These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Mining Barges and Exhumers

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#621 - 2014-05-12 15:11:21 UTC
DetKhord Saisio wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Vladd Talltos wrote:


Just my thoughts....but I see the problem as having different ships that are suppose to have different roles being used for roles they really weren't designed for.


so u want them all to do everything at once, except the mack which only mines ice? yeah because this was not changed for a good reason at all LolLolLol

they are designed differently now, and they fill their roles pretty well. even the hulk, we use them in fleets. they are great.
Based on your reply, you can not read or are trolling. Try again.


i half gave up once i realised he wanted everything back to how it was before they were given their existing and better roles. he just wants to be able to fly a hulk that does everything great again so i just lol'd at that point.

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
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#622 - 2014-05-12 16:31:25 UTC
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
When are CCP going to wake up to the fact that mining is the most boring profession in eve and little tweaks like this won't change that?

During this years fanfest, CCP announced a mining ship that can fit a covert ops cloak and jump through black ops bridge. Now what they could have done was give this ability to all (or just the hulk) the T2 mining ships, which would instantly make the mining profession a lot more interesting.


What they need to do is the thing i talked about, giving a mining fleet some teeth.

Just buffing the Skiff's defensive capabilities doesn't really help anything else. There needs to be a dynamic system between each barge, exhumer, command ship (maybe ventures too?) and each other that increases their defensive capabilities exponentially in relation to each other.

This would solve the problem with not having dedicated PVP players, and in fact would bolster any PVP ships above their solo abilities in concert with a mining fleet. However solo miners should not be given the same benefits. All of these should come from being in the fleet.

My examples where this:
Skiff: Drone damage bonus (already happening). (The teeth)
Mackinaw: Repair drone bonus. (Fleet support)
Hulk: Increased EHP, drone bay removed. (survivability required for fleet activities, solo ability reduced dramatically)
Rorqual: In Siege Mode: Extra long range reps, increased EHP for on grid barges, local cyno inhibitor (maybe?), same self bonuses as Siege mode Dread and Triage Carrier. (immune to ewar/support, massively increased self rep) (basically a triage carrier for mining fleets.)

So the role of these ships in concert with each other increases greatly and the spread of ships in a fleet would also see much greater diversity. However for solo activity the ships would be for the greatest part unchanged. Skiff will be tough nut with teeth, and mackinaw will be large ore bay with minimal drone support. The Hulk will have more survivability but will have no defenses alone and would be most beneficial in a mining fleet. Not sure what to do with an orca or venture.

There will be times when things are boring just like all other activities in EVE. But there will be the occasional excitement to be had for miners with this system instead of just being fish in a barrel.

CCP we neeeeeeeeeeed this!!!!


While you are at it:
Faction mining implant that also adds shield harmonizing bonus (like the other faction mind link implants)
Shield gang link bonus to the newly announced versions of mining command ships



"newly announced versions of mining command ships."

Please can you provide a link to these new ships you speak of as I don't believe they exist.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Darenthul
Anstard Armory Inc.
#623 - 2014-05-12 18:34:13 UTC
I wish they'd just decrease strip miners down to 60 second cycles and lasers to 30 second cycles. Would at least feel more engaging than it currently is. (Don't modify total yields, just reduce the cycle times and cap usage to accomodate.)

3 minute cycle times are just plain absurd, and it makes it feel soooooo slow. I love Mining, hell look at my corporation name, its all I do in this damn game. But taking 3 minutes per cycle is just crazy, if they were faster it'd feel more engaging/active than it currently does.

"I find mining to be an incredibly relaxing thing to do after work. It's like fishing without waking up early. Or cold. But the beer, the beer is the same." - arramdaywalker
Cooter Hamilton
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#624 - 2014-05-13 00:32:07 UTC
Even a mackinaw isn't worth flying solo anymore. You get ganked and don't even get your insurance back for it. This game has been catering to the pvpers as of two years ago because they are full of more internet trolls than the carebear loving miners.

This game hasn't even tried to compensate what they took from the solo miners by lowering sec responses. We need this **** back to how it was otherwise the majority of the miners aren't even going to want to play eve for that anymore. When you took away the consistency of the ice belts and decreased high sec concord response times, you were discriminating against our playstyles. And to top that off you made the things which are the most commonly used for ganking these big ol' boats the cheapest items/ weapons on the market. If that's not ccp saying we don't want you people who just want to click on **** for their gaming experience. Then I don't know what else it could be.

