These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Initial mining barge changes are on the test server
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#181 - 2012-07-25 20:49:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Denidil wrote:
there is your error.. you didn't read the changes to the ship

Yes I did. That is making a 1 strip Skiff into a 3 strip Skiff.

1 * (1 + 200%) = 3

As I stated, all the ships were normalized at 3 strips.

So that leaves the two 15% bonuses for the hulk and the 5% for the skiff as being the main differences, plus fitting two 9% mlu to the skiff. So I still don't see how a 2 MLU skiff is on-par or better than a no-mlu hulk.

Not trying to argue, just trying to understand.

Hulk - 3 strips * 1.15 (barge V) * 1.15 (exhumers V) = 3.9675
Skiff - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) * 1.05 * 1.09^2 (two MLU II) = 3.742515

I don't think there is stacking penalty on MLU, but if there is, then the Skiff is even less.
Pipa Porto
#182 - 2012-07-25 21:27:28 UTC
Tassian Marrix wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

A Hulk can be tanked enough that it can't be profitably ganked.


If only this were true.


It is. If you're including the gankers getting outside help (GSF bounties), then ofc, tanking it to be unprofitable takes some outside help (RR, ECM, Blap Nado, Fleet boosts).

Properly tanked, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Pipa Porto
#183 - 2012-07-25 21:29:56 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

That's what miners get for whining when they could have just learned to tank their Hulks.

A Carrier is a Logistics ship without maneuverability. Of course it's tanky. It has to be. It's designed for Combat. A Hulk isn't designed to be a brick, it's designed to mine in a convenient manner. You want a brick miner, the Rokh's your toy.

A Hulk can be tanked enough that it can't be profitably ganked. If the gankers bring outside help (GSF bounties) to change that, and the Hulk pilot brings outside help (Blap Nado, RR, ECM), the gankers still lose at making a profit.

Price is not a balancing factor the way miners seem to think it is.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=11888211

This 100b ratting ship got killed by a gang worth not more than 4-5b Isk. And that gang didn't lose anything significant.


that link doesn't work, so i can't really comment. if it's some moron in a faction fit tengu not paying attention to local in a 0.0 system then it's really not a valid argument since we're talking about empire space. in 0.0 a lone rifter can kill anything if some dumb bastard is just sitting there afk for long enough.


Open in a new tab works, or delete the ;amp bit. KM links have been broken forever, I though everyone knew the workaround.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#184 - 2012-07-25 21:34:09 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Denidil wrote:
there is your error.. you didn't read the changes to the ship

Yes I did. That is making a 1 strip Skiff into a 3 strip Skiff.

1 * (1 + 200%) = 3

As I stated, all the ships were normalized at 3 strips.

So that leaves the two 15% bonuses for the hulk and the 5% for the skiff as being the main differences, plus fitting two 9% mlu to the skiff. So I still don't see how a 2 MLU skiff is on-par or better than a no-mlu hulk.

Not trying to argue, just trying to understand.

Hulk - 3 strips * 1.15 (barge V) * 1.15 (exhumers V) = 3.9675
Skiff - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) * 1.05 * 1.09^2 (two MLU II) = 3.742515

I don't think there is stacking penalty on MLU, but if there is, then the Skiff is even less.


there apparently isn't a stacking penalty


Here i'll make a full chart with/without MLUs (round-down on all)

Hulk (no MLUs) - 3 strips * 1.15 (barge V) * 1.15 (exhumers V) = 3.9675
Hulk (1x MLUs) - 3 strips * 1.15 (barge V) * 1.15 (exhumers V) * 1.09 = 4.3245
Hulk (2x MLUs) - 3 strips * 1.15 (barge V) * 1.15 (exhumers V) * 1.09 * 1.09 = 4.7137


Mackinaw (No MLUs) - 2 strips * 1.50 (role bonus) * 1.05 (exhumers V) = 3.15
Mackinaw (1x MLUs) - 2 strips * 1.50 (role bonus) * 1.05 (exhumers V) * 1.09 = 3.4335
Mackinaw (2x MLUs) - 2 strips * 1.50 (role bonus) * 1.05 (exhumers V) * 1.09 * 1.09 = 3.7425
Mackinaw (3x MLUs) - 2 strips * 1.50 (role bonus) * 1.05 (exhumers V) * 1.09 * 1.09 = 4.0793


