These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

45 million ISK cover charge to PvP...

Author
Solaine Talvanis
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#161 - 2012-07-20 12:42:12 UTC
Clone costs could be reduced a bit.. But never eliminated completely for reasons I allready stated before. In my opinion ofcourse.
The fact that your pod is worth something actually makes it worth getting it to safety. If they eliminate clone costs completely they (were it not for implants alone) basically transform a pod into a shuttle.

I also think it's weird how most people who are in favour of this suggestion act like this is a problem for a very large part of the eve playerbase.. a 45mill clone stores SP from 156.000.000 and upward.. how many people have that many SP's..? Sure we can find a few, but honestly?

The fact is that up untill 120.000.000 SP, a clone merely costs 20 mill ISK. (My personal costs.)
Untill you reach 156.000.000 SP it's merely 30 mill..
I really don't see the problem, and I'm not even filthy rich or anything.

And even though there's alot of hate against the "train an alt" argument, there's is a valid point in it.
I'm not completely in favor of having to train alts, but it's safe to say that if you have 156mill+ SP, you trained your pilot to do a bit of everything.. If you want to muck about in suicide runs, rifter lulz battles etc so often that 20-45 mill clone costs presents a problem to you, perhaps you should've focused on keeping your pilot a combat one.
A second character for other stuff you might want to do is not such an outlandish idea.

My 5 cents.
Dradius Calvantia
Lip Shords
#162 - 2012-07-20 14:02:58 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Dradius Calvantia wrote:
Meh, I don't have a pod that is worth less than 2 bill isk.... why would I care about 45 mil?

I totally believe you.


Whooops...

Someone has caught on to my troll!

Abandon thread!
Signal11th
#163 - 2012-07-20 14:07:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Signal11th
Richard Desturned wrote:
Removing clone upgrade costs entirely isn't the way to go. Scaling them down significantly is, however.



Although I'm busy washing my mouth out with soap I have to agree with RD here. It really is a pointless "tax" on players that have been around longer. Basically CCP is punishing players for sticking around and being loyal.


And enough of all this "yeah but 7 year old mains should be rolling in ISK" Why exactly? I haven't made a single isk in 8 months apart from the odd mill here selling stuff I have looted from wrecks.

There's plenty of risk from losing your pod, ship, implants, KB stats (if you're that way inclined) then you have T3 ships you lose SP in as well as an expensive ship.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!

Ariel Dawn
State War Academy
Caldari State
#164 - 2012-07-20 14:15:13 UTC
Reducing high-end clone costs would likely create a bigger ISK-sink in the form of increased PvP activity from ISK strapped old characters going out and exploding more often.

It's significantly more inviting to go suiciding about and having fun with random ships when you know that getting podded isn't costing you an arm and a leg. For those with low ISK, 20-65m per clone can be quite a lot.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#165 - 2012-07-20 14:44:13 UTC
Solaine Talvanis wrote:


The fact is that up untill 120.000.000 SP, a clone merely costs 20 mill ISK. (My personal costs.)
Untill you reach 156.000.000 SP it's merely 30 mill..





Umm - yeah - interesting facts...

Somehow, that leaves me doubtful about the bit about 'your personal cost'...
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Solaine Talvanis
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#166 - 2012-07-20 14:51:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Solaine Talvanis
You're right.. but the fact still remains right?
Ayeshah Volfield
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#167 - 2012-07-20 14:57:29 UTC
Solaine Talvanis wrote:
You're right.. but the fact still remains right?


You're off by 1 rank.

Up to 120m SP, it's 30m and up to 156m SP it's 45m.

EVE is what happens when the rule of law does not apply and Darwinism is allowed to run freely.

Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#168 - 2012-07-21 05:39:44 UTC
Ariel Dawn wrote:
Reducing high-end clone costs would likely create a bigger ISK-sink in the form of increased PvP activity from ISK strapped old characters going out and exploding more often.

It's significantly more inviting to go suiciding about and having fun with random ships when you know that getting podded isn't costing you an arm and a leg. For those with low ISK, 20-65m per clone can be quite a lot.

This person gets it.
Skex Relbore
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2012-07-21 07:39:45 UTC
JC Anderson wrote:
If costs are a problem, then just jump into a Rifter, or a Stabber.

Shouldn't be beyond the means for anybody even after clone costs.