It's a severe mistake to have this be the case, because the market was much better taken care of by those people who were trying to make it to being manipulators of the market like the old fags that came before them but still had the benefit of ccp providing an even playing field for them to climb before they have to deal with the advanced parts of that other more nastier playing field of the pvpers. This needs to be rectified with a step back towards reducing the response time between the gank and the gankers getting concordokened or there will be a significant loss in player population like there already was for when this came into affect. Please fix this problem that was invented and perpetuated by the ccp community.
Cooter Hamilton
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#625 - 2014-05-13 00:35:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Cooter Hamilton
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That right there is what is inherently wrong with this game's pvp system and why the concord response times need to be much faster.
Cooter Hamilton
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#626 - 2014-05-13 00:44:13 UTC
As is this. this is what causes all this bipolarness about whether this is an exclusively player combat game.


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" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"


^^^^^

That shouldn't be the case and shouldn't be made the case just because these bipartisan pussies for game devs are taking sides of the pvpers like obama is taking sides with the republicans.

Fix yo ****. Stop trying to make our S&I shittier be4 even trying to fix the damage you've done to the solo miner community. It's just irresponsible.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#627 - 2014-05-13 01:43:30 UTC
in the previous updates to exhumers and barges, CCP made totally useless billions of isks worth of Tech II cargohold rigs I had on my Macks without so much as a "we'll repackage the ships and place the rigs back in your item hangers.", or even so much as a by your leave.

In the process, they took the laughing stock of miners and the most specialized mining ship in the game and turned them into veritable beasts in the mining field.

It is my most heartfelt hope that they don't bork the ships with these upcoming changes, I do not want to have to try to find yet another workable and survivable fit for my accounts to use again.

o/
Celly Smunt

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#628 - 2014-05-13 02:33:17 UTC
Cooter Hamilton wrote:
As is this. this is what causes all this bipolarness about whether this is an exclusively player combat game.


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" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"


^^^^^

That shouldn't be the case and shouldn't be made the case just because these bipartisan pussies for game devs are taking sides of the pvpers like obama is taking sides with the republicans.

Fix yo ****. Stop trying to make our S&I shittier be4 even trying to fix the damage you've done to the solo miner community. It's just irresponsible.

With this kind of sentiment, it's pretty obvious that you're playing the wrong game.

Though I do agree there is a problem with the level of ease in being able to infringe on a solo miner or even a fleet miner.

With the current mechanics and the current anti-miner groups out there, using a Mackinaw or Hulk in high sec is much greater risk than should be acceptable. The cost to successfully suicide gank these ships is a couple of orders of magnitude in difference. They really should be given significantly more survivability or significantly reduced cost. The cost difference is about 1000% of their tech I counterparts while the benefits are closer to 15-30%.

Think about it like this:
These are non-combat ships designed to be placed in harms way. Does the current in-game model, or the changes in this post, make sense in this regard? The procurer/skiff are the only ships that are viable in this mindset.

What other ships in the game are to be out in space constantly, in a place that has no entry restraints (no scanner required), that have no means of defending themselves or even just surviving an encounter?

Maybe a new line of battle miners to replace the old mining cruisers/battleships we lost to the original mining barge changes?
Mining diversity please!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#629 - 2014-05-13 07:52:50 UTC
Cooter Hamilton wrote:
Even a mackinaw isn't worth flying solo anymore. You get ganked and don't even get your insurance back for it. This game has been catering to the pvpers as of two years ago because they are full of more internet trolls than the carebear loving miners.

This game hasn't even tried to compensate what they took from the solo miners by lowering sec responses. We need this **** back to how it was otherwise the majority of the miners aren't even going to want to play eve for that anymore. When you took away the consistency of the ice belts and decreased high sec concord response times, you were discriminating against our playstyles. And to top that off you made the things which are the most commonly used for ganking these big ol' boats the cheapest items/ weapons on the market. If that's not ccp saying we don't want you people who just want to click on **** for their gaming experience. Then I don't know what else it could be.