Skiff (No MLUs) - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) * 1.05 = 3.15
Skiff (1x MLUs) - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) * 1.05 * 1.09 = 3.4335
Skiff (2x MLUs) - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) * 1.05 * 1.09 * 1.09 = 3.7425




so you're right - I was thinking of a 3x MLU mackinaw, not a skiff


No MLU Hulk (pure tank) - 49.3k (needs +4% PG implant)
2x MLU hulk - 28.6k ehp (needs +5% cpu implant)
1x MLU hulk - 40k EHP (needs +4% cpu implant)


3x MLU mackinaw - 37.7k (needs +5% CPU implant) - 103% output of a zero MLU hulk, 81.4% of the tank
2x MLU Mackinaw - 52.4k ehp (needs +5% CPU, +4% PG implants) - 94.3% of the output of a zeru MLU hulk, 1.13% of the tank

2x MLU Skiff - 62.8k EHP (and 376 hp/s regen tank, and that is with a survey scanner II) = 94.3% output, 127% the tank


lots of tech 2 shield and pg rigs flying around these fits



updatin the chart on page one

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Herr Hammer Draken
#185 - 2012-07-25 22:05:12 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
CCP fixed the problems that were making that not so. There's nothing more they can do to significantly affect Mining Income.


Apart from, say, buffing mining ships to the point where you can have your max yield and a 30k EHP tank too.


Higher yield -> Lower mineral prices -> More hauling effort for the same amount of ISK.

Used to not be true of mining ships because the highest yield mining ship in the game was a Sentry Carrier, but since that's no longer true, mining income is controlled by the supply of mining vs the demands of ship building.

Buffing mining ships like you suggest removes any element of decision making. Everybody else has to compromise something for something else when they fit their ships. Why should miners be special?


There is also a finite limit. Only so many roids in all of eve every daily cycle before DT replaces them. Miners can only mine that much and no more per day. If ship building demand exceeded that supply then the dynamics all change.
This could happen if eve grew enough. I wonder what percentage of roids are mined out daily right now on eve?

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
Droxlyn
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#186 - 2012-07-25 22:19:45 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
There is also a finite limit. Only so many roids in all of eve every daily cycle before DT replaces them. Miners can only mine that much and no more per day. If ship building demand exceeded that supply then the dynamics all change.
This could happen if eve grew enough. I wonder what percentage of roids are mined out daily right now on eve?


Security Missions frequently have real asteroids.
0.0 Upgraded systems have gravimetric sites that respawn upon being used up.
Wormhole gravimetric sites respawn in other wormholes of the same class when they are mined out.
There is infinite supply of ore, it just gets harder and harder to find as the belts get used up.

Drox
Pipa Porto
#187 - 2012-07-25 22:23:57 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
CCP fixed the problems that were making that not so. There's nothing more they can do to significantly affect Mining Income.


Apart from, say, buffing mining ships to the point where you can have your max yield and a 30k EHP tank too.


Higher yield -> Lower mineral prices -> More hauling effort for the same amount of ISK.

Used to not be true of mining ships because the highest yield mining ship in the game was a Sentry Carrier, but since that's no longer true, mining income is controlled by the supply of mining vs the demands of ship building.

Buffing mining ships like you suggest removes any element of decision making. Everybody else has to compromise something for something else when they fit their ships. Why should miners be special?


There is also a finite limit. Only so many roids in all of eve every daily cycle before DT replaces them. Miners can only mine that much and no more per day. If ship building demand exceeded that supply then the dynamics all change.
This could happen if eve grew enough. I wonder what percentage of roids are mined out daily right now on eve?


Sounds like you've never heard of Hidden Belts.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#188 - 2012-07-26 00:08:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Denidil wrote:
so you're right - I was thinking of a 3x MLU mackinaw, not a skiff

Ah, good, so I'm not completely insane. Good to know. Thanks!

