These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Ship Proposal] Skiff is overpowered & needs a rebalance.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2014-11-24 20:43:06 UTC
Niskin wrote:


Here's a novel idea. If you want people who mine where you live to fly something other than a Skiff, try giving them a reason to. But instead you feel that you should just be able to keep suicide ganking endlessly and that people who choose to mitigate the risk you present should have their yield nerfed by upwards of 60% simply because they made a smart choice?


Again: numbers can be discussed but the Skiff having a tank several times bigger than that of Hulk and Mack while being on par with the mack yield wise and only having a yield 23% lower than the Hulk is not balanced. Extreme safety that the Skiff provides should come at an extreme drawback.
Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#82 - 2014-11-24 20:53:07 UTC
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
There is so much bullshit to address from this Niskin guy's posts I wouldn't even know where to begin.


Come at me bro.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow
Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#83 - 2014-11-24 21:46:38 UTC
Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:
Let me say it again: this GAME is about KILLING stuff. It is the single most important aspect of EVE. Would you call ppl that play mmo FPS sociopaths for shooting each other? Roll


And I'm saying killing is one thing, preying on the weak is another. Call it roleplaying, call it my personality, whatever, but when I see people put so much effort into shooting the weakest people in the game it bothers me. If you want to mine ore in high sec you have to sit in a belt. If you sit in a belt you may get blown up by people who have nothing better to do than blow you up. This is no different than Freighters being forced to go through a 0.5 system if they want to get anywhere.

Your choice of who to kill and how is what makes your actions sociopathic. Not the choice to kill. You can say this is just a game, but I've found that the desire to prey on the weak doesn't stop or start at the login screen.

Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:
The spread between 'empty pod' and a 1 billion pod is rather big wouldn't you say? I'd say it is about ehm, 1 billion, but maybe I'm getting the math wrong? Roll

Dunno what it would cost to replace my current pod exactly but anyone squishing it will consider it an ok kill I'm sure.


Fair enough, so there is some risk beyond your little destroyer getting popped. As you said it can be 50/50 on getting the pod out.


Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:
Stupid, uneducated, call it whatever you want but it isn't being smart, dilligent or putting effort into getting to know the game, that's for sure....

As it stands now, you can operate very casually in highsec, CONCORD does provide your security needs, it just asks of you that you manage to stay alive for a mere twenty-ish seconds.

Suiciding drakes is prolly pretty rare yeah, since they are low value targets with heaps of tank. When it comes to ganking mission runners the faction BS and marauders receive the brunt of the attention since they are high value (even without exotic hyper expensive modules fit).

In EVE you deserve to die whenever anyone manages to kill you btw. That goes for everyone, gankers, miners, missionrunners, haulers etc etc. Again: it's the most important part of the game.


And I'm saying that in high sec the bar for which idiotic things one can do and still survive should be higher. I don't disagree with your final statement in general, but I still think it's way too easy to suicide gank, way too profitable to suicide gank, and that way too many of them are still happening because of that. Maybe it seems that way due to how dilligent and devoted to the craft the suicide gankers are. Cursed by your own efficiency or something.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#84 - 2014-11-25 00:59:42 UTC
Niskin wrote:

Your choice of who to kill and how is what makes your actions sociopathic. Not the choice to kill.


As an actual sociopath, I would like to call you out on this bullshit.

Knock off the buzz words and the attempted slurs, and just come out and say that you don't think PvP belongs in highsec. If you're going to take a disgusting, indefensible position like that then at least be honest about it.

Quote:

You can say this is just a game, but I've found that the desire to prey on the weak doesn't stop or start at the login screen.


You might be unable to separate yourself in real life from playing a video game, but don't try to slap that label on other people. I actually am a well adjusted adult, and I am capable of separating a video game from real life.


Quote:

And I'm saying that in high sec the bar for which idiotic things one can do and still survive should be higher.


Like being afk in a PvP game? I think that bar should be a lot higher, to be honest. Far too many people actively don't play the game and still live.

Quote:

I don't disagree with your final statement in general, but I still think it's way too easy to suicide gank, way too profitable to suicide gank, and that way too many of them are still happening because of that.


Yeah, that's why the people who do it need to have an SRP that a nullsec alliance could be proud of. Roll It's totally profitable enough that they need massive financial backing to keep it going at all.

Quote:

Maybe it seems that way due to how dilligent and devoted to the craft the suicide gankers are. Cursed by your own efficiency or something.


Or something, yeah. They organize and min/max as much as they do because thanks to repeated pro carebear changes to the game, they basically have to in order to keep their playstyle alive.