It's a severe mistake to have this be the case, because the market was much better taken care of by those people who were trying to make it to being manipulators of the market like the old fags that came before them but still had the benefit of ccp providing an even playing field for them to climb before they have to deal with the advanced parts of that other more nastier playing field of the pvpers. This needs to be rectified with a step back towards reducing the response time between the gank and the gankers getting concordokened or there will be a significant loss in player population like there already was for when this came into affect. Please fix this problem that was invented and perpetuated by the ccp community.


The Skiff is right there for you.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#630 - 2014-05-13 11:56:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Cooter Hamilton wrote:
As is this. this is what causes all this bipolarness about whether this is an exclusively player combat game.


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" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"


^^^^^

That shouldn't be the case and shouldn't be made the case just because these bipartisan pussies for game devs are taking sides of the pvpers like obama is taking sides with the republicans.

Fix yo ****. Stop trying to make our S&I shittier be4 even trying to fix the damage you've done to the solo miner community. It's just irresponsible.


lol the conspiracy is revealed! ur playing a PvP game. Non consensual PvP was the point. u perhaps joined the wrong game.

the game is designed to make team work more efficient than solo mining. if u dont want to play with friends u dnt have to, but dnt whine when u cant mine as well as a group of players can.

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
#631 - 2014-05-13 11:58:02 UTC
Darenthul wrote:
I wish they'd just decrease strip miners down to 60 second cycles and lasers to 30 second cycles. Would at least feel more engaging than it currently is. (Don't modify total yields, just reduce the cycle times and cap usage to accomodate.)

3 minute cycle times are just plain absurd, and it makes it feel soooooo slow. I love Mining, hell look at my corporation name, its all I do in this damn game. But taking 3 minutes per cycle is just crazy, if they were faster it'd feel more engaging/active than it currently does.


even if reducing the time makes the miners less efficient?

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
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#632 - 2014-05-13 13:17:18 UTC
Darenthul wrote:
I wish they'd just decrease strip miners down to 60 second cycles and lasers to 30 second cycles. Would at least feel more engaging than it currently is. (Don't modify total yields, just reduce the cycle times and cap usage to accomodate.)

3 minute cycle times are just plain absurd, and it makes it feel soooooo slow. I love Mining, hell look at my corporation name, its all I do in this damn game. But taking 3 minutes per cycle is just crazy, if they were faster it'd feel more engaging/active than it currently does.


The problem with this is cap recharge time. I don't know about you but even with a toon with decent skills the covetor drops below the 30% threshhold every time the lasers cycle but with 3 min it can recharge all the way back up. Even if they reduce the cycle time by 2/3 and reduce the cap requirements by 2/3 it could still cap out the t1 barges because the constant cycling may out drain the capacitor. that would require capacitor tweeks along with the cycle timer changes which we know CCP doesn't want to deal with. I don't see this much of a problem as you can simply stop the laser cycle any time and get the fraction of whatever it was gathering..... however i have a different opinion for ice mining......
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#633 - 2014-05-13 13:25:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Aureus Ahishatsu
Celly S wrote:
in the previous updates to exhumers and barges, CCP made totally useless billions of isks worth of Tech II cargohold rigs I had on my Macks without so much as a "we'll repackage the ships and place the rigs back in your item hangers.", or even so much as a by your leave.

In the process, they took the laughing stock of miners and the most specialized mining ship in the game and turned them into veritable beasts in the mining field.

It is my most heartfelt hope that they don't bork the ships with these upcoming changes, I do not want to have to try to find yet another workable and survivable fit for my accounts to use again.

o/
Celly Smunt


If you think you were wronged by CCP imagine all the people who had t2 projectile rigs on their cyclones, or t2 cargo rigs on their mining cruisers (before they got changed to t1 logis) The fact of the matter is that whenever changes like this are made they can't reimburse everything. Besides that this is a game. it's not like you paid actual money for those rigs. (course idk maybe you did with plexes) either way trying to reimburse everyone who has rigs that no longer apply to the changes would be a nightmare beyond belief. how do you determine who gets them people who have them installed? what about accounts that are no longer active do you reimburse them too?

For that matter you should be happy with the last set of changes as they made all the barges more relevant. The biggest people getting butthurt are the hulkers who wanted their hulk to be the end all be all which again brings us back to the point where NOBODY used the mackinaw or skiff (except for the nitch ice mining the mackinaw did).
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#634 - 2014-05-13 13:30:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Aureus Ahishatsu
Cooter Hamilton wrote:
As is this. this is what causes all this bipolarness about whether this is an exclusively player combat game.


