moan about.

Like complaining your Ferrari is useless as it lacks coffee cup holders.

Horses for courses.

Where's your analysis of fighting for the ore? Who gets more ore mined over time?

Not the Mack

ISK is supposed to be worth fighting over. Fight over that, not cargo!

I mine in a variety of high second systems, and the only ships I ever see mining are hulks with Orca support...or Retrievers. I've seen less then 10 Macs out mining since the rebalance.

I mine in a variety of high second systems, and the only ships I ever see mining are hulks with Orca support...or Retrievers. I've seen less then 10 Macs out mining since the rebalance.

Combat ships balance between EHP, firepower and speed.
Exhumer balance between cargospace, yield and EHP.

Cargohold is the most favored 'trait' in an Exhumer, which makes it important.
But don't take my word for it, the miners have already shown us.

I've scanned thousands of Exhumers, and other gankers can easily back this up:
In high-sec, the vast majority of Exhumers (Hulks/Macks) were cargo-fit.

Cargo fits vs Yield fits vs EHP fits were approximately 6:3:1, in my estimation.
Why? Likely because miners enjoy maximizing the number of cycles before being required to move ore.
It increases the 'AFK-ness' of an Exhumer - highly desirable....even in a fleet where you have a cargo Orca standing by.

The idea that the Hulk's lack of EHP and cargohold is somehow balanced by 'being in a fleet with combat ships' is flawed because it simply doesn't jive with how mining (and suicide ganking) works in practice.

Gankers were rarely stopped or deterred by the presence of warships nearby, and ganking (while widely complained about) was rare enough that the theoretical 'mining guard' might as well been mining himself. After all, what is the 'guard' going to do? Suicide ganking happens in seconds, is initiated by the ganker, the ganker is going to die, and arty kills instantly.

The 'balance' that the Hulk receives from being in a fleet is simply illusory - which is why Mackinaws are used in fleets as well as solo.

Like I said, it appears that CCP weighted the value of 'Yield' too heavily - ignoring the simple fact that Cargospace is what miners desire most.

Simply for the sake of argument - you could probably give the Mackinaw the worst EHP AND the worst Yield (make it 1-3-3) - yet people would still fly it in droves because of the 35K cargo capacity is so convenient.

No need to go that far - but we are going from a situation where we saw at least 2 of the 3 Exhumers used..... to a one-size fits all high-sec mining industry.

Clearly you need to expand your horizons. Try visiting any of the numerous ice belts in high-sec. It's an AFK paradise (unless James 315 is around, lol).

I said it 8B times in the old thread.

Because the Mack can tank enough to stop a profit based gank while still outmining the Skiff, the Skiff is useless (for mining). Any gank that could kill a slightly tanked Mack would be for fun, and so the Skiff would still be dead.

Dragging ore into the orca corp hangar isn't taxing. Stop trying to make it sound like it is.

Your idea of "significant higher effort/yield" is all out of whack. We're looking at 45 minutes to get to level 1, less than a day to get to level 3, a little over 5 days to get to level 4 (which you'll train to when doing the mack thing anyways), and 24 more days to get to level 5 for a minor increase in yield over level 4.

Unless all you do is mine all day long (and god help you if that's all you use eve for, play x3 or whatever other strategy/resource management game instead, then), then that extra yield will not matter one whit.

It's still not "significant higher", it's icing on the cake.

Goon Super Carebears

I said it 8B times in the old thread.

Because the Mack can tank enough to stop a profit based gank while still outmining the Skiff, the Skiff is useless (for mining). Any gank that could kill a slightly tanked Mack would be for fun, and so the Skiff would still be dead.

Perhaps the Skiff should be considered for a Gas Harvesting bonus.

The guy makes some good points.

Who exactly would be hurt by giving the Hulk more cargo?

The guy makes some good points.

Who exactly would be hurt by giving the Hulk more cargo?

Change the macks base tank to that of the hulks.

Thats all that needs to happen.

Yes to make the most popular mining ship ATM easier to gank should be at the top of CCPs list. Not the POS rework not the new Destroyers.

You would think the poor Mack had some kind of invulnerable force field the way people whine about this. Gankers still crying about some mythical right to a profitable gank.

This thread really should have been rolled into the previous threadnaught.

Tell me. Whats the point of the skiff (an anti gank ship) if the mack has a tank that makes it unprofitable to attack?

To be a safe and convenient ice bot mining ship, of course. Duh.

I've got a smashing idea: why don't you guys shoot at people that shoot back?

90% of this thread is people who don't mine trying to tell CCP how mining should be. They chose to listen to the people who do mine. I'd say they got it right.