If carebears don't like how they behave, they have only themselves to blame for it. Just like how they have only themselves to blame when they die afk in a belt somewhere.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#85 - 2014-11-25 02:22:10 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
As an actual sociopath, I would like to call you out on this bullshit.

Knock off the buzz words and the attempted slurs, and just come out and say that you don't think PvP belongs in highsec. If you're going to take a disgusting, indefensible position like that then at least be honest about it.


I'm all for PvP anywhere in the game, this really is about the mentality for me. Maybe sociopath is the wrong word, maybe that's too harsh. But when a pilot, with the experience and knowledge that many of these gankers have, decides to go shoot poorly fit miners or overloaded freighters in high sec, rather than form up a gang and hit low or null sec, something seems wrong. But I can't tell others what is fun for them, even if them finding certain things fun makes me dislike them greatly. Sorry, I just hate suicide gankers. I don't play the evil side in one player games either, it's a thing.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

You might be unable to separate yourself in real life from playing a video game, but don't try to slap that label on other people. I actually am a well adjusted adult, and I am capable of separating a video game from real life.


This isn't about you or me, specifically anyway. It's a simple rule: Douchebag in game, douchebag in real life. That's been my experience. YMMV

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Like being afk in a PvP game? I think that bar should be a lot higher, to be honest. Far too many people actively don't play the game and still live.


At the very least, autopiloting with expensive cargo. Afk is tricky because being able to go afk at least for a short time is half the point of playing in high sec. If there were a way to increase risk the longer one was afk then that might be easier to balance out. But I'm not sure that kind of change would benefit the game overall, unless mining becomes more active anyway.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Yeah, that's why the people who do it need to have an SRP that a nullsec alliance could be proud of. Roll It's totally profitable enough that they need massive financial backing to keep it going at all.


For miner ganking I'm sure you are right, I'm guessing freighter gankers are doing fine though. Which begs the question, why do the miner gankers still do it? That goes back to that first question about the mentality of the activity. The tears of the lazy and uninformed must be really delicious or something.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Or something, yeah. They organize and min/max as much as they do because thanks to repeated pro carebear changes to the game, they basically have to in order to keep their playstyle alive.

If carebears don't like how they behave, they have only themselves to blame for it. Just like how they have only themselves to blame when they die afk in a belt somewhere.


Sounds like they are pretty attached to that playstyle to keep doing it after game changes made it less shiny of an option. And after multiple changes even. I mean that's devotion, some might say a little too much devotion. But I keep coming back around to my original reasoning. Some people just want to be d*cks, because they are d*cks, and being a d*ck comes naturally to them. It's what makes them happy. If you aren't a d*ck then that's great, but if you enjoy suicide ganking, defending suicide gankers on the forums or think people being d*cks is super cool... then I'm going to dislike you, guaranteed.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#86 - 2014-11-25 03:25:39 UTC
Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:



I can't provide exact or even guestimates at numbers for ship types for the entire game, and neither can you. Yet there you are asking for 'evidence' while providing none yourself for any of your statements. Roll


your the one trying to tell everyone its a fact that Skiffs are by far the most popular barge. dont spout it as fact if you dont know.

By any chance are skiffs most popular in your neck of the woods because you hunt round ice fields? because miners have been able to adapt since Inferno and probably realised that ice belts make easy hunting for gankers. Its like ringing the dinner bell.

Away from these areas, ganking is much less frequent and there isnt such need for skiffs and procurers.

Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:

What you're also wrong about is that this entire argument is based on how popular the Skiff is. Even if it was the least popular mining ship that does not change the attributes of the Skiff and how they compare to the other exhumers. THAT's what makes the Skiff unbalanced, not how many ppl fly or don't fly it.


Good! Stop saying it then. its you that has been using the skiffs supposed frequency as proof it is the only sensible choice, and by extension an indication of imbalance.

but im glad thats now been put to bed.

as for the tank being over powered? not really. there is plenty of sacrifice for using a skiff such as mediocre yield whilst still being dependent on haulers. If you have a hauler, hulks rake in more isk. If you dont have a hauler, Macks rake in more isk.

The skiffs tank's only really justified in areas where ganking is more likely, like your neck of the woods perhaps. Else where you'd make more money with a mack or hulk that can sufficiently deter a lone ganker looking for an easy target. Thats if one comes into your system at all. Ganking is not rife. Apparently its at an all time low.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#87 - 2014-11-25 03:35:47 UTC
Niskin, ganking is one of the best things to ever happen to mining.

who kills your competition for being dumber and lazier than you? who destroys materials and keeps your goods in demand? Who buys hundreds of your ships because they keep losing them several times a day with 100% certainty?

destruction fuels the economy and the miner's wallet. Not to mention its more fun with gankers around.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#88 - 2014-11-25 03:43:29 UTC
Niskin wrote:

For miner ganking I'm sure you are right, I'm guessing freighter gankers are doing fine though. Which begs the question, why do the miner gankers still do it? That goes back to that first question about the mentality of the activity. The tears of the lazy and uninformed must be really delicious or something.


