These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Clone costs and old vets

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2013-05-15 14:13:13 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
...CCP should be out of the clone making business. Let players make clones...
1. CCP might want the ISK sink.

2. Player made clones might not address the issue of clone cost being detrimental to PvP.

I like the idea though.
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#202 - 2013-05-15 14:15:30 UTC
Merouk Baas wrote:
ISK sinks are part of MMO's, unfortunately.

ISK sinks are only a part of EVE Online.

The current drop is a nice change, but I'm glad to see CCP Rise saying that there will be an overhaul of the system because it really needs it.

CCP has no sense of humour.
addelee
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#203 - 2013-05-15 14:17:06 UTC
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:

To me the issue about podding is more about finding some kind of balance between risk and reward. While it's true that there is an effect of diminishing returns with continuing to train a highly skilled character, there can also be no doubt at all that a highly skilled character with better skills in gunnery, tanking, maneuverability etc. and presumably being piloted by a more experienced player, has a risk profile that diminishes over time.

In other words, they win more often, which they should.


In a 1v1 fight, yeah you're correct. The high SP player should win due to experience and higher skills. However, for fleets this isn't true at all and there's always the case of being caught by a random roaming gang and being plain unlucky.

In fleet battle often the role of the pilot determines if they're going to die or not. For example, bubblers and logi will have a lower survival rate than other members of a fleet purely as thats what happens. It could be countered with the arguement that a higher SP character shouldn't be used as a bubbler but sometimes, needs must as there's no one else to do it.

Training multiple characters for the same purpose is not the answer. If it is, then there's something obviously wrong with the game mechanic.

There does need to be some form of sink for clones (due to death cloning as a form of transport) but it should relate to something that can be influenced rather than penalising players just because they've been loyal and played the game for awhile.
Adunh Slavy
#204 - 2013-05-15 14:23:14 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
...CCP should be out of the clone making business. Let players make clones...
1. CCP might want the ISK sink.

2. Player made clones might not address the issue of clone cost being detrimental to PvP.

I like the idea though.



Plenty of other ways to sink ISK. One way to Sink is not have so much coming in, in the first place. But that's another debate.

2. Depends on how it is set up.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2013-05-15 14:26:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Bi-Mi Lansatha
Adunh Slavy wrote:

Plenty of other ways to sink ISK. One way to Sink is not have so much coming in, in the first place. But that's another debate.
True, and I am not convince clones is the best way to do an ISK sink, as I think it is detrimental to overall PvP.

However, if they must be there... I like this idea.



Unforgiven Storm wrote:
...I think the solution to this problem could be found by doing the opposite. Each clone upgrade to the next level should cost x more times what it costs today, then any clone replacement should cost a base fee of 1M isk. We shift the cost structure for the moment of the upgrade and that is it...
Adunh Slavy
#206 - 2013-05-15 14:28:51 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
I think it is detrimental to overall PvP.



100% agrement there.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Skorpynekomimi
#207 - 2013-05-15 14:44:57 UTC
So, fly more expensive ships, so the balance is improved!

Economic PVP
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2013-05-15 15:00:06 UTC
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
So, fly more expensive ships, so the balance is improved!
Lol

That wasn't nice! Obvious retort, but not nice. Blink
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#209 - 2013-05-15 15:04:45 UTC
This thread and the others like it have been taken up by CCP. Clone cost got a minor adjustment down and they are considering more in the near future. Removing clone costs is a terrible idea.

I spent some time writing an elevator rebutal and put it on the Dev thread here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3031935#post3031935

Please swing by and give that a thumbs up so that the devs notice it and see that there are at least a few people who enjoy the balanced game and want to see more interaction not less.
Tinu Moorhsum
Random Events
#210 - 2013-05-15 15:09:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tinu Moorhsum
addelee wrote:

In a 1v1 fight, yeah you're correct. The high SP player should win due to experience and higher skills. However, for fleets this isn't true at all and there's always the case of being caught by a random roaming gang and being plain unlucky.


Well... noobish mistakes aside I hear what you're saying.

The issue isn't staying clear when we start mixing contexts. In one context, taking away podding costs wouldn't be fair to younger players, in another context younger players benefit too much from lower podding costs.

Maybe insurance payouts for ship losses could be adjusted by ratio of the character's skillpoints to the mean. Older characters would get less reimbursed and new characters more for the same ship.

That might work to make keep the playing field level as you lose more ships while skill points are low and you're still learning the mechanics.

dunno Question
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#211 - 2013-05-15 15:21:13 UTC
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:
addelee wrote:

In a 1v1 fight, yeah you're correct. The high SP player should win due to experience and higher skills. However, for fleets this isn't true at all and there's always the case of being caught by a random roaming gang and being plain unlucky.


Well... noobish mistakes aside I hear what you're saying.

The issue isn't staying clear when we start mixing contexts. In one context, taking away podding costs wouldn't be fair to younger players, in another context younger players benefit too much from lower podding costs.

Maybe insurance payouts for ship losses could be adjusted by ratio of the character's skillpoints to the mean. Older characters would get less reimbursed and new characters more for the same ship.

That might work to make keep the playing field level as you lose more ships while skill points are low and you're still learning the mechanics.

dunno Question


Why do it by skillpoints? Why not by Net Asset Value?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
addelee
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#212 - 2013-05-15 15:26:28 UTC
Maybe insurance is the answer. Not in the way you described it but worth exploring.