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" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"


^^^^^

That shouldn't be the case and shouldn't be made the case just because these bipartisan pussies for game devs are taking sides of the pvpers like obama is taking sides with the republicans.

Fix yo ****. Stop trying to make our S&I shittier be4 even trying to fix the damage you've done to the solo miner community. It's just irresponsible.


I don't know if this is your first time in a forum rodeo but just so you know comments like this will get everyone (including CCP) to stop caring about your topic in about 20 seconds. Tin foil hats will be passed around too. Just letting you know if you want people to care about your topic don't use all caps, politics (why are we talking about Obama?), gangsta slang "fix yo ***"", and abbreviations like "b4" .
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#635 - 2014-05-13 13:38:14 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Cooter Hamilton wrote:
As is this. this is what causes all this bipolarness about whether this is an exclusively player combat game.


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" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"


^^^^^

That shouldn't be the case and shouldn't be made the case just because these bipartisan pussies for game devs are taking sides of the pvpers like obama is taking sides with the republicans.

Fix yo ****. Stop trying to make our S&I shittier be4 even trying to fix the damage you've done to the solo miner community. It's just irresponsible.


I don't know if this is your first time in a forum rodeo but just so you know comments like this will get everyone (including CCP) to stop caring about your topic in about 20 seconds. Tin foil hats will be passed around to. Just letting you know if you want people to care about your topic don't use all caps, politics (why are we talking about Obama?), gangsta slang "fix yo ***"", and abbreviations like "b4" .

I find his entire post to have not only gone off the rails of the topic, but outside the bounds of the entire game.

Real world solutions are intended to make life better for as many as possible, at least in a perfect world.
This is not the real world, this is our game, EVE ONLINE.

We don't want the challenge to go away, we want it to be fun to overcome and oppose each other.
We take a break from the real world by coming here instead, and shooting lasers.

Games should be interesting, while real life should hope to be very uneventful and dull by comparison.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#636 - 2014-05-13 13:39:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Aureus Ahishatsu
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Cooter Hamilton wrote:
As is this. this is what causes all this bipolarness about whether this is an exclusively player combat game.


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" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"


^^^^^

That shouldn't be the case and shouldn't be made the case just because these bipartisan pussies for game devs are taking sides of the pvpers like obama is taking sides with the republicans.

Fix yo ****. Stop trying to make our S&I shittier be4 even trying to fix the damage you've done to the solo miner community. It's just irresponsible.

With this kind of sentiment, it's pretty obvious that you're playing the wrong game.

Though I do agree there is a problem with the level of ease in being able to infringe on a solo miner or even a fleet miner.

With the current mechanics and the current anti-miner groups out there, using a Mackinaw or Hulk in high sec is much greater risk than should be acceptable. The cost to successfully suicide gank these ships is a couple of orders of magnitude in difference. They really should be given significantly more survivability or significantly reduced cost. The cost difference is about 1000% of their tech I counterparts while the benefits are closer to 15-30%.

Think about it like this:
These are non-combat ships designed to be placed in harms way. Does the current in-game model, or the changes in this post, make sense in this regard? The procurer/skiff are the only ships that are viable in this mindset.

What other ships in the game are to be out in space constantly, in a place that has no entry restraints (no scanner required), that have no means of defending themselves or even just surviving an encounter?

Maybe a new line of battle miners to replace the old mining cruisers/battleships we lost to the original mining barge changes?
Mining diversity please!


I agree. as i stated in my earlier post in this forum the risk reward is hardly there for miners as a decent fit hulk is worth nearly 250 mil. a mackinaw worth nearly 200mil. mean while a single catalyst capable of taking one of these out can be made in less than 10 mil. most of that cost is just in buying the t2 guns. the training time to do this is laughable as well so people can have endless toons training for it as the second one's sec status gets too low they just kill the character and make a new one in 2 weeks. If anything a solo runner should require at least a cruiser to take out the t1's and at least a battle cruiser to take out the t2's. it's nice the t2's get the shield resist bonus but this is laughable when the base resist rates are a joke compared to every other t2 ship in the game. by comparison below i listed other t2 ships that get the same 4% resist bonus

