More tank, more cargo and more yield than any of the current barges.

Where's the downside? Do you want to replace every mining ship with one of these?

It would be better, if you ccould fit Modulated Deep Core Miner T2 with crystals only!
- Like the Veldnaught :)

comparing the moduls without ANY boni (imps, fleet, ships...)

Modulated Strip Core MIner: 360 m-¦ + 360 m-¦ (+ crystal bonus) = max. 990.0 m-¦
vs.
Modulated Deep Core Miner: 250 m-¦ + 250 m-¦ (+ crystal bonus) = max. 687.5 m-¦

if you want to fit weapons, you will sacrifice a slot for your mining lasers

if the BS hull would cost around 500 Mio (ORE LP shop, best idea!)
it would be a better target for gankers

+xx % per level if there are any ORE Strip Miners fitted

The yield shoult be a ~10 % higher than in a skiff if you fit 4 Mining Laser Upgrades.

More tank, more cargo and more yield than any of the current barges.

Where's the downside? Do you want to replace every mining ship with one of these?

So if it does everything worse than Exhumers, what is the point of it?

So before I leave this thread to die, one more question.

On a scale of one to invade Russia in winter.

Exactly how bad is this idea?

It's a bad idea. A BS sized mining barge might not be an awful idea, but you'll need to give it a lot more thought.

Hulk's boni are: 15 % from Mining Barge 5 and 15 % from Exhumers 5.
3*1.15*1.15 = 3.9675

The plural of bonus is bonuses, not boni.

In theory the idea is alright, but the suggestion stats I cannot agree too.

The ORE Battleship needs to have 3 main qualities:
- Less ore hold than any mining barge
- Less yield than any mining barge
- Better tank and DPS than any mining barge

As such I would make the orehold something like 6,000m3. Yield would be something like 75% of a yield-fitted Procurer.

Should be designed for use in hostile space, instead of a white-knighting mining barge for hi-sec.

In theory the idea is alright, but the suggestion stats I cannot agree too.

The ORE Battleship needs to have 3 main qualities:
- Less ore hold than any mining barge
- Less yield than any mining barge
- Better tank and DPS than any mining barge

As such I would make the orehold something like 6,000m3. Yield would be something like 75% of a yield-fitted Procurer.

Should be designed for use in hostile space, instead of a white-knighting mining barge for hi-sec.

What makes this ship worth the cost of ganking it?

Question: What so different for ganking a Barge with some destroyer or ganking Battleship sized Exhumer with Tier3 Battlecruiser?

Cant see the better reward? (Serious Question)

depends on fitting but i would say 99% cheap griefing, to grief a 100k ehp bs might be to expensive so :P

Ok, just some Opinions from my side.

Gank Destroyer ~2mil ISK
Standard Barge ~ 25mil ISK

Gank ABC ~110mil ISK
Then Mining BS should ~1400mil ISK (i would suggest at least 2000mil or better 2500mil)

So, Mining BS should strong enough to withstand nearly two ABCs.

So the lost would be crushing but easier to avoid if the miner uses the dscan. (two/three Tornados Or 10 catalysts? Warp for your life!)

If it's going to cost 200m to gank the ship, then it needs to have the potential to be profitable for the ganker. I don't really see miners fitting deadspace mods to their barges or anything.

Why does it need to be profitable for a ganker?

If the excel sheet says it takes 300mil ISK to reliably gank this boat, then they will make that the top level for safe fitting.

Players have the right to fly ships which simply are not cost effective to gank, much less profitable to consider.
This ability is always done the same way, by fitting low cost items or using low cost hulls.

Like using cheap mods on any ship, this BS should represent a fitting sacrifice to the user. It should be less yield and utility than an exhumer or barge, and be far less mobile than a Venture.

This makes it a trade off, and players who like ganking are the reason these sacrifices are even considered in the first place.

If it's going to cost 200m to gank the ship, then it needs to have the potential to be profitable for the ganker. I don't really see miners fitting deadspace mods to their barges or anything.