Macki - Low yields, high tank. You are only seeing them if you hunt miners in .5 and .6 because the Hulk tank won't handle Tier 3 BC ganks of one or 2.

Hulk - High yield but requires and Orca or Rorqual for support and has a low tank. Tank not really mattering because it can't be on the front line. It needs a fleet to intercept hostiles making it the ideal ship for Null mining or a .7 to 1.0 space mining tool.

Skiff- Hard tank, unique bonuses making it a great mining ship for very specific and time consuming jobs either in null or high sec. Actually being used, something it has never had the luxury of claiming. If I wanted to mine Ice in null sec, this would be my choice with maybe a frigate alt double or triple webbing it all the time.

Now that miners are in a better place, that was in fact your best option all along. I never lost a Hulk during the glory days of miner griefing. It was triple webbed any time it was out. Who am I to ruin gankers fun though if Miners couldn't figure that out on their own?

90% of this thread is people who don't mine trying to tell CCP how mining should be. They chose to listen to the people who do mine. I'd say they got it right.

I mine from time to time, and I'd rather suck on a shotgun than use a skiff or a hulk in hisec.

If I have 1 char, a skiff is overly tanked and under-performing, the mack requires attention once every eon, and the hulk requires attention once every few minutes.

If I have 2 or more chars, the skiff'll still underperform, the hulk will still require attention once every few minutes (but you can at least still use an orca to store ore in to reduce the number of trips to the station), or you can be non-dumb and use two or more macks and overall get more yield for less effort.

So, pray tell, why should I bother with anything other than the mack?

Well since you're solo mining and the mack is well supposed to be for the solo miner I'd say mission accomplished. If you were running a fleet hulks would win out by a mile though.

Skiff's biggest problem lies in the mining laser being overly strong resulting in a lot of near empty roid cycles (lesser extent the mack suffers the same). A lot of the HS areas are mined out so you're going to have to spend a lot of time finding a system with large roids to run your mack for an "eon". Of course that will only work for a few days at most before you run out of large roids. The replenishment won't be sufficient to allow you to keep pulling 2300 m3 of ore for long.

Skiff's biggest problem lies in the mining laser being overly strong resulting in a lot of near empty roid cycles (lesser extent the mack suffers the same). A lot of the HS areas are mined out so you're going to have to spend a lot of time finding a system with large roids to run your mack for an "eon". Of course that will only work for a few days at most before you run out of large roids. The replenishment won't be sufficient to allow you to keep pulling +2100 m3 of ore for long.

I mine from time to time, and I'd rather suck on a shotgun than use a skiff or a hulk in hisec.

If I have 1 char, a skiff is overly tanked and under-performing, the mack requires attention once every eon, and the hulk requires attention once every few minutes.

If I have 2 or more chars, the skiff'll still underperform, the hulk will still require attention once every few minutes (but you can at least still use an orca to store ore in to reduce the number of trips to the station), or you can be non-dumb and use two or more macks and overall get more yield for less effort.

So, pray tell, why should I bother with anything other than the mack?

Skiff isn't being used right now because nobody owns them. There weren't any being used so the fleets haven't updated and I doubt they will for a long time to come but a Skiff bonus is 200% and with a 66% reduction in cycle on Ice that's a fast 12 chunks of Ice. Using a Skiff you can actually Ninja mine Ice in null sec and tell the bots to stick theirs up their ass. Even if they give it to you the logistics of getting it to your POS in null makes it easier to just skiff mine for a few hrs with a fleet.

"Overall, Cargo space is the most highly valued trait in an Exhumer."

Its why, prior to Aug 8, 2/3 of all Exhumers (Hulks/Macks) were cargo fit.
And why today, Macks/Retrievers are dominant.

Go ahead, dispute it so we can laugh at you.

Except for the fact the 200% bonus isn't to ice mining, just ore mining, just like the duration bonus only applies to ice mining, not ore mining.

So, about that "90% of this thread is people who don't mine trying to tell CCP how mining should be" statement ...

Miners only care about three things: cargo, yield, ehp. And not equally.
After scanning thousands of hulks/macks over the years, I found:

-Cargo fits (about 60% of the time)
-yield fits (about 30% of the time)
-ehp fits (about 10% of the time)

Let's assume I have 1 pilot. I can expend a lot of energy to get 100% yield, but I lose a lot to travel/docking, or I can expend a little to get 90% yield, and dock up once every eon.

