EVE General Discussion

We do, we're averaging 10 to 15 exhumer explosions a day over the last month and coming up on 90 billion Isk worth of damage, not to shabby for a small but determined group of people (who are probably all alts of James 315 if the miners are to be believed)

If mining was made interactive like other games, it'd take few seconds to dig a chunk of roid, no need to stay hours doing it.

I am sure CCP can come up with some viable solution to make everyone happy: i.e. a "passive, fall back mode" similar to today and an "active mode" that yields way more minerals for those who choose to really play the game.

In the latter case, the Hulk could be "the ship" for active mining. The only one able to i.e. "detect" rings to mine, those rings would contain compressed minerals like "super tritanium" (as asked on Mittani.com by a GS director) and would deplete after few short cycles. Then the ship would need to discover the next ring.

there is an active mode, it's called changing which t2 crystal is equipped.
is mining fixed now?

not sure i understand it but... active mining is just 1 special ship that can see special asteroids that you mine in exactly the same way as every other asteroid so the only active part of it is simply clicking "board hulk" before you undock?

No, the Hulk (just making an example) would be able to fit a mod with 99% CPU reduction blah blah able to make it scan rings. It'd basically warp in there, find some "super trit / other mineral" "nuggets" which it would gather fast. Those nuggets could not be stored but in ships having a "ore bay" (so, no iterons etc).
In 5 minutes that ship would gather the same amount a Mack would AFK in 1 hour.
Ring mining would start an account wide timer that would only let the ship be used for half hour a day and then no mining barges / exhumers could be used for till the next day.

so more akin to scanning for grav sites? sounds good, but i'd rather they just added more grav sites instead. there's no real need for an increase in mineral yield.

Merica or something.

that's my point, i don't want an increase in minerals there's no need for it.

sure removing a low slot from the mackinaw changes things, but it doesn't really solve a problem, the mackinaw just loses an mlu and will still be king mackinaw. it won't really change much since the mackinaw still has a superior tank and ore bay to the hulk and the yield difference will still be roughly less than 10% (haven't done the maths but it should be somewhere around there, i'll confirm that later when i'm more awake).

the skiff will never have a role for mining, ever. the tank on the current exhumers is sufficient that the skiff's tank is never going to be useful, pretty much ever.

no, removing the mid slot on the mack is not a significant step towards anything. all you do is lower the yield on the mackinaw and nothing really changes at all. all you do is make it's yield the same as the skiff and nothing more. it still doesn't address the imbalance between the barges and won't dethrone the mackinaw.

to be honest, the issue is as i've said before; there aren't three roles that need to be filled. there are, at most, two roles that need to be filled. a tanked mining ship low yield mining ship, and an untanked high yield mining ship.

if we're going to be messing around with low slots as you insist, add a third low slot to the hulk instead. that way players can choose if they want the hulk to be the complete pimp daddy of mining yield, or if they would like to add more tank to the weakest ship of the bunch.