Have you actually read the thread? The point is that having an expensive clone discourages that option. That as much fun as it would be to take risks and fly fun cheap ships it doesn't make much sense when your clone costs more than 10 fully T2 fit rifters.

That while the argument "just jump in something cheap" works when it comes to ship choice, that the argument falls apart once you try to apply it to medical clones. Because you can't just choose to use a cheaper medical clone and this well just make an alt nonsense is a bullshit argument. I spent the time I spent playing this character and training him the way I did in order to play not to sit him in a station collecting dust.

I ask this other than "this is the way it's always been" what conceivable reason would one have to defend this mechanic?

Because as best I can see this mechanic doesn't serve any purpose other than to discourage long term players from going out and playing the game. That this mechanic that people keep claiming is so damned important because OMG RISK!!! actually results in people taking fewer RISKS.

The number 1 complaint I see coming from PVPers is that people playing this game are too risk averse. Yet here is a mechanic that does nothing other than to encourage such aversion.

Now I understand that consequences are part of what makes PVP interesting and meaningful. But such consequences need to be balanced with the other aspect of what makes PVP interesting, which is fun.

Too little risk and the game play becomes meaningless and boring but too much risk and it goes from meaningless and boring to tedious and boring which is many times worse.

The simple fact that people playing this game are so risk averse suggests to me that there is too much consequence relative to the potential fun. Hell just the fact that people feel compelled to create alts with the same skill focus as their main just with fewer total points is a glaring sign of a problem. Making specialized alts to cover different skill areas or for a limited purpose like a cyno alto or market toon makes sense. Making a specialized alt just to dodge the death penalty mechanic is stupid.

When the primary answer to dealing with a game mechanic is "make and alt or don't play" there is something wrong with that mechanic.

Oh and I'm pretty sure I've seen some of the people arguing against changing the mechanic telling players to train PVP skills on their indy characters so they could take advantage of kill rights. How exactly does that square with your "specialized alt" bullshit?


My argument is simple, I think there are too many game mechanics that discourage people from engaging in risky behavior. Further I think it would be far more effective to address those places where such mechanics serve no useful purpose other than to discourage risk taking than to sit around whining about it or trying to shame them into taking risks with e-machismo.
Khorian
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2012-07-21 09:39:18 UTC
I never even considered the clone costs to be debateable. I don't find them that expensive, and never saw this as a problem.
We don't even have anyone with over 200mill in game yet, Dr. Caymus will reach it in a month or so, but he probably never leaves station anyway ;)

I think this is one of the more important isk sinks in the game. And those are important to fight inflation. Wich in turn keeps the prices low for all of us to enjoy. If you remove isk sinks such as this, there would be more isk in the system leading to higher prices on the markets.

I think

I also don't care as previously mentioned. Duh

Go ahead.
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#171 - 2012-07-21 09:50:41 UTC
Khorian wrote:
I never even considered the clone costs to be debateable. I don't find them that expensive, and never saw this as a problem.
We don't even have anyone with over 200mill in game yet, Dr. Caymus will reach it in a month or so, but he probably never leaves station anyway ;)

I think this is one of the more important isk sinks in the game. And those are important to fight inflation. Wich in turn keeps the prices low for all of us to enjoy. If you remove isk sinks such as this, there would be more isk in the system leading to higher prices on the markets.

I think

I also don't care as previously mentioned. Duh

Go ahead.


It's an ISK sink, yes, but there will be an optimal cost for clones where the maximum amount of ISK is "sunk". Players who never risk their pod because of clone cost will never put into the sink you see.
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#172 - 2012-07-21 10:06:02 UTC
Completely agree with the OP.

Clone costs are prohibitive to pew pew.

For example if you like to fly ceptors dictors and small stuff having a basic clone cost that outstrips the cost of the ship you're flying IS prohibitive to flying those ships; especially when small ships are prone to dying more quickly and in my experience suffer more (worse effects) from client lag when you pop.

ISK earned increases by experience playing the game, not by skillpoints. Prohibiting/discouraging older characters from playing part of the game just because of something arbitrary like skillpoints is rather stupid game design.
cBOLTSON
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#173 - 2012-07-21 10:07:43 UTC
Just throwing this out there... You know you dont HAVE to upgrade your clone. So you dont HAVE to pay that isk.
Also stay away from the super blob fights and you tend to find your pod survives quite a bit.