I was talking about freighter ganking, first of all.

And secondly, I don't suppose it's crossed your minds that the people who sell mining barges and exhumers are the ones paying into the New Order's coffers in the first place?

People who like explosions get explosions, and people who sell things stimulate demand for their product. Win/win, unless you're an afk miner. But then if you are an afk miner, you're actively engaged in not playing the game anyway.


Quote:

Sounds like they are pretty attached to that playstyle to keep doing it after game changes made it less shiny of an option. And after multiple changes even. I mean that's devotion, some might say a little too much devotion. But I keep coming back around to my original reasoning. Some people just want to be d*cks, because they are d*cks, and being a d*ck comes naturally to them. It's what makes them happy. If you aren't a d*ck then that's great, but if you enjoy suicide ganking, defending suicide gankers on the forums or think people being d*cks is super cool... then I'm going to dislike you, guaranteed.


EVE is a PvP game. Do you call someone a **** for shooting you in Call of Duty?

No, you don't, because that's the entire point of the game.

PvP does not stop being the point of EVE Online just because of highsec. No one gets to be immune, no one gets a single player game.

If they want a game like that, Star Trek Online is waiting for them.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Omega Tron
Edge Dancers
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#89 - 2014-11-25 04:02:21 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
My initial post on the C&P board to field opinion on whether the Skiff needs a further rebalance, entitled 'Are Skiffs overpowered? Discuss.......' has been quite popular with varied viewpoints given.

Initially I was coming from the issue with a personal bias that the base EHP on the Skiff was too high but upon reflection this was the wrong angle to approach the problem from. After ten pages of replies the 'sensible' peoples consensus appears to be that a reduction in the mining yield of the Skiff is the right move to take,

Currently the Skiff has virtually everything in its favour with virtually no drawbacks. It has the same yield as the Mackinaw, a decent ore hold, a vast tank compared to the other T2 mining vessels, plus the ability to attack jet can thieves with a large drone damage ability.

Decreasing the ore hold will not change anything as the Skiff is usually in a fleet with hauler support.
The vast tank is the main ability change so this would probably need to stay at or near the current level.
The large drone damage ability is useful while mining in nullsec which arguably was its intended use.

The proposal : Reduce the yield of the Skiff to one third of the yield of the Mackinaw. To encourage mining & industry in nullsec give the Skiff a 3x modifier on ores that are only found outside of high sec.

I would say the current Skiff statistics rival the status of mining vessels before they had been rebalanced at all. This situation makes the Skiff the "best ship" to mine in. CCP's current agenda states that all ships should have roles and no "best ships" should exist so the base stats of the Skiff have to be rebalanced !!

I invite constructive comments from all interested parties and especially the CCP Devs concerned with rebalancing of ships.


Special thanks to Meilandra Vandergankens for her constructive criticisms and ideas on this issue.




The only problem with the SKIFF is in your mind I think. Leave it alone.

-1

CCP's sand box is EVE Online.  The sand is owned by CCP.  We pay them a monthly fee to throw the sand at each other.  That is all that is here, so move along. Nothing more to be seen.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2014-11-25 05:29:58 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
After ten pages of replies the 'sensible' peoples consensus appears to be that a reduction in the mining yield of the Skiff is the right move to take,

I agree.

Bethan Le Troix wrote:
The proposal : Reduce the yield of the Skiff to one third of the yield of the Mackinaw. To encourage mining & industry in nullsec give the Skiff a 3x modifier on ores that are only found outside of high sec.

No, that is way too arbitrary and pigeon-holed. Howabout instead just cut the Skiff's mining yield by around 10%?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#91 - 2014-11-25 07:50:59 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Niskin, ganking is one of the best things to ever happen to mining.

who kills your competition for being dumber and lazier than you? who destroys materials and keeps your goods in demand? Who buys hundreds of your ships because they keep losing them several times a day with 100% certainty?

destruction fuels the economy and the miner's wallet. Not to mention its more fun with gankers around.


Anybody else start reading this to the tune of the Simpson's stonecutters? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZI_aEalijE

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#92 - 2014-11-25 10:22:37 UTC
Omega Tron wrote:
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
My initial post on the C&P board to field opinion on whether the Skiff needs a further rebalance, entitled 'Are Skiffs overpowered? Discuss.......' has been quite popular with varied viewpoints given.