Let's assume I have 2 pilots. I can expend a lot of effort to get 200% yield, but I lose a lot to travelling/docking, or I can have 1 hulk and 1 orca to get a little over 100% and no travel time, or I can use 2 macks to get 180%, and lose some time once every eon to travel/docking.

Let's assume I have 3 pilots. 300%, lots of effort, lots of travel/docking time if 3 hulks, a little over 200% if I use 1 orca and 2 hulks, little to no yield lost due to the orca being docked, or 270% with 3 macks, and very little travel/dock time.

So, again, why should I ever use anything other than a mack?

You're still solo mining in all those examples which is what the mack was designed for..

No, I said 3 pilots, not 3 characters. You have to go up a ways before the yield increase of using 1 orca and the rest hulks outpaces all macks, and you still have to factor in the act that if you use hulks and an orca, everything is going to go to the char with the orca. And as a result, they'll have to somehow figure out how much ore was mined by whom and pay out accordingly, whereas if they use just macks, each person can easily keep a record of how much he has mined himself.

And a fleet of macks could easily warp in to a belt at their own separate spot and just sit there and suck up rocks within their area of reach, instead of falling over eachother to not mine the same rock while still being within the range of the orca.

OP is wrong, if miners cared about EHP then hulkagedon wouldn't have existed.

2 hulks with an orca have a mining range of 55km while being in range of the Orca. Covers almost the entire asteroid field.

No, I said 3 pilots, not 3 characters. You have to go up a ways before the yield increase of using 1 orca and the rest hulks outpaces all macks, and you still have to factor in the act that if you use hulks and an orca, everything is going to go to the char with the orca. And as a result, they'll have to somehow figure out how much ore was mined by whom and pay out accordingly, whereas if they use just macks, each person can easily keep a record of how much he has mined himself.

And a fleet of macks could easily warp in to a belt at their own separate spot and just sit there and suck up rocks within their area of reach, instead of falling over eachother to not mine the same rock while still being within the range of the orca.

You said "I have" over and over again not "we have".. That means you're soloing..

What you're describing isn't fleet mining it's solo mining while in a party..

Yeah, I'm going to just ignore your quibbling over irrelevant details while missing the point.


And that's how many percent of the mining going on in eve today?

Reading through, I'd propose an alternative approach. Change it up a little so the Skiff is actually more yield than the Mack.
One way to do this would be to change the yield bonuses on the Strip Miners to time bonuses (Matching the ice).
So the skiff ends up with far less wasted yield than it currently has.

Then yield goes
Hulk > Skiff > Mack
EHP goes
Skiff > Mack > Hulk
And Cargo goes
Mack > Skiff > Hulk

Solo miners tend to care about cargo. So will normally choose the Mack still, but some will choose the Skiff due to it being better yield & EHP.
Fleet miners will always go for best yield regardless of the other factors since they have an Orca, so will always go Hulk no matter that it's worst in the other cat

Irrelevant details? More like inconvenient details for your "argument". It's blatantly obvious with your statements that you have no interest in an honest discussion and that you're only interested in an irrational crusade against Macks.

Your second point is completely irrelevant and your inability to see so doesn't bode well for your intellectual capabilities..

Wrong. It doesn't matter if it's one person rocking 3 mackinaws or 3 people running 3 mackinaws, they're still going to outperform 2 hulks and 1 orca, and it'll certainly be less work for more or less the same return in minerals.

And "irrational crusade against macks"? It's almost as if you haven't read the arguments, but just saw "nerf macks".


Oh look, an ad hominem. How quaint, I haven't seen that for at least a day.

The second point is completely relevant, it's not my problem if you insist on completely disregarding it because you don't like the conclusion it'll lead to. The full point is that the vast, vast majority of mining today is exactly that kind of mining, which means that the skiff is not desirable due to the lack of yield and the lack of ore hold space, and the hulk isn't desireable due to the amount of work you have to do compared to how much you get in return, and if you're multiboxing or just mining with a few friends you'll all end up with more for less until you reach a number of miners which very, very rarely ever happens.

Your first point.. So what? The mack is supposed to be used by solo players and you're describing solo play so mission accomplished.

Your second point. You're saying that because something is popular then it needs to be nerfed. Thus you want solo mining to be nerfed. Why stop there? Why not nerf solo missioning solo FW solo market trading solo manufacturing solo everything because well "most" people tend to solo those activities. Your "argument" is so silly I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time trying to get you to understand.

The hulk is exceedingly desirable... in large fleet operations which is what it's designed for so once again MISSION accomplished...

I might be able to accept the Hulk's desirability given the absolute miner obsession with yield, yield, yield.