What about the issue of safety?


I'm not convinced about that part.

So before I leave this thread to die, one more question.

On a scale of one to invade Russia in winter.

Exactly how bad is this idea?

Which brings me back to my previous question. If it has comparable tank and less yield than a barge, then what is for?

Which brings me back to my previous question. If it has comparable tank and less yield than a barge, then what is for?

Because miners need to be ganked, that's just the way of the universe. You can't argue with that.

Which brings me back to my previous question. If it has comparable tank and less yield than a barge, then what is for?

using offensive strength rather than defensive as a means to defend itself.

taking the skiff in hi-sec as an example. tough and unlikely to be fruitful in a suicide gank. but take ten of those same skiffs and put them in null or WH and they become an (relatively) easy target for a small gang.

now consider a mining BS that can wield respectable DPS with a slightly lower mining yield. In hi-sec it provides no real benefit over a skiff. but in hostile space, the DPS that ten of these can bring to bear acts as a deterrent to small gangs.

Maybe it will behave much like the mining domi's and rokhs of old, but why not allow it to use strip miners rather than inefficient mining lasers and drones. especially when its intended area of use contains the largest of ores.

In WH's they might be a nice option since u dnt always know when someone is in system. u dnt have the luxury of locals free intel and may only be aware ur under attack when ur enemies uncloak on grid. by which point its too late to run. its time to fight.

no?

With the time I have been thinking, I think I should give it the PG/CPU/Capacitor of a BS so you can fit it to be a BS. It will also have enough of a Cap Recharge Rate to handle some Strip Miners and some extra equipment. Now all I need to do is research some battleships and try to come up with some numbers.

brain fart?

I like what Nikk Narrel and Sorjat have both said and it got me thinking of the four high slots and reducing it to 2 Turret Hardpoints. To give it DPS along the lines of a BS, add a Role Bonus +100% Damage of Large Turrets so the two turrets are more like four. Also have the ability to fit Mining Command Links for a "Poor Miner's Command Ship"
This would keep the ship's versatility as you would have to choose between different fits of Strip Miners, Guns, and Command Links.

And yes, it would make it a fun ganking target.

Daichi Yamato, You said to increase the Bandwidth to 125mbps so we would have to Increase the Drone Bay to 125m^3. With the things I mentioned above, would it be possible to further increase the Drone Bay capacity without making it OP?
If I did increase the Drone Bay, it would only go to 150 or 175m^3 maximum.

I was actually thinking this as the details:

6 high slot, 4 turret hard points. No slots for utilities without losing yield and or DPS.

Using 4 slots for modulated deep core miners, only 2 slots left for turrets. High yield / low DPS.
Using all 4 turret hard points, only 2 slots for modulated deep core miners. High DPS/ low yield.

Apply damage modifiers to the turrets so that with using all 4 the DPS is comparable to typical fit regular T1 BS.

Because miners need to be ganked, that's just the way of the universe. You can't argue with that.

I've been thinking of this idea for quite some time and have beat out some rough numbers for a versatile battleship hull of ORE design that can be used for mining, mining fleet defence, or somewhere in between.

Name: Bulwark (Suggestions Welcome)

H - 4
M - 5
L - 5

Turret Hardpoints - 2

Cargo Hold - 500
Ore Hold - 20,000 m^3
Drone Bay - 125 m^3
Drone Bandwidth - 125 mbps

Shield - 3500
Armor - 4500
Structure - 4000

Rig Size - Large

Velocity - 60 m/s

PG - (Battleship Powergrid)
CPU - (Battleship CPU)
Capacitor - (Battleship Capacitor)
Cap Recharge -
Cap Recharge Rate - 8 gj/s

Lock Range - 50 km

Role Bonus

100% increase in large turret damage
50% increase in large turret optimal and falloff range

Can fit Mining Foreman Links.