Initially I was coming from the issue with a personal bias that the base EHP on the Skiff was too high but upon reflection this was the wrong angle to approach the problem from. After ten pages of replies the 'sensible' peoples consensus appears to be that a reduction in the mining yield of the Skiff is the right move to take,

Currently the Skiff has virtually everything in its favour with virtually no drawbacks. It has the same yield as the Mackinaw, a decent ore hold, a vast tank compared to the other T2 mining vessels, plus the ability to attack jet can thieves with a large drone damage ability.

Decreasing the ore hold will not change anything as the Skiff is usually in a fleet with hauler support.
The vast tank is the main ability change so this would probably need to stay at or near the current level.
The large drone damage ability is useful while mining in nullsec which arguably was its intended use.

The proposal : Reduce the yield of the Skiff to one third of the yield of the Mackinaw. To encourage mining & industry in nullsec give the Skiff a 3x modifier on ores that are only found outside of high sec.

I would say the current Skiff statistics rival the status of mining vessels before they had been rebalanced at all. This situation makes the Skiff the "best ship" to mine in. CCP's current agenda states that all ships should have roles and no "best ships" should exist so the base stats of the Skiff have to be rebalanced !!

I invite constructive comments from all interested parties and especially the CCP Devs concerned with rebalancing of ships.


Special thanks to Meilandra Vandergankens for her constructive criticisms and ideas on this issue.




The only problem with the SKIFF is in your mind I think. Leave it alone.

-1


I'm afraid you are mistaken. The Skiff is in need of an iteration.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#93 - 2014-11-25 10:29:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Bethan Le Troix
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
After ten pages of replies the 'sensible' peoples consensus appears to be that a reduction in the mining yield of the Skiff is the right move to take,

I agree.

Bethan Le Troix wrote:
The proposal : Reduce the yield of the Skiff to one third of the yield of the Mackinaw. To encourage mining & industry in nullsec give the Skiff a 3x modifier on ores that are only found outside of high sec.

No, that is way too arbitrary and pigeon-holed. Howabout instead just cut the Skiff's mining yield by around 10%?


I would be willing to take a fall-back position and say maybe a two thirds reduction in mining yield on the Skiff. This doesn't alter the fact that the Skiff has everything going for it and no negative aspect whereas the other mining vessels have at least one aspect that is decreased in capability. So something has to change on the Skiff to bring it in line with the other mining vessels.

PS I didn't word that very well. I meant maybe have the Skiff at two thirds of the mining yield on the Mackinaw when used in high sec.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#94 - 2014-11-25 10:46:02 UTC
First, let me say there should be a place for a super-tanked mining ship that is highly-resistant to gankers and other attackers, but after the last round of buffs the Skiffs is a little too attractive as compared to the other exhumers. While I do think the tank could be dialed back just a bit as if tanked at all, the Skiff can handle 7-10 perfect T2 gank catalysts, something that is practically unheard of roaming the belts of highsec looking for mining vessels, there should be a ship for use in highly dangerous space with a good tank and resistant to bumping. However, as it is, these benefits come with very little tradeoff vs the other exhumers so I support the idea of a slight re-balancing.

Aside from the AFK unsupported miner, the Skiff beats the Mackinaw in every situation - it is faster, tankier, has decent combat ability and has the same practical yield. There is no situation where a Mackinaw should be used if a support ship is available. This seems a little unfair to the Mack, and will cause less and less of them to be seen in the belts of highsec as miners figure this out.

And if you choose the Hulk over the Skiff, you only get a ~20% increase in yield in exchange for the risk of flying a more expensive, yet paper-thin ship, that you have to pay constant attention to keep safe. This paltry increase is not actually worth the risk (in my opinion) which is why we see so few Hulks in highsec, and practically none in extremely dangerous spots like ice belts.

I suggest that to make the risk of the Hulk more attractive it receive a slight buff in yield (~30% from the current ~20% over the Mack) to compensate the brave and active miners for taking the risk, and a slight nerf in the yield of the Skiff (~15-30% less than the Mack with support) to make the Mack and Hulk more attractive to miners. This would make again make provide a real choice with meaningful tradeoffs for miners.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#95 - 2014-11-25 10:46:22 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:


I would be willing to take a fall-back position and say maybe a two thirds reduction in mining yield on the Skiff. This doesn't alter the fact that the Skiff has everything going for it and no negative aspect whereas the other mining vessels have at least one aspect that is decreased in capability. So something has to change on the Skiff to bring it in line with the other mining vessels.