Hulk (shield tanked ship obviously)
em - 0
kin - 40
therm - 20
expl - 50

Damnation (armor tanked) these are the SHIELD resist on an ARMOR tanked ship
em - 0
kin - 70
therm - 20
expl - 85

Nighthawk (shield tanked)
em - 0
kin - 70
therm - 80
expl - 50
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#637 - 2014-05-13 14:02:13 UTC
@ aureus

cost scale to power isnt a good way to balance anything. especially when one is designed as a cheap glass cannon, the other an expensive premier mining barge (read non-combat ship). The price of the hulk is that way because the players make it that way. The price of catalysts is also down to players. Also catalysts can achieve higher damages than cruisers, because its designed that way. If u want to risk less then u can use a Covetor.

Hulks and macks are not meant to be tanky. This is again by design. And they do have better resist profiles than some T2's, again ur comparing combat ships to NON-combat ships.

Buzzard
Em - 0
Th - 30
Ki - 40
Ex - 50

and a hulks resists are (from the moment u can fly it)
Em- 20
Th - 36
Ki - 52
Ex - 60

So yeah, not bad for a non-combat ship thats not designed to tank. And once u add some more mods to this and some ecm drones u become much more difficult to gank. But if u want even more tank, the skiff or procurer has plenty. Yes u have to sacrifice yield or work in groups. No thats not a problem, its a meaningful choice.

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
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#638 - 2014-05-13 14:21:43 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
@ aureus

cost scale to power isnt a good way to balance anything. especially when one is designed as a cheap glass cannon, the other an expensive premier mining barge (read non-combat ship). The price of the hulk is that way because the players make it that way. The price of catalysts is also down to players. Also catalysts can achieve higher damages than cruisers, because its designed that way. If u want to risk less then u can use a Covetor.


There is a minimum level however for all ships they will never drop below. for example you will never see a hulk drop down to 100 mil unless someone is willing to sell for a loss as the industrial costs to build the ship exceed that. this is still mountains beyond the ganking cost. the catalyst is also a major headache as i don't think destroyers were designed to be more damaging than cruisers. I know all the other races the cruisers well out dps the destroyers.

Daichi Yamato wrote:

Hulks and macks are not meant to be tanky. This is again by design. And they do have better resist profiles than some T2's, again ur comparing combat ships to NON-combat ships.

Buzzard
Em - 0
Th - 30
Ki - 40
Ex - 50

and a hulks resists are (from the moment u can fly it)
Em- 20
Th - 36
Ki - 52
Ex - 60

So yeah, not bad for a non-combat ship thats not designed to tank. And once u add some more mods to this and some ecm drones u become much more difficult to gank. But if u want even more tank, the skiff or procurer has plenty. Yes u have to sacrifice yield or work in groups. No thats not a problem, its a meaningful choice.


Where are you getting these resist numbers? I'm checking on dev blogs and other resources and couldn't find these numbers for resists. Also I never said the hulk (or retriever) should be tanky. I simply stated they should be able to tank a little more considering it's value and t2 status. As it currently stands to retriever and hulk barely even hit 12,000 ehp with moderate tanks which is a joke. sacrificing all useability as a miner you can push this to MAYBE 18,000 this is still NOWHERE near the 60K+ ehp the skiff is capable of without even trying.
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#639 - 2014-05-13 14:24:58 UTC
Also one simple change that could be made is modifying the catalyst to better suit it's usefulness outside of ganking. As it sits right now it has the highest dps of any destroyer by far. but small blaster range is such a joke anyway that it isn't even useful for PVE. as a result it is almost solely dedicated to PVP ganking which i feel is sad since it's such a cool looking ship. lol
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#640 - 2014-05-13 14:28:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
the material costs are also set by the players. the minimum value of a hulk is set by its insurance rate or the NPC buy orders of its materials. but no, cost still does not mean combat power. Much of the hulks value lies in its ability to mine, how do u plan to compensate for that as well as massive price differences between T1 and T2 when u compare an early stage glass cannon combat ship to an advanced non-combat ship? in short u cant. The market deems the hulk and catalyst worthy of their prices.

Seeing as u cannot fly a hulk without having mining barge to 5, the shield resist bonus is already maxed out the moment u can fly a hulk. hence its real resist profile.

edit-

the catalyst has an optimal and a fall off bonus. its pretty neat in level 1's with rails.

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