| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:35:00 -
[91] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:i'm trying to fit a retriever in EFT
when fitted with an adaptive invuln II i don't need a MAPC in the lows so it mines the same as the Mack. the disadvantage is the retriever will have to stagger the strip miner activations. with an MSE2 it'll mine less than the mack but doesn't worry about capacitor
in both cases the flight of mining drones on the mack takes its yield way above the retriever. the mack's EHP is higher and there's a bigger ore bay
about 18-20k EHP on the retriever fit
both ships can fit mining drones. also a retriever will never mine the same as a mac at max skills, one will always mine more than the other. |

Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:37:00 -
[92] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:So, what's the difference in yield between a full yield Retriever and a max tank Mackinaw?
retriever mines 23.3% more than the mackinaw.
simple fact is t1 mining barges are too close to their t2 counterparts. if you could sacrifice yield for tank on an exhumer, and not have it's yield dwarfed by that of it's t1 counterpart i wouldn't even entertain this discussion. |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1001
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:39:00 -
[93] - Quote
i wouldn't take out the retriever or the mack without combat drones is why i didn't count them. if you took the mining drones, the retriever would mine about the same as the mack, but without the ore bay, the extra EHP or the hobgobs the mack can carry in addition |

Vyanr
SKORPION LEGION
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:40:00 -
[94] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote: [Mackinaw, Tank] (tanking fit)
MLU II / Ice buff DCII Co-processor I (or II)
AIF II x 2 Medium Ancillary Shield booster
x2 Modulated Strip/Ice Miner IIs
x2 Medium CDFE Is
33.6k EHP, ~260 active DPS tank against AM.
more than long enough to survive long enough for Concord support.
You don't really need a scanner for a mining barge. you |

Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:41:00 -
[95] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:i wouldn't take out the retriever or the mack without combat drones is why i didn't count them. if you took the mining drones, the retriever would mine about the same as the mack, but without the ore bay, the extra EHP or the hobgobs the mack can carry in addition
you can, a retriever has sufficient tank to tank 0.7 belt rats until full [unsure if that holds true in 0.5, though]. in addition belt rats will always target an orca first if one is present. |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1001
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:44:00 -
[96] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:So, what's the difference in yield between a full yield Retriever and a max tank Mackinaw? about 120 yield per minute (no implants/boosts) in favour of the retriever vs. my mack fit, but that requires mining drones and without tank or hobgobs you might die to belt rats :(
i'm no ~fitting expert~ mind |

Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:46:00 -
[97] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Abrazzar wrote:So, what's the difference in yield between a full yield Retriever and a max tank Mackinaw? about 120 yield per minute (no implants/boosts) in favour of the retriever vs. my mack fit, but that requires mining drones and without tank or hobgobs you might die to belt rats :( i'm no ~fitting expert~ mind
try 241m3 per min. although we are talking 0 mlu mack vs 3mlu ret. |

Thorleifer
Yeti Cave
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:47:00 -
[98] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Abrazzar wrote:So, what's the difference in yield between a full yield Retriever and a max tank Mackinaw? retriever mines 23.3% more than the mackinaw. simple fact is t1 mining barges are too close to their t2 counterparts. if you could sacrifice yield for tank on an exhumer, and not have it's yield dwarfed by that of it's t1 counterpart i wouldn't even entertain this discussion.
I would be interested to see what fits you are comparing that show the yield that different. My alt has both those ships and with a good tank and yield the difference is more around 10% if that. Now if we go solo mining with no Orca the Mack out mines the retriever on sheer ore hold size since it does not need so many trips to station to dump (unless you are dumb enough to jetcan mine). The Mack can also take 5 t2 combat drones and 5 mining 2 drones so it can fend off any rats with ease. |

Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:49:00 -
[99] - Quote
Thorleifer wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Abrazzar wrote:So, what's the difference in yield between a full yield Retriever and a max tank Mackinaw? retriever mines 23.3% more than the mackinaw. simple fact is t1 mining barges are too close to their t2 counterparts. if you could sacrifice yield for tank on an exhumer, and not have it's yield dwarfed by that of it's t1 counterpart i wouldn't even entertain this discussion. I would be interested to see what fits you are comparing that show the yield that different. My alt has both those ships and with a good tank and yield the difference is more around 10% if that. Now if we go solo mining with no Orca the Mack out mines the retriever on sheer ore hold size since it does not need so many trips to station to dump (unless you are dumb enough to jetcan mine). The Mack can also take 5 t2 combat drones and 5 mining 2 drones so it can fend off any rats with ease.
0 mlu mackinaw, vs 3 mlu retriever. i was asked for max tanked mackinaw (as in, every slot for tank) vs a full yield ret. so a ret with 3 mlus. |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1001
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:49:00 -
[100] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Abrazzar wrote:So, what's the difference in yield between a full yield Retriever and a max tank Mackinaw? about 120 yield per minute (no implants/boosts) in favour of the retriever vs. my mack fit, but that requires mining drones and without tank or hobgobs you might die to belt rats :( i'm no ~fitting expert~ mind try 241m3 per min. although we are talking 0 mlu mack vs 3mlu ret. nah i had room for an MLU2 on the tanked mack. i'm looking at all V characters with the t1 veld crystals in the lasers, both ships with drones
e: mining drones* |

Thorleifer
Yeti Cave
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:50:00 -
[101] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Abrazzar wrote:So, what's the difference in yield between a full yield Retriever and a max tank Mackinaw? about 120 yield per minute (no implants/boosts) in favour of the retriever vs. my mack fit, but that requires mining drones and without tank or hobgobs you might die to belt rats :( i'm no ~fitting expert~ mind try 241m3 per min. although we are talking 0 mlu mack vs 3mlu ret.
wait, so your comparison is dumb. 0 MLU Mack vs a 3 MLU Ret? That is a good comparison for you?
This thread does deliver. |

Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:52:00 -
[102] - Quote
Thorleifer wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Abrazzar wrote:So, what's the difference in yield between a full yield Retriever and a max tank Mackinaw? about 120 yield per minute (no implants/boosts) in favour of the retriever vs. my mack fit, but that requires mining drones and without tank or hobgobs you might die to belt rats :( i'm no ~fitting expert~ mind try 241m3 per min. although we are talking 0 mlu mack vs 3mlu ret. wait, so your comparison is dumb. 0 MLU Mack vs a 3 MLU Ret? That is a good comparison for you? This thread does deliver.
it's not my comparison. some one asked for it, i delivered. so yes, this thread does deliver. |

Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1282
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:55:00 -
[103] - Quote
Either way, with so little difference in effective yield, there is little reason to use a Mackinaw over a Retriever in public high-sec. Not worth the investment. Unless you are mining on your own often in mission locations or gravimetric sites, the Retriever is the ship to fly.
Considering the amount of Retrievers I can see in belts compared to Mackinaws, the miners are agreeing. Mining Overhaul Nothing changed since 2008. |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8665
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:56:00 -
[104] - Quote
Xen Solarus wrote:Ganking is basicly EvE with Easy-mode on.
True enough. Leaving your poorly tanked ship AFK at a celestial is about as easy as you can make it for people to gank you, short of actually activating self destruct yourself.
That only leaves the mystery of why anyone would think that it's surprising that other players will pick up easy wins and profits in a competitive PvP game.
Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |

Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:59:00 -
[105] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:Either way, with so little difference in effective yield, there is little reason to use a Mackinaw over a Retriever in public high-sec. Not worth the investment. Unless you are mining on your own often in mission locations or gravimetric sites, the Retriever is the ship to fly.
Considering the amount of Retrievers I can see in belts compared to Mackinaws, the miners are agreeing.
fun fact.
retrievers account for more volume mined than mackinaws when looking at high sec ores. |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1001
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 17:59:00 -
[106] - Quote
Abrazzar asked for that comparison, I assume it was just out of interest
I'm more interested in the comparison between a practically gank-tanked mack between a practically gank-tanked retriever, and I believe the tanked mack comes out on top with a respectable yield, more ehp, more cargo and a flight of drones
even versus the max yield retriever, though, the mack's yield is comparable |