Thanks for all the math too! Big smile

Now I have to check some more Mackinaw fittings. Most of the fittings I tried were very tight, lower yield than a no-MLU Hulk (I posted my current fit previously), and not significantly more tank. I don't consider to have fully explored every possibility yet though (I don't have mining upgrades 4 yet *blush*).

And don't get me wrong, I think the improved Skiff is an awesome addition. I'd probably use them if I was still living in w-space.
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#189 - 2012-07-26 01:01:42 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Denidil wrote:
so you're right - I was thinking of a 3x MLU mackinaw, not a skiff

Ah, good, so I'm not completely insane. Good to know. Thanks!

Thanks for all the math too! Big smile

Now I have to check some more Mackinaw fittings. Most of the fittings I tried were very tight, lower yield than a no-MLU Hulk (I posted my current fit previously), and not significantly more tank. I don't consider to have fully explored every possibility yet though (I don't have mining upgrades 4 yet *blush*).

And don't get me wrong, I think the improved Skiff is an awesome addition. I'd probably use them if I was still living in w-space.


inherently yield to the fit is all down to the MLUs - if you want the fits i'm theorycrafting with they're buried in the threads somewhere but i'm constantly tweaking, i can evemail the latest editions to you.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#190 - 2012-07-26 08:09:02 UTC
A few observations...

The Hulk and the Mackinaw both have three additional slots over their T1 counterparts, as these slots are mids the modules which can be fitted into them all require at least 1MW of PG... And yet there is no increase in the ships' powergrids.

The cargo bays are too small unless simultaneously the volume of the mining crystals is going to be reduced. For a Covetor or a Hulk a set of crystals for another ore type is 150m3 - with spare crystals that means you can only carry the equipment for two ore types... and you only see belts with two ore types in very high sec systems.
It could be argued that the Hulk and Covetor are designed for gang mining and their spare crystals are carried by the Orca but even the Retriever and Mackinaw which are designed to work without even a hauler would be entirely reliant on the right click reload in order to approach three ore types. Not only that but the cargoes are too small to allow the use of a can to keep your all but burned out crystals and your stacks of brand new ones seperate from the ones you're actually using.

The movement of the Mack's Icemining and the Skiff's Mercoxit bonus to rigs is inappropriate from my perspective. Rigs should not be requisite to the ship's function and forcing ice miners to sacrifice tank (the only rigs I can perceive a use for given the smaller cargobay) in order to operate seems foolish.


I would therefore suggest:

Increase the PG on the Hulk and Mack by three megawatts, one for each additional slot they have over their T1 counterparts.

Reduce Mining crystal volume tenfold (to 5m3) to allow a reasonable number of ore types and the use of a can to manage the singletons.
or
Increase the cargobay to allow a large can as well as "active" sets of crystals.

I have no options for the icemining and Merc rigs...
Dave stark
#191 - 2012-07-26 08:14:51 UTC
Jacob Holland wrote:
I would therefore suggest:

Increase the PG on the Hulk and Mack by three megawatts, one for each additional slot they have over their T1 counterparts.

Reduce Mining crystal volume tenfold (to 5m3) to allow a reasonable number of ore types and the use of a can to manage the singletons.
or
Increase the cargobay to allow a large can as well as "active" sets of crystals.

I have no options for the icemining and Merc rigs...


more power grid will never be looked down upon.

the crystal volume isn't the issue; the awfully designed split between cargo and ore hold is. ~5.6k is as big as the ore bay needs to be. hence there's no reason for the hulk not to have a 2.4k cargo hold for crystals. ideally i'd like to see 5750 ore / 2250 cargo.
increasing the cargo bay to accommodate a GSC would reduce the ore bay to a size insufficient to hold a full cycle of ore.
Haffsol
#192 - 2012-07-26 08:38:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Haffsol
can't find the new magic rigs in sisi. where are them?

