These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The clone upgrade cost has to go!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#81 - 2012-07-12 05:44:06 UTC
Imigo Montoya wrote:
Not supported. Here's why:

Core principle of EVE: Death should have meaning.

One thing that adds meaning to death in EVE is the cost of recovering from it. Part of that is the cost of the ship (and its associated mods/rigs) you are flying, part of that is the cost of the implants you have put in your clone, and part of it is the cost of the med clone itself.

Player choice is very important in a game for a whole pile of reasons, not least of which is that one definition of "game" is "A series of interesting choices" (Sid Meier's). Every account has three character slots available to it, so one of the choices you have is "How far do I train this character before I start training another one".

I have a couple of combat alts, one is a frig/destroyer based character that can fly and T2 fit Amarr, Gallente, and Minmatar AFs, Interceptors, and Interdictors, and even has Interdictors V. All that for the low cost of just under the 15.7m clone limit (I think it costs around 900k for the clone). I no longer train that character, so no need for learning implants, and it is specifically made to be deployed permanently in the combat zone. I don't know about you, but frigs and sabres are a hell of a lot of fun to fly, and the cost of the clone is negligible compared to the cost of the ships I'm putting on the line.

My other combat alt has all cruisers at V and HAC/Recon at V. That clone is a bit more expensive, but it allows a few more options/choices.

So I have made my choices around how I configure my PvP characters, and those choices have come from an appreciation that death has meaning in EVE, and that part of that meaning is clone cost. It's really not that hard to mitigate clone cost, especially for the small fast ships.

If you take away some of the meaning of death in EVE, it becomes less niche EVE and more mainstream MMO.


But m8 m8 m8... what your talking about is exactly the problem... :)

30-40 mil is a lot for a clone without implants if you ask me...(10mil more sp and I have to pay 40mil) so basicly all I'm saying is the higher end clones need to have the price toned down a bit :)...

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2012-07-12 06:32:28 UTC
Imigo Montoya wrote:
Not supported. Here's why:

Core principle of EVE: Death should have meaning.

One thing that adds meaning to death in EVE is the cost of recovering from it. Part of that is the cost of the ship (and its associated mods/rigs) you are flying, part of that is the cost of the implants you have put in your clone, and part of it is the cost of the med clone itself.

Death will still carry the meaning you are referring to. Do you agree that a lot of high sec players shy away from PvP due several factors and one of them is in fact the clone upgrade cost? I look at the removal of clone upgrade cost as a carrot to get them to try some PvP. They get hooked and next thing you know they are flying more expensive ships, implants, and all kinds of stuff that go boom and ISK sink that wallet they have. Also you have to look at the fact older players will fly smaller ships and more often, thus putting more ISK out there to go boom as opposed to just waiting for the next CTA to blob the **** outta some tiny fleet, thus risking nothing.

Do you not see any of that?
Imigo Montoya wrote:
Player choice is very important in a game for a whole pile of reasons, not least of which is that one definition of "game" is "A series of interesting choices" (Sid Meier's). Every account has three character slots available to it, so one of the choices you have is "How far do I train this character before I start training another one".

I have a couple of combat alts, one is a frig/destroyer based character that can fly and T2 fit Amarr, Gallente, and Minmatar AFs, Interceptors, and Interdictors, and even has Interdictors V. All that for the low cost of just under the 15.7m clone limit (I think it costs around 900k for the clone). I no longer train that character, so no need for learning implants, and it is specifically made to be deployed permanently in the combat zone. I don't know about you, but frigs and sabres are a hell of a lot of fun to fly, and the cost of the clone is negligible compared to the cost of the ships I'm putting on the line.

My other combat alt has all cruisers at V and HAC/Recon at V. That clone is a bit more expensive, but it allows a few more options/choices.

So you are implying that players must go the alt path? What kind of choice is that? What kind of game play makes players log in and out of different alts in order to fly and do different things? Also all those core skills having to be retrained, thus more skill points, being counter productive to your scenario.
Imigo Montoya wrote:
So I have made my choices around how I configure my PvP characters, and those choices have come from an appreciation that death has meaning in EVE, and that part of that meaning is clone cost. It's really not that hard to mitigate clone cost, especially for the small fast ships.

Again you imply that with clone cost removal and the ISK sink being located somewhere else in the 'death' equation that somehow it no longer has meaning. That makes no sense at all.
Imigo Montoya wrote:
If you take away some of the meaning of death in EVE, it becomes less niche EVE and more mainstream MMO.

This is simply not true at all. They could remove insurance at the same time and death would still carry the same weight in meaning as you have gone on about. And that is only one option they have as far as moving the ISK sink around in the 'death' mechanic.

I appreciate the Sid Meier quote, but you should also realize that Sid was keen on players psychology in a game. You view a game mechanic that keeps a majority of the players from participating in the core concept of the game as a good thing. The same mechanic that punishes players who decide to keep training one character. You view this as a good thing as well. Were you against the removal of learning skills too?

I view the clone upgrade cost as an arbitrary mechanic that is nothing but pure evil and adds nothing of value to the game. It is an ISK sink that could easily be moved to something more functional and will not be discouraging players from taking part in combat.