How about that Skiff for some desirability?

D'oh!

Just because you don't desire it doesn't mean others don't. They make excellent ninja miners for dangerous areas.

For giggles I actually used one to tank level 4s as a semi drone boat.

Your first point.. So what? The mack is supposed to be used by solo players and you're describing solo play so mission accomplished.

Your second point. You're saying that because something is popular then it needs to be nerfed.

Thus you want solo mining to be nerfed.

Why stop there? Why not nerf solo missioning solo FW solo market trading solo manufacturing solo everything because well "most" people tend to solo those activities. Your "argument" is so silly I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time trying to get you to understand.

The hulk is exceedingly desirable... in large fleet operations which is what it's designed for so once again MISSION accomplished...

Show me something besides an Ice belt.

Something I have done in EVE since 2005 is fly from belt to belt to belt, system after system looking for Shadow Serpentis, Dark Bloods, True Sansha, commanders. I've seen more belts than most people in EVE including Miners. I can tell you whats out there. Usually nobody. Mostly Ret's. Next up is Hulks and Orca, then Mackinaw and an occasional Skiff but in most belts, there is nobody. We talk about the min max of the various barges but you never see many mention the proff as a whole. Line up ISK/hr in mining with FW or level 4 missions or ratting in Null or Wormholes. All of sudden you have a whole new picture. Mining is still at the bottom of the totem pole. Even with 6 isk Trit and pyrite bouncing between 12.5 annd 14 it is better to do most other things in EVE.

You still see miners as easy targets to pad a kill board. Get over it, move on. Christmas came and went for you. Now its January in grieferville. Enjoy the boredom.

Show me something besides an Ice belt.

Mining is still at the bottom of the totem pole. Even with 6 isk Trit and pyrite bouncing between 12.5 annd 14 it is better to do most other things in EVE.

You still see miners as easy targets to pad a kill board. Get over it, move on. Christmas came and went for you. Now its January in grieferville. Enjoy the boredom.

Why? The ice belts are where the ~mining fleets~ are, and they're predominantly mackinaw or its t1 cousin, a few skiffs and the occasional hulk.


And what does this have to do with the mack having a leg over the hulk in literally all aspect except raw yield (while still kicking its ass in compound yield) until the mining fleet is larger than you'll ever see in most hisec asteroid belts? And where there actually are ~mining fleets~ ... it's of macks. In ice fields.


I haven't actually killed a single mining barge or exhumer, and swapping the tank from the hulk to the mackinaw (and vice versa) won't change that, but keep those ad hominems coming, I'm sure it'll strengthen your case.

This change would just mean that people will have to choose between either best tank (and ****** yield), okay yield (and good convenience, but the worst tank), or best yield (and ****** convenience but okayish tank). Currently it's best tank, second best convenience, worst yield for the skiff, it's second best tank, second best yield and best convenience for mack, and it's best yield, worst tank and worst convenience for the hulk.

I do not like your proposed change

and I see no reason for it.

Macs mine ice belts.

Like Sisohiv said once you get away from the major hubs nobody is out in most of those belts. Lots of empty unused space in high sec. Everybody wants to be in the same place in high sec and then they get but hurt and then they want game changes to serve them in their ideal place. Great but no. Move and solve your problems.

why is everyone so busy to get things back to how they were?
it changed... get a new ship and move on

Gankers cannot make a profit on macks. No more ganks.

Why should you profit from ganking a ship with "worthless" cargo?

Because its not the cargo we are after.

Higher ship and module prices?

It doesn't matter if it's one person rocking 3 mackinaws or 3 people running 3 mackinaws, they're still going to outperform 2 hulks and 1 orca, and it'll certainly be less work for more or less the same return in minerals.

Do you know that those Mack pilots have to stop their strip miners when they warp to station?
Have you calculated how much those Mack pilots lose when they have to warp around?
Do you know that those Mack pilots don't have 20km range on their strip miners?

Originally posted by: Bart Starr
Description: Not a rant, but original post contained fair amount caps. They are now removed. Other parts still as they were.



My personal comments to the subject:
I believe that this post has some very valid facts and the suggested swap could be something worth thinking about. At least it is definitely something worth discussing *snip*


EDIT: Just leave out the discussion of moderation please - ISD Type40.

It was calculated witha 3 minute warp and it was just a bit over 2 hulk + orca.

The range is borderline useless as you can slowboat while your strip are active. The only time it might be a problem is if you are really picky on the rocks you want. If you do full belt cleaning, it does not amtter at all as you can go from rock to rock at will.

Because its not the cargo we are after.