as regards the cargo bay size..... I like it instead. I think it's made under the specific purpose of fixing the roles for each ship or in other words: no cargohold extenders/cargo rigs anymore which is an awesome news. If you want to solo/afk mine there's no way you can use a hulk now. There are specific barges with a huge ore bay for that and you can't use them for hauling either, which I guess is the second reason why they made a "ore bay" for barges instead of "just a bay"

also, I honestly can't see how you may say the crystal problem even exists. If you solo mine how long are you staying out there, 36 hrs without docking? I don't think so, so check your crystals before undocking and fly safe. If you're in a fleet, as you are supposed to be, the orca/hauler can keep all the crystals you want and give some to those who need them when necessary.
Haffsol
#193 - 2012-07-26 09:18:05 UTC
hey what is that monster raft? is it a hulk? is it a mack with 6 MLU? No it's just a retriever! lol

that thing is insanely overpowered! 3 hardpoints, 3 MLU, about 20k hp, almost 87% the yield of a Hulk with 2 MLU..... 30.000k m3 ore bay!!! all for 10 mils? oh c'mon that's really insane
Dave stark
#194 - 2012-07-26 09:22:03 UTC
Haffsol wrote:
can't find the new magic rigs in sisi. where are them?

as regards the cargo bay size..... I like it instead. I think it's made under the specific purpose of fixing the roles for each ship or in other words: no cargohold extenders/cargo rigs anymore which is an awesome news. If you want to solo/afk mine there's no way you can use a hulk now. There are specific barges with a huge ore bay for that and you can't use them for hauling either, which I guess is the second reason why they made a "ore bay" for barges instead of "just a bay"

also, I honestly can't see how you may say the crystal problem even exists. If you solo mine how long are you staying out there, 36 hrs without docking? I don't think so, so check your crystals before undocking and fly safe. If you're in a fleet, as you are supposed to be, the orca/hauler can keep all the crystals you want and give some to those who need them when necessary.


it's not the fact that you're reloading crystals, it's the fact that there's more than one ore in the belts so you need multiple sets of crystals. this situation is made even worse by the fact that you have 3 strips on the hulk.
Haffsol
#195 - 2012-07-26 09:56:23 UTC
Quote:
it's not the fact that you're reloading crystals, it's the fact that there's more than one ore in the belts so you need multiple sets of crystals. this situation is made even worse by the fact that you have 3 strips on the hulk.

sure, but 13 crystals are more than enough to stay out 2 hrs (just in case you want to jetcan before coming back in a indy and scoop your cans) or for any other kind of solo mining thing, being a "solo mining thing" something like "I go me myself and my barge around and mine the hell out of those roids" (different than "I solo with my 6 accounts with rorq and orca boost in -1 sec").
P3po
Perkone
Caldari State
#196 - 2012-07-26 12:08:39 UTC
Haffsol wrote:
Quote:
it's not the fact that you're reloading crystals, it's the fact that there's more than one ore in the belts so you need multiple sets of crystals. this situation is made even worse by the fact that you have 3 strips on the hulk.

sure, but 13 crystals are more than enough to stay out 2 hrs (just in case you want to jetcan before coming back in a indy and scoop your cans) or for any other kind of solo mining thing, being a "solo mining thing" something like "I go me myself and my barge around and mine the hell out of those roids" (different than "I solo with my 6 accounts with rorq and orca boost in -1 sec").


Have you ever mined with more than 2-3 hulks ? Do you realise how annoying is the fact that you cant carry the crystals, and have to check them on many pilots, and move them with hauler to that pilot so he can replenish them, because it ruins your synchronised cycles if you dont have them in cargo right at that minute etc. its really annoying
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#197 - 2012-07-26 12:34:10 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
ideally i'd like to see 5750 ore / 2250 cargo.
increasing the cargo bay to accommodate a GSC would reduce the ore bay to a size insufficient to hold a full cycle of ore.


No need for a GSC, just a large would do the job, as long as there was sufficient additional cargo for the "active" sets of singletons... A medium could cut it in a pinch but only close to home, and only on the skiff and just barely the Mack.

Haffsol wrote:
also, I honestly can't see how you may say the crystal problem even exists. If you solo mine how long are you staying out there, 36 hrs without docking? I don't think so, so check your crystals before undocking and fly safe. If you're in a fleet, as you are supposed to be, the orca/hauler can keep all the crystals you want and give some to those who need them when necessary.