PvP should not be reserved for players with very little skill points or the rich.
Imigo Montoya
BreadFleet
Triglavian Outlaws and Sobornost Troika
#83 - 2012-07-12 11:10:56 UTC
Marconus Orion wrote:
Death will still carry the meaning you are referring to. Do you agree that a lot of high sec players shy away from PvP due several factors and one of them is in fact the clone upgrade cost? I look at the removal of clone upgrade cost as a carrot to get them to try some PvP. They get hooked and next thing you know they are flying more expensive ships, implants, and all kinds of stuff that go boom and ISK sink that wallet they have. Also you have to look at the fact older players will fly smaller ships and more often, thus putting more ISK out there to go boom as opposed to just waiting for the next CTA to blob the **** outta some tiny fleet, thus risking nothing.

Do you not see any of that?

There are all kinds of reasons why some people like to engage with other players and some prefer to avoid confrontation. Players are looking for different experiences when they start up MMO software, and surprisingly enough plenty of them are looking for a single player experience, even in EVE. These people will never get hooked on PvP, so diminishing part of the meaning of death will diminish the experience for those who do seek PvP for the benefit of nobody who cares.

Marconus Orion wrote:
So you are implying that players must go the alt path? What kind of choice is that? What kind of game play makes players log in and out of different alts in order to fly and do different things? Also all those core skills having to be retrained, thus more skill points, being counter productive to your scenario.

I'm not implying that players must do anything, but going down the alt path does open up plenty of viable choices.

Marconus Orion wrote:
Again you imply that with clone cost removal and the ISK sink being located somewhere else in the 'death' equation that somehow it no longer has meaning. That makes no sense at all.

You're quite right. Your misinterpretation of what I said really does make no sense at all. Please don't cherry-pick parts of what I say, remove them from context, and say they don't make sense, then still expect to have any sort of meaningful discourse. Note that I said that removing the cost of the medical clone will remove some of the meaning of death ("some" meaning more than none but not all).

Marconus Orion wrote:
You view a game mechanic that keeps a majority of the players from participating in the core concept of the game as a good thing.

Again, you have misrepresented what I have said, and also introduced an assertion of fact that is simply your opinion. What metrics do you have to show that medical clone costs "keeps a majority of the players from participating in the core concept of the game"? I never said this is a good thing because I don't even see it as a thing at all in the first place. It might be one factor among a sea of risk aversion and fear of loss that keep those who avoid ship based combat from engaging in it, but it is certainly not the only one.

Marconus Orion wrote:
I view the clone upgrade cost as an arbitrary mechanic that is nothing but pure evil and adds nothing of value to the game. It is an ISK sink that could easily be moved to something more functional and will not be discouraging players from taking part in combat.

PvP should not be reserved for players with very little skill points or the rich.

Perhaps a slight modification of the passage of text that I highlighted, it adds nothing of value that you appreciate. It is a potential ISK sink (you don't always lose your pod) that is generally small in comparison to the price of the kinds of ships you are able to field.

Your rhetoric about PvP being reserved for people with little skill points or the rich is misleading. Characters with more skill points have an advantage over characters with lower skill points. They can fly bigger, more badass ships which are more potent in the battlefield. The cost of dying scales with the amount of advantage you gain from being able to fly bigger badder ships, or also (to a lesser extent) being able to fly smaller ships with more potency. This is something I see no problem with, an the OP's proposal will take this balancing away.
Signal11th
#84 - 2012-07-12 12:19:14 UTC
Imigo Montoya wrote:
[quote=Marconus Orion]Do you agree that a lot of The cost of dying scales with the amount of advantage you gain from being able to fly bigger badder ships, or also (to a lesser extent) being able to fly smaller ships with more potency. This is something I see no problem with, an the OP's proposal will take this balancing away.



No because Imagine I'm a Indy type who has just got into PVP, I have a shedload of SP's that I have to pay for that give me no benefit in PVP at all.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2012-07-12 13:26:05 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
Imigo Montoya wrote:
[quote=Marconus Orion]Do you agree that a lot of The cost of dying scales with the amount of advantage you gain from being able to fly bigger badder ships, or also (to a lesser extent) being able to fly smaller ships with more potency. This is something I see no problem with, an the OP's proposal will take this balancing away.



No because Imagine I'm a Indy type who has just got into PVP, I have a shedload of SP's that I have to pay for that give me no benefit in PVP at all.


So? You have a bunch of industrial skillpoints that give you benefit in making ISK to pay for your pvp.
Signal11th
#86 - 2012-07-12 13:26:54 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
Imigo Montoya wrote:
[quote=Marconus Orion]Do you agree that a lot of The cost of dying scales with the amount of advantage you gain from being able to fly bigger badder ships, or also (to a lesser extent) being able to fly smaller ships with more potency. This is something I see no problem with, an the OP's proposal will take this balancing away.



No because Imagine I'm a Indy type who has just got into PVP, I have a shedload of SP's that I have to pay for that give me no benefit in PVP at all.