I actually lose way more ships now than I ever did as a rookie. Rookies tend to stick to highsec (which lets face it, is safe) and avoid trouble. I still remember how I used to think of a ship as being precious but once you've lost a few ships worth a few bill you think less of them. If anything, I'm way more likely to take on a battle that is a) stacked against me or b) try some crazy fit to see if it works. Ship loss is fine, I get that but being penalised on top of that for an isk sink makes pvp expensive.

I kinda like the idea of a flat rate.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#213 - 2013-05-15 15:37:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
Nevermind.

Oh god.
Mangold
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
#214 - 2013-05-15 15:51:10 UTC
This whole thread made me enjoy popping pods even more.

Please, do not lower clone costs. It's already way to cheap to lose a ship and pod as it is. The beauty of this game is that a loss actually mean something. I'd actually want losses to be even more expensive.

I am certain that it's already covered in the massive 11 pages in this thread but I have to say it once again: OP - it's not the game that's broken, it's you that can't play the game. If you have 100M skill points and can't make enough isk to cover the clone costs you're definately doing something wrong.
Tinu Moorhsum
Random Events
#215 - 2013-05-15 15:53:37 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Why do it by skillpoints? Why not by Net Asset Value?


Was this a serious question?

For one thing, you'd CTRL-A your hangar and contract everything to an alt before the op and cancel the contract after the op was over. There's just too many ways to get around that.

And that's aside from the fact that more than a few ships get destroyed every day and I wouldn't even want to think about what the database would have to do to calculate all that.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of using variable insurance rates to level the playing field. It's easy to calculate, the amount of isk sink is easy to adjust and it seems to address the issue of podding costs a little better than the current system.

Should it be coupled to skill points? dunno.... the current system is, so that's the direction I was thinking in.

Six Six Six
Doomheim
#216 - 2013-05-15 15:59:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Six Six Six
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Why do it by skillpoints? Why not by Net Asset Value?


Was this a serious question?

For one thing, you'd CTRL-A your hangar and contract everything to an alt before the op and cancel the contract after the op was over. There's just too many ways to get around that.

And that's aside from the fact that more than a few ships get destroyed every day and I wouldn't even want to think about what the database would have to do to calculate all that.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of using variable insurance rates to level the playing field. It's easy to calculate, the amount of isk sink is easy to adjust and it seems to address the issue of podding costs a little better than the current system.

Should it be coupled to skill points? dunno.... the current system is, so that's the direction I was thinking in.




The whole point of reducing clone costs is to make it easier for a greater number of people to be able to afford to PvP, there's no point reducing clone costs if you're going to shove the costs elsewhere.

If people want to lose more isk through PvP because they have too much, just fit some expensive combat implants in, and then you can be happy with your losses.
Yokai Mitsuhide
Doomheim
#217 - 2013-05-15 16:00:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Yokai Mitsuhide
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Tom Gerard wrote:
Risk vs. Reward doesn't scale well

A 200m skillpoint character is not any safer than a 20m skillpoint character and yet has 10x the risk.
Then don't use it.

If you have trained up a 200M skill point character and then want to use them in a frigate... you have made a poor choice.


That is a ridiculous comment. I wanna fly any and everything, just because I have a high amount of SP I shouldn't have to give up on flying smaller ships like frigates. Very poor way of looking at things.
Mangold
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
#218 - 2013-05-15 16:05:45 UTC
So I managed to force myself to read more of the posts in this thread.

I am shocked.

What the **** do you guys want? Risk free pvp with losses without a meaning?

What brought me to this game was the fact that every single loss was permanent and a major setback. In the beginning (2003) even losing a cruiser was something that could make a grown man cry. Today people throw t3 ship after t3 ship in a fight and don't care a thing about the losses as ISK is plenty and easy to get. Pods are actually one of few losses people tend to care about especially if they have forgotten to upgrade their clone and lose skillpoints.

If you reduce the impact of a loss even more the meaning of pvp will decrease even more.

All the talk of "making people pvp more if the losses costs less" is just a step in the completely wrong direction. What the **** do you want? Evey single ship in game in your hangar spawn when you log in? Just log onto the test server instead.

Don't ****** ruin my game.
Mangold
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
#219 - 2013-05-15 16:07:35 UTC
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Tom Gerard wrote:
Risk vs. Reward doesn't scale well

A 200m skillpoint character is not any safer than a 20m skillpoint character and yet has 10x the risk.
Then don't use it.

If you have trained up a 200M skill point character and then want to use them in a frigate... you have made a poor choice.


That is a ridiculous comment. I wanna fly any and everything, just because I have a high amount of SP I shouldn't have to give up on flying smaller ships like frigates. Very poor way of looking at things.


Who is stopping you? Just do it.
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#220 - 2013-05-15 16:13:31 UTC
Mangold wrote:
So I managed to force myself to read more of the posts in this thread.

I am shocked.

What the **** do you guys want? Risk free pvp with losses without a meaning?

What brought me to this game was the fact that every single loss was permanent and a major setback. In the beginning (2003) even losing a cruiser was something that could make a grown man cry. Today people throw t3 ship after t3 ship in a fight and don't care a thing about the losses as ISK is plenty and easy to get. Pods are actually one of few losses people tend to care about especially if they have forgotten to upgrade their clone and lose skillpoints.

If you reduce the impact of a loss even more the meaning of pvp will decrease even more.

All the talk of "making people pvp more if the losses costs less" is just a step in the completely wrong direction. What the **** do you want? Evey single ship in game in your hangar spawn when you log in? Just log onto the test server instead.

Don't ****** ruin my game.




It's not actually your game it's CCP's and from what you have written, you've written it from your perspective. But it might shock you to know that not everyone is in the same boat as you. A reduction in the cost of clones, you would hardly even notice, whereas it could mean a big deal for other players.