Exhumers Skill Bonus

10% Increased scan range for Survey Scanners per level
20% Increased range of Strip Miners per level
5% increase of mining crystal effectiveness per level.

Skill Requirements: Exhumers III and its prerequisite skills


Any ideas for suggestions/changes are welcome.

Because miners need to be ganked, that's just the way of the universe. You can't argue with that.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

But what is stopping miners from fitting 6 Strip Miners and basically making a tri-bred ship?
Yield of a Hulk, Ore Hold comparable to a Mack, and comparable tank to a Procurer.

is there any logical economic / game play balance reason why there can not be a battleship sized version the 3 existing miner types that is better... a battleship hulk that mines more, a battleship mak that holds ect ect?? figuring 10%-20% more

or is it only about the gankability of said ships?

the ability to suicide gank another player is not a game balance factor and all decisions should not be revolved around that factor alone

I want to see reasons why in the bigger picture of things... will it drive the economy up or down or maintain a form of balance, would it drastically alter the state of the game....

Currently the strip miners are flagged to only operate on barges and exhumers.

Like we have an allocation for turrets or launchers, specifically to limit how many of each could be fitted if any, they would need strip miner hard points to limit this.

As an example:
You can already pimp out an unbonused BS mounting modulated deep core miner II's, 7 of them with Best skills giving 835 yield vs a hulk's 1,547. (Veldspar as ore in example, Rokh as the BS)
Even with 7 out of 8 slots mounting a miner, the yield is below reasonable, has no DPS, and trivial ability to carry ore to justify use mining.

I should have addressed the hardpoint spec needed here before, my bad.

is there any logical economic / game play balance reason why there can not be a battleship sized version the 3 existing miner types that is better... a battleship hulk that mines more, a battleship mak that holds ect ect?? figuring 10%-20% more

or is it only about the gankability of said ships?

the ability to suicide gank another player is not a game balance factor and all decisions should not be revolved around that factor alone

I want to see reasons why in the bigger picture of things... will it drive the economy up or down or maintain a form of balance, would it drastically alter the state of the game....

PG - 15,000
CPU - 500
Capacitor - 5,000


How about these numbers?

I think you should focus less on numbers are more about the high level detail of the ship. Leave the numbers to CCP if they end up making it. Number of turrets, what the role bonus is maybe, but no hard numbers and not for the rest of the stuff either. Capacitor, fitting require testing, leave that to CCP (to not do, release on TQ anyway and then tweak after it's been abused for a few days/months/years/still going).

You want a battleship that can mine a respectable amount and still fight back, yes?

What makes this ship worth the cost of ganking it?

you now demand that every damned ship in the game be profitable for you to gank?

Get off your lazy ass and go work for a living. Go build something. Go make something. Go EARN your ISK, instead of expecting people like me to just give you everything you want.

In short, stop proving the truth in my long-stated opinion that gankers and (bad) pirates are the whiniest, most tear-filled, cowardly, and lazy Eve players that exist.

the point of this ship, from what im reading, is to deal with gankers like you. there should never be an incentive for something to be ganked. CCP doesnt design ships with an incentive to be ganked.

there should never be an incentive for something to be ganked. CCP doesnt design ships with an incentive to be ganked.

Suicide ganking was a factor in the mining barge rebalancing. Since then, I believe they've even stated they got the numbers wrong and gave mining barges too much EHP.

Really, where? Are they going to adjust them down at all? Now you've got me excited, don't you ******* tease me.

I don't know, it was something I read from another poster so it may not be accurate.

Gankers already have every single one of their tear-stained whiney-assed wish list items handed to them on a silver platter by devs who hate hisec with a passion, and you now demand that every damned ship in the game be profitable for you to gank?

Get off your lazy ass and go work for a living. Go build something. Go make something. Go EARN your ISK, instead of expecting people like me to just give you everything you want.

In short, stop proving the truth in my long-stated opinion that gankers and (bad) pirates are the whiniest, most tear-filled, cowardly, and lazy Eve players that exist.