That argument can work for the Hulk and Covetor which are the gang mining ships but it doesn't work for the other barges which are supposedly designed not to need an Orca (or even a hauler in the case of the Retriever/Mackinaw). Even if you're looking at only four ores in a belt you need 300m3 of your cargo just for the "active" singletons you aren't currently using and another 400m3 for the spares. As you need a can to keep the spares seperate (due to the unfortunate preference of EVE for chewing up stackable crystals given half a chance) what you come to is an absolute minimum cargo bay size of 850m3 (500 for a medium can, 300 for "active" singletons and 50 swapping space).
If the ore bays are where CCP want them then we have two options - increase the overall capacity to allow such cargo space or reduce the volume of crystals to make a small can viable.
The third "option" would be to add a seperate ammo bay but that doesn't allow the can and leaves you with hundreds of slightly damaged singletons because you have less control over them.
Pisov viet
Perkone
Caldari State
#198 - 2012-07-26 12:50:35 UTC
Tassian Marrix wrote:
Dominika Brumarova wrote:
Pisov viet wrote:
Some of the changes are good (Procurer/Skiff's HP, Retriever/Mackinaw's cargo hold, the mining yield buff for both ship lines and the mercoxit and Ice rigs). But the unilateral buff of mining barge and exhumers EHP is a terrible thing to do.

Not only is it devaluating the Skiff buff (why bother with it when a hulk can easily reach over 40k EHP?), but it is also making the life of afk-miners and bots much easier, all while not adressing the structural issues of the mining profession: boring, poor and lacking improvement.

What the game need is not brick-tanked barge able to survive to multiple suicide tornadoes. These always existed, they're battleships (and now, skiffs). a 25000m3 ore hold is an amusing gimmick, but ultimately reward peoples who play eve afk.

Your regular miner, that poor **** who was paying attention, who had friends with him, who knew what the hell he was doing, will be left untouched by these changes. His hulk's yield will remain the same, and even going into big scary low/nullsec wont improve his condition much. In the current (and, apparently, future) state, he's still a poor **** who play a role so un-challenging that a bot can fill it, and be just as efficient as he is.

Mining dont need a 100k EHP mining barge, nor a barge able to mine 30 minutes without requiring a single click, mining need a ship, or a mechanism, that makes a human better than a script.



The best post in whole topic. Pure truth!



But it is not all truth. Mining did need a ship that could effectively haul for itself and it did need a ship with a solid tank. Now that we will be getting those they can work to fix the second problem of mining being a super boring activity.

Yes, mining needed a sturdy ship, and a ship with a large cargo. But that's not really what is happening there. We're getting, really, 3 sturdy ships (two on the level of a battlecruiser, one on the level of battleships -with the size and speed of a cruiser-), and 2 ships with a large cargo bay (17500 for the skiff, 37500 for the mackinaw). And both these ships actually reach about, apparently, 80% of the yield of a hulk.

As I said before, and I cant emphasize that enough, it means that the miner who was careful enough to not get ganked, who used orca support to drop his mineral, wont gain anything from this update. The players who were doing good wont see their situation improve, but instead the value of their yield diminush, as "bad" miners get a safer and easier life and flood the market.
Dave stark
#199 - 2012-07-26 12:55:14 UTC
Pisov viet wrote:
Tassian Marrix wrote:
Dominika Brumarova wrote:
Pisov viet wrote:
Some of the changes are good (Procurer/Skiff's HP, Retriever/Mackinaw's cargo hold, the mining yield buff for both ship lines and the mercoxit and Ice rigs). But the unilateral buff of mining barge and exhumers EHP is a terrible thing to do.

Not only is it devaluating the Skiff buff (why bother with it when a hulk can easily reach over 40k EHP?), but it is also making the life of afk-miners and bots much easier, all while not adressing the structural issues of the mining profession: boring, poor and lacking improvement.

What the game need is not brick-tanked barge able to survive to multiple suicide tornadoes. These always existed, they're battleships (and now, skiffs). a 25000m3 ore hold is an amusing gimmick, but ultimately reward peoples who play eve afk.