The good old days of Unreal Tournament, fragging and sniping on Facing Worlds, listening to Foregone Destruction.......

Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#174 - 2012-07-21 17:03:04 UTC
cBOLTSON wrote:
Just throwing this out there... You know you dont HAVE to upgrade your clone. So you dont HAVE to pay that isk.
Also stay away from the super blob fights and you tend to find your pod survives quite a bit.


^^ This is such a weak argument.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#175 - 2012-07-21 18:32:24 UTC
Ariel Dawn wrote:
Reducing high-end clone costs would likely create a bigger ISK-sink in the form of increased PvP activity from ISK strapped old characters going out and exploding more often.

It's significantly more inviting to go suiciding about and having fun with random ships when you know that getting podded isn't costing you an arm and a leg. For those with low ISK, 20-65m per clone can be quite a lot.


Pod loss is the only ISK sink in PvP. Everything else is either ISK-neutral or creates ISK (insurance)

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#176 - 2012-07-21 18:45:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Marconus Orion
Malcanis wrote:
Ariel Dawn wrote:
Reducing high-end clone costs would likely create a bigger ISK-sink in the form of increased PvP activity from ISK strapped old characters going out and exploding more often.

It's significantly more inviting to go suiciding about and having fun with random ships when you know that getting podded isn't costing you an arm and a leg. For those with low ISK, 20-65m per clone can be quite a lot.


Pod loss is the only ISK sink in PvP. Everything else is either ISK-neutral or creates ISK (insurance)

Incorrect. Just off the top of my head I can think of the manufacturing tax from building ships and modules from stations. So with more things blowing up, there is more demand, thus more things being built.

Thanks for playing.
Teinyhr
Ourumur
#177 - 2012-07-21 18:50:15 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Pod loss is the only ISK sink in PvP. Everything else is either ISK-neutral or creates ISK (insurance)


To add to Marconus's post and just keep repeating what other people have said; It's a poor ISK sink if people avoid PVP because they don't want to lose their pod. Again - I don't think the costs need to be eliminated completely but slashed very hard to be more reasonable.
Ervi San
Perkone
Caldari State
#178 - 2012-07-22 14:17:24 UTC
Eve-Online is a computer game that ppl pay and play to have fun, and fun = PVP. So, why isk sink is more important than to lead ppl into 0.0 to do PVP.

With more that 120M sp i pay 45M isk's just for my clone, more than my ship if i fly a ceptor, what i dont do because of that.

I think that loosing implants + ship is enough to maintain eve a harsh game.
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#179 - 2012-07-22 14:42:44 UTC
Ervi San wrote:


I think that loosing implants + ship is enough to maintain eve a harsh game.



I wouldn't entirely remove them - they just need to be leveled better - higher prices at low levels, and a sharp reduction in price increase after 50-60 mill SP.

After that, skills typically broaden because most specialized clones fly the ship they specialized into almost perfectly and a character with more SP wont gain any advantage at piloting the ship.
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#180 - 2012-07-22 15:56:07 UTC
The reality here for me is that my old high SP clone toons I wont simply screw around with on RvB style suicide go till you pop "fun" ships. I hate sitting in caps and the idea of supers or titans is abhorrent to me. So Ive had to train toons just for the fun stuff. Imo CCP loves that as each account I pay for gives them more money. But is that really the way they want it to be? I simply wont go on fun small ship roams at all with my guys and their killboards reflect that. I detest the nullsec huge fleet fights and have for all my time in Eve. There is simply NO reason to do it and it bores me to tears. I refuse to lock out parts of Eve by going -10 by pew pewing in low sec and theres no way Im grinding up the standing for every kill to keep my toons above -5. FW is the same deal you lock out half of Eve and I understand fully this is a "designed" feature but frankly after all this time in Eve its stupid and silly to REQUIRE alts for whatever reason because of such issues. High sec PvP is lame in so many ways.

Only null allows pew pew without standing hit but to put a 30-40mil clone on the line to go screw around in a rifter? Or even an AF of some sort? To just pew for the fun of it? Nope, absolutely no reason to use them at all. And thats pathetically sad imo.

Would I go and actually use them if there was no clone cost? Yup. Now a 10mil per fun roam is appealing. As I can do it 10-100 times a day if I wish to. But having the clone cost anywhere from double to 10 times the ships worth each time? Puts it into a naw Ill go do something else category.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.