(Yes, there actually ARE some GOOD pirates out there. Their adventures make good reading, they don't complain that the Decon station needs to be rotated, they honor ransomes, they don't complain that they can't catch a stabbed T1 industrial, and they're willing to PVP! Not be little Noob-Corp Catalyst-flying ++ber-leet tear harvester unwilling to actually risk anything.)

from the ISK the guild PDF file

(fleet bonus's and MLUs are not calculated in this formula)

Ship:............ EHP.............Ore Hold.......Yield m3 / 3min

Dominix........29 200......... 600 m3........1688 m3
Apocalypse..32 900......... 675 m3 ...... 2251 m3
Rokh ...........41 900 ........ 625 m3....... 2251 m3
Procurer .....26 500.......12 000 m3...... 2531 m3
Retriever ..... 9 610...... 27 500 m3...... 2532 m3
Covetor ........7 210 ........7 000 m3 ......3039 m3
Skiff ............32 600 ......5 000 m3........ 2658 m3
Mackinaw....14 500......35 000 m3....... 2658 m3
Hulk............10 900 ........8 500 m3 .......3348 m3


could take a rokh or apocalypse or domi (or all 3) ........ cut and paste the ship.. give it a new graphic..... give it a 25000 m3 ore hold
give it a 50% bonus to range of mineing lasers....and a 5% / level boost to amount harvested per cycle... this would put them just under the hulk for quantity mined if they went max mineing lasers... but now has the option to use defenses...(defense or quantity mined choice)
note, the BS can not use strip miners / crystals........ so would be regular mineing lasers only

with a perfectly skilled Orca pilot with Tech II links and a Mining Foreman Mindlink in the head (Attention, the values are for 3 minutes, not for 1 Strip Miner cycle)

Rokh = 5276 m3
Retriver = 5936 m3
Covetor = 6535 m3
Mak = 6232 m3
Hulk = 7201 m3

Hell, even with these numbers, I like the Rokh... just take a Rokh, cut and paste, give it a 25k m3 ore hold and a bonus to mineing laser range and presto one mineing battleship its good enough....

with all the battleship properties.. big + slow + ugly

the pilot would still need to make sacrifices on yield to get any offensive capability, by droping mineing lasers and adding rails or blasters .. the above numbers are assuming full set of mineing lasers

Rokh for example has 8 hard points, and those numbers above assume all 8 have mineing lasers, but if want combat capability, and say choose to sacrifice 2 lasers for 2 blasters / rails... then your yield drops 25%

maybe shave some off armor / hull to compensate for an added ore cargo hold

could do same with the other semi popular mineing battleships that used to be used back in the day as well easily enough

... From a conceptual point, given my reading of other people's comments... what you are looking for is a combat ship that can do mining. Not a mining ship that can do combat.

I agree with the poster who said you should focus a very high level discussion. Leave the actual ship design to the Devs. If in fact they ever do create one I volunteer to take if for a test drive on the test server for them.

One last thing... if the ship is meant as a soloists/small group miner's dream then adding a 'utility' high slot is great for probe launcher and/or cloak! Give me a scan bonus to hunt for mining anomalies and I'll take all the devs out to lunch in a nice little bistro I found on Luminaire!

There are some interesting ideas in this thread.

I agree EvE needs new mining ship, but a tanked ORE beast is not the answer.
Things in EvE need to be destroyable with reasonable effort.

I would much rather see bigger, more profitable and more expensive version of "hulk" which is little better tanked so it's potential can be utilized fully even in low/null sec under fleet protection -> which means it can take a bit more damage then hulk.

The ship should have very limited ore hold so it's used ONLY in fleet or it's bonuses can come entirely from fleet.
Because to have another solo mining ship is just silly we have enough of those and high-sec is not a better place because of it.

A bit more tanked ship would be nice. So it's not like you need only 3 catalysts in 0.5 to take it down and score 200 mil on faction loot while losing 30 milion.