Your regular miner, that poor **** who was paying attention, who had friends with him, who knew what the hell he was doing, will be left untouched by these changes. His hulk's yield will remain the same, and even going into big scary low/nullsec wont improve his condition much. In the current (and, apparently, future) state, he's still a poor **** who play a role so un-challenging that a bot can fill it, and be just as efficient as he is.

Mining dont need a 100k EHP mining barge, nor a barge able to mine 30 minutes without requiring a single click, mining need a ship, or a mechanism, that makes a human better than a script.



The best post in whole topic. Pure truth!



But it is not all truth. Mining did need a ship that could effectively haul for itself and it did need a ship with a solid tank. Now that we will be getting those they can work to fix the second problem of mining being a super boring activity.

Yes, mining needed a sturdy ship, and a ship with a large cargo. But that's not really what is happening there. We're getting, really, 3 sturdy ships (two on the level of a battlecruiser, one on the level of battleships -with the size and speed of a cruiser-), and 2 ships with a large cargo bay (17500 for the skiff, 37500 for the mackinaw). And both these ships actually reach about, apparently, 80% of the yield of a hulk.

As I said before, and I cant emphasize that enough, it means that the miner who was careful enough to not get ganked, who used orca support to drop his mineral, wont gain anything from this update. The players who were doing good wont see their situation improve, but instead the value of their yield diminush, as "bad" miners get a safer and easier life and flood the market.


actually when you consider a hulk already reaches 17k m3, the skiff ore bay isn't large at all. and the mackinaw's been trimmed to just over 31k m3.
Pisov viet
Perkone
Caldari State
#200 - 2012-07-26 14:19:41 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Pisov viet wrote:
Tassian Marrix wrote:
Dominika Brumarova wrote:
Pisov viet wrote:
Some of the changes are good (Procurer/Skiff's HP, Retriever/Mackinaw's cargo hold, the mining yield buff for both ship lines and the mercoxit and Ice rigs). But the unilateral buff of mining barge and exhumers EHP is a terrible thing to do.

Not only is it devaluating the Skiff buff (why bother with it when a hulk can easily reach over 40k EHP?), but it is also making the life of afk-miners and bots much easier, all while not adressing the structural issues of the mining profession: boring, poor and lacking improvement.

What the game need is not brick-tanked barge able to survive to multiple suicide tornadoes. These always existed, they're battleships (and now, skiffs). a 25000m3 ore hold is an amusing gimmick, but ultimately reward peoples who play eve afk.

Your regular miner, that poor **** who was paying attention, who had friends with him, who knew what the hell he was doing, will be left untouched by these changes. His hulk's yield will remain the same, and even going into big scary low/nullsec wont improve his condition much. In the current (and, apparently, future) state, he's still a poor **** who play a role so un-challenging that a bot can fill it, and be just as efficient as he is.

Mining dont need a 100k EHP mining barge, nor a barge able to mine 30 minutes without requiring a single click, mining need a ship, or a mechanism, that makes a human better than a script.



The best post in whole topic. Pure truth!



But it is not all truth. Mining did need a ship that could effectively haul for itself and it did need a ship with a solid tank. Now that we will be getting those they can work to fix the second problem of mining being a super boring activity.

Yes, mining needed a sturdy ship, and a ship with a large cargo. But that's not really what is happening there. We're getting, really, 3 sturdy ships (two on the level of a battlecruiser, one on the level of battleships -with the size and speed of a cruiser-), and 2 ships with a large cargo bay (17500 for the skiff, 37500 for the mackinaw). And both these ships actually reach about, apparently, 80% of the yield of a hulk.

As I said before, and I cant emphasize that enough, it means that the miner who was careful enough to not get ganked, who used orca support to drop his mineral, wont gain anything from this update. The players who were doing good wont see their situation improve, but instead the value of their yield diminush, as "bad" miners get a safer and easier life and flood the market.


actually when you consider a hulk already reaches 17k m3, the skiff ore bay isn't large at all. and the mackinaw's been trimmed to just over 31k m3.

And the hulk achieved that at the cost of all their rig slots and lowslots, leaving few mids for tanking.
Skiff does that with high maneuvrability, huge tank and at half the price.