PS I didn't word that very well. I meant maybe have the Skiff at two thirds of the mining yield on the Mackinaw when used in high sec.

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAH!
Yea, sorry, that's just a joke.
You just want a return to the old days when one barge was the king of all.

Produce some real numbers from CCP saying that no-one uses the Proc/Mack or Cov/Hulk and you might have a case. Right now you are just inventing a problem that isn't real to start with.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2014-11-25 12:01:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
PS I didn't word that very well. I meant maybe have the Skiff at two thirds of the mining yield on the Mackinaw when used in high sec.

I think deep-end ores should just give more minerals. Either nullsec minerals plus some extra highsec minerals, or just more total highsec minerals than highsec ores give--ie. Spodumain should give more tritanium and pyerite than Scordite does, in addition to its small megacyte yield.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#97 - 2014-11-25 12:47:32 UTC
I'm pretty sure that CCP just lowered the Mack's yield to match the Skiff on purpose.

Quote:
The Retriever and Mackinaw keep the solo and low-attention mining crown thanks to their untouched massive ore bays. They'll be getting a slight decrease to their yield to help moderate their strength, as the previous round of balancing underestimated how much players value ore hold size.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=333931

Yep, they did.

The Skiff is designed to be able to tank gankers in place of a dedicated escort. That's its job.

Quote:
The Procurer and Skiff remain the tankiest of the barges, and the Skiff gains an extra low slot (bringing its fitted yield up to the same level as the Mackinaw) as well as a new bonus to drone damage and hitpoints. Asking a dedicated PVP ship to defend a mining fleet can often lead to mind numbing boredom for the PVP pilot, so we're providing the option for players to make sacrifices in their mining ships to allow self-defense.


Thinks are finally more or less balanced, with each of the three exhumers (and their lesser SP reliant little siblings, the barges) each fulfilling a role that will fit the individual pilot's needs and tastes.

I see no reason to make any more changes at this time.
--Gadget

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#98 - 2014-11-25 12:49:20 UTC
The OP's OP is hilarious when coupled with the OP's killboard which consists entirely of mining ship kills with a notable ommission of any Skiffs. Seems to me that the OP is butthurt that people use them and he can't kill them in his frigate. I mean, I could be wrong but that's very much what it looks like.

Skiffs are just fine as they are imo.
Ormand Audel
Doomheim
#99 - 2014-11-25 12:49:22 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Bethan Le Troix wrote:


a decent ore hold,


Bethan Le Troix wrote:
Decreasing the ore hold will not change anything as the Skiff is usually in a fleet with hauler support.




You cant tell me the ore hold is one of the advantages of a skiff and then a few lines later say its pointless nerfing it because ppl dont use it...

the skiff works for its job and clearly it doesnt overshadow the mack or hulk

Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:
The problem is in how the 'main perks' of those ships compare. A Hulk has a 30% yield advantage over Skiff/Mack while the SKiff has up to 10+ times the tank of a Hulkdepending on how you fit it.


wtf? so you even admit your making a flimsy argument?
If ships aren't fit, isn't the entire argument irrelevant because none of them would be mining..?
Ormand Audel
Doomheim
#100 - 2014-11-25 12:52:38 UTC
Jur Tissant wrote:
Seems a bit overkill.

The Retriever has 3 low slots. The Procurer has 2. This is an effective 9% difference in mining yield. Replicate this for the Mack/Skiff and that will give people incentive to use the Mack.

Quote:
If you are flying Hulks in Highsec you will either be doing a LOT of docking up and hiding from gankers or you'll be getting blown up a lot.


You are wildly overstating the frequency of ganks in high-sec. Anyone with half a brain can find a good, relatively gank-free system in which to mine.
We're talking about Skiff, not Procurer.

Mehrune Khan wrote:
The Skiff doesn't have the same yield as a Mackinaw. On paper, numbers-wise it looks like it, but the smaller ore bay means that solo miners will be making twice as many trips back to station to dump their ore. This is significant - when you get back to the belt you have to crawl your barge all the way back to the rocks again. I can tell you from experience that warping to 0 never takes your barge within range of the rocks you want.

Nerfing the skiff does not make things balanced, it just punishes miners who are afraid of losing their ships and are already choosing to mine with a less efficient ship. If you want more people to fly Mackinaws, I would suggest buffing the Mackinaw. Even then I think most players would still choose the inefficiency of the Skiff because of gankers.
The actual maths ends up being a relatively small amount. It's roughly 3km3/hour (which is about 5%) with perfect skills and stuff.