Under ideal conditions, I would tend to agree.

My experience in null suggests these conditions do not exist there, in a reliable context.

Oh sure, you might see the occasional mining op, or the inexplicable PvP pilot standing guard over others... but I would not gamble my play time on finding this circumstance.
Outside of a gate camp, I don't normally expect to find PvP ships standing a post.

I would point instead to the more predictable occurance, where one or two players come together and do some mining.
If their intel channels are decent, they will often be warned one or two systems away for single or small groups of hostiles.
A hostile roam is like a marching band, intel channels report these pretty reliably, so they aren't a big threat to an attentive miner.

Now, for miners who expect equal numbers of hostile players to arrive, the sad reality is that docking up is by default the most effective means of defense.
More EHP on a ship doesn't mean survival, unless you have a fleet standing by or can expect to escape. More EHP otherwise means you take a few extra seconds to pop.

So, in order to fight, the miner needs to act as the PvP ship effectively enough to be practical.
That is my opinion.

I would point out that we already have the skiff, which for it's EHP potential is amazing.
Knowing Concord will be coming, that EHP makes a skiff the worst target unless your opponent likes operating at a loss.

I can fit a Skiff to mine veld, with a yield of 697 according to EFT, with an EHP of over 74,000...
But it's a pinata waiting for the stick without Concord or player backup.

I can put a Venture out there, with a total veld yield of 909, that has a 5 second warp out time, and an inherent +2 warp stability.
(4 seconds to align). Add to this, that the described Venture is also fitting a cloak in case I decide hiding makes more sense.

What I can't put out there is a mining ship capable of meaningful DPS, which is the only language spoken by many of our combat loving friends.

I want to speak more DPS for them, there is so much I think that needs to be said, to make everyone truly happy.

I would point out that we already have the skiff, which for it's EHP potential is amazing.
Knowing Concord will be coming, that EHP makes a skiff the worst target unless your opponent likes operating at a loss.

I can fit a Skiff to mine veld, with a yield of 697 according to EFT, with an EHP of over 74,000...
But it's a pinata waiting for the stick without Concord or player backup.

I can put a Venture out there, with a total veld yield of 909, that has a 5 second warp out time, and an inherent +2 warp stability.
(4 seconds to align). Add to this, that the described Venture is also fitting a cloak in case I decide hiding makes more sense.

What I can't put out there is a mining ship capable of meaningful DPS, which is the only language spoken by many of our combat loving friends.

I want to speak more DPS for them, there is so much I think that needs to be said, to make everyone truly happy.

I just like to point out that EFT yield numbers are theoretical peak and cannot be compared to each other at all.

Yield peak over time will in practice never be achieved simply due to asteroid ore contents never perfectly aligning with a multiple of what a harvester takes in one cycle. This misalignment effect is most noticeable with large yield per cycle ships like the skiff and to a lesser extent also with a Hulk. A ship with regular miners with an even smaller yield per cycle is less affected.

Do not underestimate this effect, it is really large in practice.

this

though ur skiffs yield looks a little low. u can get a 84k tank and a 966m3/minute yield.

I think if this Battleship idea is implemented it will end up after balancing as both bad at mining and combat because you will either have to sacrifice your firepower or your yield to make it work.

I've been thinking of this idea for quite some time and have beat out some rough numbers for a versatile battleship hull of ORE design that can be used for mining, mining fleet defence, or somewhere in between.

Name: Bulwark (Suggestions Welcome)

H - 4
M - 5
L - 5

Turret Hardpoints - 2

Cargo Hold - 500
Ore Hold - 20,000 m^3
Drone Bay - 125 m^3
Drone Bandwidth - 125 mbps

Shield - 3500
Armor - 4500
Structure - 4000

Rig Size - Large

Velocity - 60 m/s

Lock Range - 50 km

Role Bonus

100% increase in large turret damage
50% increase in large turret optimal and falloff range

Can fit Mining Foreman Links.

Exhumers Skill Bonus

10% Increased scan range for Survey Scanners per level
20% Increased range of Strip Miners per level
5% increase of mining crystal effectiveness per level.

Skill Requirements: Exhumers III and its prerequisite skills


Any ideas for suggestions/changes are welcome.

which will hopefully be balanced by not having to dock up every time someone who isnt blue turns up. u said so urself, u dnt take a barge out in WH space unless its dominated by ur buddies. and with a battleship option like this you can still take that barge out during these times.

but a battleship option like this might allow u to continue mining without the overwhelming presence of allies. which is indeed a better option than not mining at all.

Why bother with turrets?
Just add a bonus to sentry drones, give the shields invulnerability for 12 hours when they reach 15%, use a strontium bay to extend the invulnerability for 7 days or more.... etc etc

which will hopefully be balanced by not having to dock up every time someone who isnt blue turns up. u said so urself, u dnt take a barge out in WH space unless its dominated by ur buddies. and with a battleship option like this you can still take that barge out during these times.

but a battleship option like this might allow u to continue mining without the overwhelming presence of allies. which is indeed a better option than not mining at all.

To the Battleship:
As for the battleship, when you have such boat it will be not effective in high-sec, that is clear.
I think if this Battleship idea is implemented it will end up after balancing as both bad at mining and combat because you will either have to sacrifice your firepower or your yield to make it work.

Sadly, we are unable to compare actual ships in the game itself, but the versions found in EFT, which are about as precise as we can manage outside the game.

Since we are roughly comparing EFT ships to other EFT ships, the flaws cancel out as being present on both sides of the comparison.

It's even worse with DPS, since falloff issues create wild false impressions in some cases.

the deployable structure thingie that lets you swap modules out when ever..... battle ship fit for mining does decent yield... aggressors arrive on scene and you refit to offensive capability... terminate or drive off aggressor... switch back to max yield

No, the flaws do no cancel each other out as they are dependent on two factors:

1. The ORE contents of an asteroid in the game (is not the infinite rock that EFT assumes)
2. The amount of ore each cycle takes form a rock (is different from ship to ship)

Without infinite rocks size, the numbers EFT projects will always fall out of line with in-game numbers. These flaws cannot cancel each-other out because some ships are affected much more then others. This makes comparing a tricky business. You have to properly interpret the resulting numbers with some cold hard logic as the numbers do not speak for them self.

This could work, i quite like it.
Or as bait in wormhole if you have more of them it would be great, if they could be spider tanked for example.
But if you're mining because you want to make ISK there are better solutions.

I think that you are correct here, (underlined), and that this is precisely the point being made.

This ship, like the Venture, is a compromise of the more ideal yield a Hulk offers, or the capacity a Mackinaw provides.

You lose the better results in exchange for better fighting ability, and for some of us that is a trade off worth making.

That's a pretty cool idea.

well another way of looking at this is from a different direction.
The issue is not so much Just creating a new barge, but more one of creating a new play style around mining.

The New Nestor, is struggling to find a role, It is a low mass battleship which gives it advantages in wormholes. Otherwise, not so much separates it from other ships. Admittedly it had potential, but that got lost somewhere.......

However.

It could, with good mining bonuses and a ore hold, possibly utilising the ship hangar, that never made it to production, It could contain an ore hauling industrial and carry mining barges to site....

which one?

Clipped here to keep wall of text minimized as possible.

My take on this idea here, is that you have come up with an alternative to the Orca for fleet use.

That might be cool, but considering the LP grind to get one, and the existence of the current Orca already, I am not sure it will be used much.

My view of a mining BS is something not needing a fleet to find a role at all. (Most fleets can provide support already, making the anticipated lower yield a sticking point here)

I think the point of serious DPS present in a mining vessel will offer the option to tough it out at the belt, rather than head for cover, when a hostile appears.
Especially when miners are on their own for combat support.

Uh, you can post anything that is on topic. You don't have to write in the thread more than once to post. ?????

Low / Null / WH :

Slow moving mining BS with long align time will not help you much. Even if you have standard BS level of tank and DPS. 100k ehp tank and 1000 + dps is pointless. Solo cruiser can take you down without ewar to support you.

What you do need is fast align time, and as much EWAR as possible. Neuts, ECM...

I would like to see a BS hull capable of inflicting enough DPS, and enough tank to survive long enough to deliver it, so that they could stay on the field.
I feel safe in suggesting that both potential sides in such a fight would like to see a fight happen.

Running is already an option. There is no good reason for it to be the only one, however.

...But as I said, even this will be used as bait.

So if there is no solid reason to make this thing ... and I dont see one.. you know how CCP works.

I would not sit around null in small group of let say Rokhs and mine. Not without support.

If you have alliance that has enough defensive posture to severely limit what ships can penetrate their territory then you dont need low yield battleships. You can use Skiff-s instead. If you are using lets say 500 mil ORE battleships without any support you will be engaged just as you would be in Skiff. Few falcons and pilgrims with support of few cloacky Proteuses (which will refit the moment they land) will eat fleet like that without any problems. Small cloacky force that can shut down small BS group without support.

So you still need support. I really dont see that concept working for null or low mining. Let alone wh-es where I spend most of my time.

Small group of T2-s that are able to move fast, engage small force and gtfo from something bigger is something I would consider for null. With BS hulls you have almost no gtfo

LP

Jukio

Your solution to use cruiser hulls would need support, possibly.

My perspective is coming from the direction of this:
Your opponent is using a BLOPs to send in an attack force. Whether your tank alone lasts long enough to allow allied assistance, or your DPS chews them down to below the threshold of being able to beat you, having that fight is what we want to see.
If you anticipate enemy frigs or dessies, a good tank plus drones is one response that contains that. Your primary concern is the cruiser sized targets, possibly the BLOPs itself coming through.
Alternatively, a small yet stealthy group could also attempt this against mining assets, but by needing to slip through conventional defenses, they limit what they can field here. High probability they have the same tools to work with.

We don't want gtfo ability here, as a primary interest. Killing their offensive assets alone is a meaningful goal, mining makes it practical to wait for visitors. You win either way.

More fights happen, and noone cares if stealthy types linger.

So you will tank. Skiff can do that. So you will need Guardian or Basi + Falcon escort to do this.

That is why that idea will never go through. You guys need to find something realistic. Something that miners will actually use.

What I would expect, and find believable, is a couple of miners working together, pooling their strength while they mine together.
Noone standing guard, everyone mining, but the effective fighting strength of a PvP fitted BS for each one present.

I like the idea of having it fit links because it adds to how many ways you can fit it. As for your idea to drop the Exhumers skill, I need to think on it. Maybe it could use the skill ORE Industrial instead.

As I said before. T2 cruiser ORE hull is what you need.

Even with same mining bonuses as let say Skiff it will be useless in AFK high sec mining (less tank). Would work in null and low.

Something like ORE version of Ishtar. 125 mb drone bandwith, 250 drone bay, no tracking bonuses (or maybe 5% per lvl as N. Vexor), no turret mounts. Instead you get mining bonuses. Skiff level of yield, 20k of ore space...

I think something like that would work.

Btw drones are nasty PVP weapon in the right ship. That is why Domi and Ishtar are used so much. Training time for drones is longer then any other weapon system. But you do get ideal PVP option in low and null for miners.

LP

Why bother ganking them in the first place? You get more items dropped and consequently more valuable items ganking bigger ships.

More variants of mining drones would be nice as well relating to the size of drones that are available ~ maybe heavy mining drones can do a block of ice and medium mount gas harvesters.

Special Ability of Both T2 Orcas: Ships can be Anchored like a mobile structure. An anchored ship can still be attacked (rules same as whatever sec level of the system it is in) but cannot be unanchored (read: stolen) by anyone outside of the same corporation.