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
1001
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:02:00 -
[107] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Abrazzar wrote:Either way, with so little difference in effective yield, there is little reason to use a Mackinaw over a Retriever in public high-sec. Not worth the investment. Unless you are mining on your own often in mission locations or gravimetric sites, the Retriever is the ship to fly.
Considering the amount of Retrievers I can see in belts compared to Mackinaws, the miners are agreeing. fun fact. retrievers account for more volume mined than mackinaws when looking at high sec ores. (faster training time for alts/bots i reckon but i won't say for sure because i don't know) |

baltec1
Bat Country
5954
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:03:00 -
[108] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Abrazzar asked for that comparison, I assume it was just out of interest
I'm more interested in the comparison between a practically gank-tanked mack between a practically gank-tanked retriever, and I believe the tanked mack comes out on top with a respectable yield, more ehp, more cargo and a flight of drones
even versus the max yield retriever, though, the mack's yield is comparable
Miners will pick the single worst tanked ship with the highest chance of getting ganked. Its not known why they do this. |

Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:03:00 -
[109] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Abrazzar asked for that comparison, I assume it was just out of interest
I'm more interested in the comparison between a practically gank-tanked mack between a practically gank-tanked retriever, and I believe the tanked mack comes out on top with a respectable yield, more ehp, more cargo and a flight of drones
even versus the max yield retriever, though, the mack's yield is comparable
the difference is, when people choose to fly a retriever they don't tank it with modules and ehp, they tank with isk.
it's not unreasonable to assume that in any scenario, the retriever will always be fit for max yield. |

Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:05:00 -
[110] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Abrazzar asked for that comparison, I assume it was just out of interest
I'm more interested in the comparison between a practically gank-tanked mack between a practically gank-tanked retriever, and I believe the tanked mack comes out on top with a respectable yield, more ehp, more cargo and a flight of drones
even versus the max yield retriever, though, the mack's yield is comparable Miners will pick the single worst tanked ship with the highest chance of getting ganked. Its not known why they do this.
worst tanked ship mines most. |

Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:07:00 -
[111] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Abrazzar wrote:Either way, with so little difference in effective yield, there is little reason to use a Mackinaw over a Retriever in public high-sec. Not worth the investment. Unless you are mining on your own often in mission locations or gravimetric sites, the Retriever is the ship to fly.
Considering the amount of Retrievers I can see in belts compared to Mackinaws, the miners are agreeing. fun fact. retrievers account for more volume mined than mackinaws when looking at high sec ores. (faster training time for alts/bots i reckon but i won't say for sure because i don't know)
my alt can fly a mackinaw, it's still sitting in a retriever.
i would however, be VERY interested in seeing an updated set of data. i'm using old dev blog data. the difference would be interesting. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
13585
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:19:00 -
[112] - Quote
Just to answer the questionsGǪGallamoth Sickle wrote:but can someone explain to me how/when eve became a gankers paradise in high sec? 2002 or so. It's been constantly nerfed for that putpose ever since, though, which is why it's an ultra-rare and ridiculously easily avoided event these days.
Quote: I mean how is ok for someone to fly a ship worth a total of maybe 8-10 million take out somoene flying a ship worth 50m? Because ISK is not a balancing factor. So in fact, you're asking the exact wrong question. Really, it should be GÇ£why do you need as much as 8GÇô10M worth of ship to kill 50M GÇö it shouldn't even be a 1/100th of thatGÇ¥.
Quote:So i mean what defense is there? A tank, some support, and paying attention goes a very very long way.
Quote:Why does CCP seem to have buffed destroyers creating a situation that favors the ganker and leaves the ganked almost completely defensless? Because destroyers were horribly underpowered and because the ganked are utterly and completely irrelevant when doing that, since none of their multitudinous defensive options were affected. Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |

baltec1
Bat Country
5954
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:20:00 -
[113] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
worst tanked ship mines most.
Isn't it great how a miners mind works? |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3199
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:22:00 -
[114] - Quote
Corey Fumimasa wrote:Maybe CCP could make an Ore that isn't worth anything on the market, but that makes the miner immune to PVP. So If a barge is mining in a "xero ore" belt then it is invulnerable
This way miners could mine all they wanted with no risk.
Already exists.
Dave Stark wrote:with the mackinaw, yes. with the hulk, i think it was roughly right where it was.
that guy from bat country who posts a lot (and who's name i can never remember how to spell) said a hulk with 16k ehp or more was unprofitable to gank. i could fit a max yield hulk with 16k ehp therefore i felt the hulk was spot on. mackinaw, not so much.
i feel all this change will do is push mining ships in to the situation we were in pre barge change, and back in to the situation the changes were introduced to try and move away from.
Just to mention, because the Mack uses one less expensive Strip Miner, it doesn't need quite as much tank to protect its fittings, because there's a lower value of fittings available to drop. That's part of its tank as well. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |

Dave Stark
2566
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:29:00 -
[115] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
worst tanked ship mines most.
Isn't it great how a miners mind works? 
and CCP's
*points at the hulk* |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3199
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 18:33:00 -
[116] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:Why does CCP seem to have buffed destroyers creating a situation that favors the ganker and leaves the ganked almost completely defensless? Because destroyers were horribly underpowered and because the ganked are utterly and completely irrelevant when doing that, since none of their multitudinous defensive options were affected.
Also, due to the simultaneous insurance nerf to ganking, it costs more in destroyers to gank a mining barge than it used to in Cruisers. The size of the gank ship is irrelevant, the cost to gank is the relevant part and Crucible increased that cost (same thing with ABCs vs insured BSes for freighters). This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |

Call Rollard
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 19:41:00 -
[117] - Quote
Even if you tanked out a Hulk or Mackinaw.
You can have 20 Catalysts suicide gank fitted for a total of 200 million which is the equivalent of a mining barge 
Try fitting a Hulk or Mackinaw that can tank 18 Catalysts suicide ganking it, It won't be possible. |

baltec1
Bat Country
5957
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 19:52:00 -
[118] - Quote
Call Rollard wrote:Even if you tanked out a Hulk or Mackinaw. You can have 20 Catalysts suicide gank fitted for a total of 200 million which is the equivalent of a mining barge  Try fitting a Hulk or Mackinaw that can tank 18 Catalysts suicide ganking it, It won't be possible.
Fit said hulk in a way that would provide a profit for said 18 catalysts. |

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3994
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 19:54:00 -
[119] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:advice given to miners by people who don't mine is pretty worthless. Hey now let's not confuse the perverted activities you people do in high sec to actual mining. What you people do have about as much to do with mining as ratting has to do with pvp. I have worked with actual miners and I guard miners on a weekly basis. They are a skittish race of critters that pack tank and they dock when going to the bathroom. They are so focused on their surroundings that they can barely pay attention to the mining itself. A sudden move or loud noise and they are gone in an instant. And do not give me that bull about miners time to accelerate to warp speed. You do not get ganked because they catch you before reaching warp speed. They catch you because you activate the mining lasers and then go make breakfast or alt tab or watch TV.
These inhuman miners are called "bots" and can be setup to insta-warp to safe or POS in a variety of potentially dangerous situations.
If humans do what you say and they mine, then they are sorry morons.
In fact they are playing the least paid and least satisfying profession in game with the concentration and energy consumption that deserve other professions a multiple if not an order of magnitude better of such income.
Current mining is done AFK because it's such a sorry and poor excuse of a mechanic that it does not deserve any better than to be performed while AFK. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |

Call Rollard
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 19:55:00 -
[120] - Quote
Call Rollard wrote:Even if you tanked out a Hulk or Mackinaw. You can have 20 Catalysts suicide gank fitted for a total of 200 million which is the equivalent of a mining barge  Try fitting a Hulk or Mackinaw that can tank 18 Catalysts suicide ganking it, It won't be possible.
I meant Exhumer lol |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |