Its not the damn ships that need overhauling. Its mining itself.

I don't see why the barges need to be changed at all given they were tiericided successfully only recently. Maybe the Covetor / Retriever class barges could do with a little increase in EHP so they can't be ganked by a lone catalyst, but other than that the fundamental concept that was laid out in the original tiericide is fine.

I mean... isn't it possible that the options are crap or crap

crap > crap

Generalize much....to make yourself look really, really cool and them to look like ditzy fools? Huh?

The fundamental concept is fine. Procurer hull = defence / Retriever hull = capacity / Covetor hull = yield.

What you are talking about is a complete rework of the concept. I wouldn't complain if they did, although I don't agree that is necessary and is a waste of development resources which could be better spent elsewhere. It is obvious the procurer hull offers great advantage for minimal drawback, although this can be tweaked by buffing the other two.

I remember the very first barge rework and CCP incorrectly claimed that all players would favour yield and capacity over anything else, this assumption is where the mistake lies, and is why the procurer is more popular as the value of it's strength was vastly underestimated by CCP.

Except the skiff and procurer are the only ones that perform as they should.

You can't even put the other two in a belt in null sec because the rats will kill them. This is another reason why passive armour tanked miners would be a really bad idea.

IMO give the others greater tank, equivalent drone bonuses, and then increase yield and ore bay respectively.That's enough to see all of them getting use.

why only 1 mid Slot? Make them fighting ships with the additional ability to mine. Why does a ratting ship (aka money making tool) have the ability to fight while the mining barges haven't? If you are tackeld you are dead.

Am I the only one that sees the irony that people are complaining that "stupid miners" never sacrifice yield for tank and that the procurer/skiff is OP at the same time?

Except the Skiff and Procurer are not overpowered and are in fact the ones in the right place. It is the covetor and retriever hulls which are poor because CCP incorrectly assumed people favoured yield and capacity.

That bit is fine...

Their offensive capability is limited, they are as slow as heck, and yield and capacity are at the low end of the barge line up. Why should they not have decent EHP... If it is simply so they can be ganked in high sec, then sorry but ship balance shouldn't be determined by high sec gankers.

Is this including processor overclocking unit rigs?

Does anybody have a link to these stats?

That's not too bad then because rigs slots aren't as valuable as lows, and a T2 POU rig is good value whilst still leaving room to be able to fit 2 core defence extenders with the remaining 100 calibration or a single T2 shield rig for the T2 barges.

How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield.

Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want.

Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view.

If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power.

That''s silly logic, "Mining ships can't really fit guns so they are less flexible". Normal ships can't fit strip miners either, your point?

A Drone boat is still a combat ship through-and-through, it just has a specific flavor. It's core purpose is combat and there really is not secondary role. Yes, you could mine with a Tristan and still maintain its drone boat status but there is a reason you don't see many people doing that.

A mining vessel is purpose built to mine and just like in the real world, trying to add weapons to a civilian application is normally met with lots of LOLz. Of course it can be done but where as the Tristan-miner might be seen as being creative, a Retriever with a Pew-gun on it just moronic.

There should be no flexibility (in regards to weapons) on barges/exhume'ers because it's a very silly idea in the first place.

If that role is needed, then make a new class of Combat-Miner ships.

It's like WWII sure you could put a few 50 cals on a merchant ship and they might feel safer but in reality they were just are vulnerable as before. Then there are Attack-Transports that has multiple HMGs, 6" guns and 40mm Bofers....plus a crew actually trained for combat.

Maybe this post is out of place or off the mark but trying to weaponize basic miner ships is a really bad idea.

Defend the attackers with drones, the only defence that matters is the tank. The drones take a bit of time to get to work...

Its a tanky mining ship, that bonus is not interesting for me in terms of the fact it is a mining ship, its nice to have, but adds nothing to its primary role.

You just want easy kills and want fitting flexibility like a combat ship when they are specialised mining ships. Get away with you...

You are asking for more flexible fitting for a single role ship to fit in with cruisers and then saying that their base EHP should be in line with cruisers. They are not flexible combat ships built around speed and the ability to use weapons and the full suite of combat capabilities, most notably weapons systems in the highs.

The only think that matters for these ships is tank, period, because it is a DPS race against tank before CONCORD arrives to give their lame consequences to a cheap ship or cheap ships.

Why the devil are you guys acting like the Skiff doesn't exist? She has tank, drone DPS and half the Mackinaw's cargo capacity and reduced m3/sec to compensate! If getting gank is your problem, why don't just fly a fricking Skiff and take the reduced cargo capacity and mining m3/s in strides? If money is a problem downgrade into the Procurer!

I mine in a Skiff, but baltec1 keeps wanting to nerf it.

You keep asking to nerf it.

Throw enough Catalysts at them and the Skiff/Procurer will still die. Seriously, if you can gank a freighter, ganking a Procurer/Skiff should be easier, though I question the financial sense of ganking these ships. They have the tank of battlecruisers (Procurer) and battleships (Skiff), meaning that ganking them is still very much doable especially for those guys who gank Freighters daily at Jita 4-4. hose drones are great at killing a destroyer or two but that's just about it.

I don't see what the problem is.

Doesn't that mean that the Hulk and Coveter need beefing up a bit which is what we keep saying.

And doing that in hisec is a non-starter for damn obvious reasons, but perhaps not for you.

You know the reasons..., you of all people should know why...

Mate, if you are mining in nullsec WITHOUT a Rorqual with a hangar bay full of combat ships and combat boosters along with mining boosters for support (plus backup no further than one jump away), I am going to seriously question your intelligence. In fact, why are you even in nullsec without combat skills of some description to make good use of the ships you will be reshipping into from the Rorqual to take on attackers?

Obvious is still obvious...

Let mining lasers do dmg to ships.... TADA things just got more interesting

Meh... i forgot the english term for someone who is a dishonest weasel who constantly tries using words in manipulative ways, trying to portrait himself as a good and upstanding person while the opposite is the case.

Can someone help me out?

Last chance...

Of course they can be used in other areas and are, however CCP designed them for that role.

The two ships I mentioned were designated for that role by CCP, baltec1 can make them look like micky mouse heads and stick purple disco lights on them for all I care.

The Skiff is what I use because of its tank and because I solo mine in hisec, it meats my needs as it is, baltec1 wants to change the skiff to be less then what it is, which I reject. It is the solo mining boat and if he wants to hang fluffy dice from his rear view mirror on the Hulk that is his call.

I used the Hulk when it was the ship that had the best defences, I stopped using any mining ship when they all had the tank of a wet paper bag, I mine in the Skiff because it has a tank, I fit additional tank and I accept the lower yield, that is fine for me, if CCP change it, then it will not be fine.

You can do what you want with the Hulk and Coveter as it can be used in that role, please go and fit pink fluffy dice on it if you want.. That is the role that CCP designated for it, it is CCP's problem that it is not fit for purpose. You want a fleet mining ship with options work with the Hulk and Coveter. It is that simple...

I am simply stating that the Skiff is fine where it is, no change needed, I have never asked for more tank for the Skiff or Procurer, while you want to nerf its tank by adding other roles to it which are not desired by miners with the aim of reducing its ability as a tanky mining ship.

Those other abilities are not desired

So will the Mackinkaw see more use in hi-sec now that it has the best yield and is the best solo miner?

Skiff has 20% less yield on the base of it but if you factor in that a skiff can fit 3 yield modules in the lo slots and still have enough cpu to fit a strong T2 tank

Mackinkaw can still only fit two yield modules if you want to retain enough to cpu to fit any kind of tank. Like this the super tank yield fit Skiff only has 11% less yield than the Mackinkaw.

There's a serious imbalance in the CPU numbers of the barges. Either nerf Skiff CPU hard so it can't be yield fit and have a strong T2 tank or boost mackinkaw/hulk cpu so they can at least fit a half decent tank so they can survive 3 catalysts if properly fit.

Give the larger drone bay and drone bonus to the Hulk too, fine with me, it does not currently have any role bonuses and it should.

The skiff is a solo mining boat, the Hulk does not currently have any role bonus so drone damage with that extra low slot would be a good idea.

Your plan sucks, it is directly aimed against solo miners and people who want to mine in a ship with a tank.

Wait a second. We are talking about high-sec? Then we deal with suicide ganking don't we?

- drones need time to reach target
- skiff need time to lock target and order drones to attack it. Can skiff lock catalyst fast enough so its defensive capability will matter?

- mach needs time to lock other ship to repair it. Can it lock hulk/skiff fast enough to provide logi against suiciders?
(Using pre-lock only works in really small fleets)

- providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it.

Face palm, that is going to work where people are in one man corps in the main, no no and fecking no.

Obviously you have no idea what goes on in terms of hisec mining where people often fleet up and work together, or also what went on before when people fleated up for defence, most of them were not in the same corp. You just want joke kills using CONCORD to gloat over, your suggestion reeks of that bull shite.

That doesn't prevent the suspect flagging. As soon as you rep somebody who is in a LE with somebody else, you get suspect flagged, regardless of same corp/alliance/fleet/whatever.

Reducing the base HP would reduce the tank, that is pretty clueless on your part

As for your suggestion working in hisec, you know full well that the mechanics are likely to cause stupid easy deaths in certain circumstances.

Yep, put Procurers/Skiffs in your fleet, because according to you "they are now perfect mining escorts/defence boats for both fleet work and solo" but don't you dare to shoot back if attacked because that would give you a LE which in turn makes all your Mack-logis go suspect. That makes perfect sense.

Go and read what CCP did when they balanced this ships. And then see how people use them. And its not friendly advice, its totally incorrect condescending advice from someone who has no clue.

all i hear is "lower the tank on the skiff" from the alot of folks

to make it easier to gank??

what?? you cant get a dozen catalysts together to gank a skiff?? thats too much work and effort for you?? do all miners have to be gankable by a solo catalyst?? seems pretty lazy on your part

well, a few options

we could go back to the old days were 1 ship is specilized in mining astroids, one is for ice and one is for mercocite, make them all same base tank

catch is,, that tank has to be enough to tank a null sec rat... or are you gonna make a mining ship that is for null sec only with uber tank and not useable in high sec????

another option

complete and total overhaul of the tank... make the ships Armor tank instead of shield tank
lots of low slots... then players have choice of tank or yield (since both armor tank and mining laser upgrades are low slot)

but then we are right back were we started because the majority will fit out max tank ,and then we have nothing but skiffs running around with low yield and max tank

if CCP goes the path of nurfing the tank on the skiff to make it no longer viable option for mining and protection from gankers, i forsee that the majority of astroid miners will go back to what we did years ago... mining in a battleship (yes, we did mine in Rokhs and Dominix and bannana boats back in the day) as for ice miners.. they will use the ice mining frigate instead... (its fast and nimble and can escape vast majority of ganks )

"other in game entites" will *****.. "they are mining in battleships, we cant gank them" .... majority of miners in high sec, will almost always go for max tank and sacrifice yield / profits for the tank

1. What would be the max EHP of a Skiff and how would that be achieved?

2. What would you consider to be an appropriate yield be in m3 per 180 secs with that tank?

Batlec1, one issue I've not seen you address in your proposal is the problem that, if you give Barges and Exhumers more fitting options in return for lowered base stats, and *if* you allow (and I'm not sure you would) them to reach the same levels of tankiness the Procurer and Skiff do now through modules, these modules now become lootable. That would add to the profitability of suicide ganks and giving gankers even more incentive to go after vessels that through the very nature of their usage (having to sit still for hours on end) can never hope to enter fair combat against similarly-valued opponents.

It's the same problem with faction mining modules: even if I were willing to risk several hundred million isk worth of modules to my exhumer, I would only be providing the next ganker a rich buffet in my wreck, attracting them like bears to honey. And thus those modules go entirely unused.

While I'm out and about faction mining modules: why are ORE Ice Harvesters longer-ranged versions of T2 Ice Harvesters, but ORE Stripminers only longer-ranged versions of T1 Stripminers?

That is a too low a tank, set to be within a Kusion, I knew that was what you were after, pretty damn obvious...

the issue for fitting the ship and ballanceing between tank and yield . is the tank is shield tank goes in mid slots, and the yield boosting modules go in low slot... yea, would like to see a few more mid slots on the T1 mining barges to have the option to fit a tank OR fit for yield

Its a mining ship not a HAC n a fleet battle, bluntly that level of tank enables multi boxer solo gankers to kill every single mining ship no matter the tank.. From my perspective that is too low.

And the 2 to 3 cycles, wow you really hate solo miners don't you.

i had thought of the cruiser thing.... give them the speed /agility / signature radius of a cruiser or HAC

but these ships are technicaly battlecruiser sized (mak has a signature rateing of 250, hulk is 200,... vs say a cerberus 195 or cyclone and hurricane both at 250), they also got almost as much volumn as the battlecruisers

they shoudl all have the speed / agility /signature radius ... and tank of battlecruisers

then give 1 yield bonus, 1 gets cargo bonus, and 1 gets "offensive" bonus with drones

I am talking about Catalysts used by the Kusions as a base line, what the hell relevance does a dreadnought in hisec have to this?

And reduce its tank even further, yeah you will be happy.

ganking is the only issue realy... its ganking that lead to this imballance to begin with....

Oddly...I've never seen a pilot outside of high sec complaining that they died because their mining ship was under-powered for the task at hand...

Nor have I seen a mining ship killed during war-time that would have been aided by any kind of fitting rebalance...

Just saying...

It doesn't mean they *do* see the ships as pathetic either...

edit:
Indeed the roaming/camping skiff/procurer combat fleets would seem to indicate that they do *not* consider current mining ships to be too weak - rather they are fun ships to kill people with.


Also the truly weak ships are good for *BAIT* - and they will hate you if you take that away from them.

Well... That's the new way of combating suicide gankers

before: tank your mining ship and mine safely
after: make dedicated fleet composition, be aware all the time, get into suspect status and deal with all these bored high-sec 'pvpers' with pimped ships, OGB and neutral logistics?


One thing can be said for sure: it WILL BE more interesting Not sure if there will be ONE such fleet which survived first full mining session tho.....

[

So what we are talking about is reducing the tank of the Skiff so they can be ganked, the key thing is that at this moment Kusion has to use all his toons to kill one or get friends, so now we drop down to 7. Why does it have to be made so damn easy? That is my question every time!

Q: Then why don't you?
A1: Because they shoot back.
A2: Because they don't loiter in predictable locations: you have to probe them or tackle them quickly when they pass by.
A3: Because of gate/stationguns.
A4: Because of :reasons:

Which one is it?

Whether through fitting options or straight built into the hull, that tank is essential.

What I'm trying to say, is that the discussion around EHP tends to ignore the second half of the equation. A ship's combat worth = EHP x DPS. A ship with 80k EHP, 200 DPS is equivalent to a 40k, 400 DPS ship.

Comparing Zealots and battleships to barges is plain wrong. I get that they're supposed to be less combat-ready than a warship, but if DPS=150, then tank has to go up.

As I illustrated by saying that 8 catalysts will NOT gank a battleship, because the battleship will simply shoot them all before its tank caves in.

Actually my opinion is that the base EHP of Battleshsips are too low and I have felt that for some time.

Perhaps a silly question...will it still fit at least 1 strip miner or something?

You already have mining corps that 100% refuse to take the most simple precautions of even a single logistics cruiser to keep their ships alive through the half hearted ganks..... why in the heck do you think they'd want to give up those slots for anything but more mining yield?



A fully fit scythe is what? 40 mil? 20 mil if you make it cheap? a fraction of the cost of a Hulk.



You guys mention 'nobody wants to sit in a logi cruiser and hope for a gank,' but there are alot of roles in Eve that people don't want to do, that have to be done. Fueling towers and citadels. It's not fun. But it has to be done. Logi cruisers or other pre-emptive measures for a fleet of miners are the same sort of deal. Sure, it's not 'fun' per say, but it's part of the game, and needs done.

Idea is interesting for sure. The only thing needs to be worked on: workaround for logistics to be usable against attackers and not deal with suspect flag. Else this will only lead to death of the whole fleets.

Just to clarify:
- fleet is sitting on belt, working on roids, paying attention to surroundings
- suicider comes in, attacks one hulk
- logistics starts to work and all ships get suspect flag (suicider has LE with target)
- more ships warping to belt and killing all the logistics

- at the same time defenders (skiffs) are sitting still and doing nothing: they cannot join party because they will be CONCORDed

Industrialists have to factor transport and install costs into their build costs.... miners should also be of the mindset that they have to factor basic defense into their op shares.

From that perspective, that's fine, sensible, reasonable, etc. But there's always going to be the back swing 'You gave my ship these but now I don't have enough of this to do this with it so buff this so I can be Ubertank!' There's also the can't defend them without concord bit. They can be defended. People just are not willing to view them the same way any other fleet is viewed, for fear of profit shares. Not losing a Hulk is a major profit share. But even then, people are not able to come to terms with there will still be cases where the 'other guy' just brought more to the table to gank you.


You don't take a T3 fleet out without logi, Ewar, DPS, and an oh crap plan. Or a null/low mining fleet. High sec Mining fleets should be bound to the same rules. I honestly don't know the best way to address that basic flaw in attitude towards high sec mining. But I still hold that that is the bigger share of the problems. Not opposed to diversifying the barges/re-introducing utility cruisers, but want it to be for the right reasons, not continuous bandaging of the actual problem.

IF and only IF you get into a fight. The rest the time you just sit there and warp to gates, or on a titan... and twiddle your thumbs while watching netflix.

Nah, I flew logi all the time. Was usually logi FC/Anchor.


You can do the research if you want.

So your suggestion has no merit in hisec, because that is how the mechanics work.

What you have suggested is perfectly fine for null sec and even low sec, but it does not work for hisec where the only metric that counts is surviving the massed firepower of multiple destroyers until CONCORD comes. The Skiffs current tank is right, period.

You do if you're sitting on a titan, or just warping gate to gate because there are no fights.

And that's where we disagree. Your simple solution is to change the tools that are in the game for this reason. My simple solution is to use the tools that are in the game for that reason. You want to change them so the 'smart players' have more options, I am of the opinion changing them should be a very careful thing to avoid the hazardous slope of 'you buffed it to do this but now I can't do this because you messed it up the first time so fix it.' You have already watched this happen with Freighters, and the unrelenting stream of 'nerf ganking' threads when there are already more than sufficient tools to effectively negate all but the most serious gank efforts. To you, I'm sure I'm probably appearing to want to keep them in the same cookie cutter for whatever reason. That's not the case. To me, you're indirectly perpetuating the attitude that mining fleets don't need to take steps to do things properly, as most the mining fleets, especially in high sec, won't use that buff for what you intend it for, as it's the attitude behind high sec mining in particular that is problematic.

I've within the last two weeks suggested on multiple occasions that a newbro mining corp use a logistics cruiser so they keep their covetors alive. They refused to, choosing to pursue max ore yield. Consequently, they were ganked.

It is not so simple a thing. Changing ships won't deal with the problem. It'll help a few people, but it'll be just another bad change to many other people.

Which is entirely the point. If there is nothing going on, then that person(s) isn't doing anything except BS'ing in chat. That doesn't mean you just tell the whole fleet to log out while the hunter is still looking for targets. They sit. And wait. And do nothing.

Yet here we are, still going on with nerf ganking and changing tools that work so they work better against said thing because there's not already enough options for dealing with a problem.

Which is where we come to the attitude of, again, high sec mining in particular. As an industrialist MUST calculate his transit and install costs, a mining FC must calculate her defense cost. The logistics guys would be part of the cuts, as their job is to make sure no hulks are harmed in the making of this profit share.

It would very likely be taken as a bad change because now you have slots and fitting, but not enough to fit for max tank/yield because again, the attitude behind mining is it's not required to take those same steps and deal with some of the same problems that every other fleet must deal with, from the varied roles for 'what if' to the down time as your specific job is not required 100% of the time. Again, you have witnessed this personally with the freighter low slots. 'Yay I have low slots, but I don't have enough CPU to fit anything in them, wtf were you doing CCP.'

Logi does not have a reward unless they are given one. They often miss out on kill mails, are often the first ones primaried, and often have the hardest job of the entire fleet. Not much reward....

Yes, something does have to change. But just changing ships won't change what needs to change.

Miners get the shaft predominately due to bad or ignorant decisions, both from young and old players alike. NOT because they don't have the means to deal with them.

A barge with logi capabilities is not necessarily going to be fit to do that logi thing. Just because you give a barge the option, does not mean it will be used. Miners have had the option of using links and logi for years now, but choose not to. Precedent is that they will not. A barge that isn't doing its 'job' of logi and loses another barge is costing more than a logi cruiser that always does it's job of logi and saves a barge from being ganked.

If I had reason to believe that changing barges to do that job like you suggest WOULD be used for that job, I'd be right there with ya. But I absolutely do not. I am completely convinced it will be completely ignored, as have all the other tools for protecting a mining fleet. I would LIKE to see utility cruisers come back. The old exeq was awesome. I would like to see more diverse ORE ships. But I'm not at all in a hurry to just throw another change at a problem without addressing the problem.

Again, I invite you to do the research.

Again, the tools have existed. Miners have chosen not to use them. Why is it going to change just because you make the tools shinier?

The covetor is the one in worst shape. But even it is still usable with a few basic precautions. Again, with the caveat that there are always gonna be times the other guy just had a bigger stick, and that's Eve.

Not really sure how you came to that. I'm going to guess you're going off the presumption that I'm suggesting people won't refit them after a change. My response to that is some might. But again, the precedent is far and away, miners choose NOT to use tools that are available. No need to start with the attacks.

No, we shouldn't just throw more shiny at it because people aren't doing basic things to ensure a margin of some sort of security. Because again, it will have the snowball effect we've seen with every other change to mining barges and ganking in that now its messed up for this reason and it's not good enough so has to be better. Making them versatile platforms with HAC sized tanks and bigger bays and drone bays and more slots and fittings doesn't specifically fix them. It just makes them different.

Literally just edited my other post :/ See edit.

We are talking about mining and not incursion runners, the pace is completely different. It is disingenuous to do so.

Ganking makes up the majority of losses in hisec, with the tank you have proposed for the Skiff 80k to 90k you would make every mining ship vulnerable even if they fitted to max tank which is not giving miners the tools for the job. At the moment the Skiff is corretly set up and is the only choice for miners who do not want to be ganked, as long as that choice is left to me with the tank it has now I don't care what else CCP does. As long as they have a ship which people can chose which has a tank that deters the easy complacent gankers then I am fine. 90k does not do it, but the present Skiff does.

Hey it's news to me that Incursion runners sit for hours in one spot and that they are flying mostly alone. I really thought that a incursion fleet!!!! has some logis etc. to bump. And if I'm not totally wrong incursion runners make a little more Isk/hour then miners.

Sorry but you are comparing ships that do totally different thing in a totally different way. An Incursion fleet will make short work with some would be gankers.

Ganking makes up the majority of mining ship losses in hisec and is the key factor in assessing game balance for CCP.

Simple statement of truth!

So just to be clear: Are you saying that only a tiny fraction of the ships CODE. kills are mining ships?

Or are you saying that the #1 most used ships in all of those 0.0 fleet battles are mining ships?

One or the other must *clearly* be true...or is it both?

Incursion runners make 100+M Isk/h including Logis, Miners make <30M Isk/h EXCLUDING logis.
The calculation Ehp x Dps to calculate the combat value of a ship is good but where do you land with mining ships? Because they have lousy DPS the Ehp must go up to compensate. The main problem is not targeting the passive nature of mining: you have to relay on others to protect you, may it be rats in belts or gankers.

It is you who wants no options for mining barges and exhumers, you just want easy gank targets to farm in hisec and are using 0.0 mining as a smoekscreen, after all PL mine in their sov space, not...

Most people do solo mining in hisec your ideas are not relevant to hisec.

Pretty obvious that is not comparable.

For a start can you solo incursions?

Gates anyone?

Using a MJD to be away from the warp in, NPC aggro...

Gankers have a boner for ganking miners above anyone else, so what... And the Skiff will be replaced by the Rokh if CCP nerf it like it was before.

I am building two at the moment and I am training my other toon that mines into Caldari BS V which I already have on Dracvlad, so that covers my needs. CCP go make it easier for gankers, by nerfing the Skiff and watch as people change to Rokh's so much for your crap balancing...

Better is a relative term mate and that is all one has to say....

The Skiff under your nerf suggestion would be worse for me, it goes from being optimised for hisec mining to being optimised for ganking.

Not relevant.

Are they mining?

What do mission BS have to do with mining?

Can I get the 20,000 ehp *per second* active tank from the marauder too if we are using that as our metric?

That would be one *scary* skiff...

Nice moving Goalposts Baltec. You got called on your example and you have singly failed to back it up.

Especially since your own calls for change including giving barges PG/CPU & Slots so they can fit active tank, prop mods & other modules as they see fit.

We all know that these Logi Machs are mythical and will never ever happen because mining is one of the lowest income professions. So stop trying to tout them as some magical solution to things.

Since Marauders can not receive RR in bastion mode - and non-marauders are better if not using bastion mode... I'm guessing they run local tanks.

You also keep referencing mission ships... But the few missioners who actually do bring RR alts along on their missions get made fun of almost as much as miners who get ganked - because they are "doing it wrong"...

As for what PvP gangs do in high-sec... I don't think you'll get any objections from the miners if you use *those* ships as the baseline...

That would be, what.. Anywhere between 150k-500k ehp? Plus RR on top of that?

Yeah, I think they'd be happy with that...

Just as soon as *you* show *me* a 90k ehp svipul.

Because that is *your* number.

Now who is trying to muddy the argument?




We were talking about *high sec* PvP Ships.

Like this one

And I never disagreed with your comparison to heavy assault cruisers - I merely pointed out that it is silly to compare them to mission ships and marauders, since those ships only survive due to their *active repairs* - not their ehp. You are comparing apples to oranges and saying they are about the same size... Well good for you, but they aren't the same in any other way...

Are Svipuls more common than buffer T3C amongst the wardeccers?

The top 10 most used ships for the past 7 days for Vendetta Mercenary Group:

Top Ships

Proteus
Proteus120
Phobos89
Stratios70
Legion67
Dramiel44
Loki40
Machariel35
Svipul30
Ishtar24
Broadsword15

@ Baltec - I'm not the one moving goal posts around, I'm just throwing your own stupid examples back in your face. If you want the goal-posts to stop moving I'm afraid *you* will need to put them down and stop carrying them around with you.

You realise that a BS can shoot back to reduce incoming damage? I have some doubts about exhumers there. And you can show me the trick to find mission ships just using the D-Scan, which doesn't alert the target like combat probes.

inb4 a shower!