So? You have a bunch of industrial skillpoints that give you benefit in making ISK to pay for your pvp.



No really the point you were making though is it?

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2012-07-12 17:37:37 UTC
Marconus Orion wrote:
Do you agree that a lot of high sec players shy away from PvP due several factors and one of them is in fact the clone upgrade cost?


no, they shy away from PvP because they feel that they should not PvP until they are "max level"

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Ayeshah Volfield
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2012-07-12 18:23:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ayeshah Volfield
Richard Desturned wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
Do you agree that a lot of high sec players shy away from PvP due several factors and one of them is in fact the clone upgrade cost?


no, they shy away from PvP because they feel that they should not PvP until they are "max level"


So what you're saying is that clone costs only really affect those that want to PVP AKA non-highsec carebears ?

Though I can only speak for those I've personally roamed with, I do agree with you. Risk adverse people will still be this way regardless of any change to clone costs.

EVE is what happens when the rule of law does not apply and Darwinism is allowed to run freely.
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#89 - 2012-07-12 19:39:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Revolution Rising
All these arguments are silly with regard to the topic.

I have 65m+ sp now... my clones are expensive - this means I cannot have quick inexpensive fun at any time.

Want to go on a frig roam? Count me out, because my clone could pay for the fleet.

I only came here to ask why this hasn't been done already.

I am shocked people are debating if it should be done or not.

Upon saying that, death should have meaning - but shouldn't interefer with PVP of all kinds.
Ergo: Clones being the "meaning" has to go.

.
Elzon1
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#90 - 2012-07-14 03:34:18 UTC
Just in case someone didn't notice there has been mention that there are clone blueprints on SiSi (test server).

There was mention of this in the test server feedback forum: Feedback Thread

So, it seems CCP has listened and instead of simply getting rid of cloning costs they are allowing us to build and market our own clones. I personally think this is an awesome change as it doesn't drastically effect everyone who doesn't want to use it. Also, it reinvigorates pvp with higher sp characters.

Its all good. Big smile
Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#91 - 2012-07-14 05:08:05 UTC
Elzon1 wrote:
Just in case someone didn't notice there has been mention that there are clone blueprints on SiSi (test server).

There was mention of this in the test server feedback forum: Feedback Thread

So, it seems CCP has listened and instead of simply getting rid of cloning costs they are allowing us to build and market our own clones. I personally think this is an awesome change as it doesn't drastically effect everyone who doesn't want to use it. Also, it reinvigorates pvp with higher sp characters.

Its all good. Big smile

Until I see something real that hits TQ, I will never ease up on the pressure. What you are talking about is currently just something found on the dev server/tool/something and not really on SiSi.
Shameless Avenger
Can Preachers of Kador
#92 - 2012-07-17 21:11:18 UTC
I want to see clone insurance services. 100m sp main and 60m sp alts. Ugh

"This is the Ninja. He will scan you down; he will salvage your wrecks and there shall be no aggro"
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#93 - 2012-07-17 22:36:39 UTC
Shameless Avenger wrote:
I want to see clone insurance services. 100m sp main and 60m sp alts. Ugh

Clone insurance... that's an interesting idea :) why isn't there a insurance on clones when there is on ships... my clone is more expensive than a bc hull almost... and the reasoning for ships to have insurance is just as good?

I have in the past... had to borrow isk from friends just to cover my clone cost... just saying

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Shameless Avenger
Can Preachers of Kador
#94 - 2012-07-17 22:54:13 UTC
Bubanni wrote:
Shameless Avenger wrote:
I want to see clone insurance services. 100m sp main and 60m sp alts. Ugh

Clone insurance... that's an interesting idea :) why isn't there a insurance on clones when there is on ships... my clone is more expensive than a bc hull almost... and the reasoning for ships to have insurance is just as good?

I have in the past... had to borrow isk from friends just to cover my clone cost... just saying


It has been suggested before...

In 2009: Linky
In 2011: Linky
In 2012: Linky

Somehow it never gets enough discussion. It is a decent idea.

"This is the Ninja. He will scan you down; he will salvage your wrecks and there shall be no aggro"
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#95 - 2012-07-18 00:17:23 UTC
What about introducing a relatively long skill that cuts the clone costs ?


Seasoned players, who want to fly small stuff will have all that maxed out, so they have time for that skill. (and by this to further specialise into small-scale instead of going "meh I'll start training titans and caps now because I have everything else maxed out PVP-wise" )
And new players who have more important skills to train, don't need the skill.
WIN-WIN Smile
Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#96 - 2012-07-18 00:26:40 UTC
Sheynan wrote:
What about introducing a relatively long skill that cuts the clone costs ?


Seasoned players, who want to fly small stuff will have all that maxed out, so they have time for that skill. (and by this to further specialise into small-scale instead of going "meh I'll start training titans and caps now because I have everything else maxed out PVP-wise" )
And new players who have more important skills to train, don't need the skill.
WIN-WIN Smile

Or just remove them completely.
Jbiggs2
Suspicious Intentions
Goonswarm Federation
#97 - 2012-07-18 07:28:53 UTC
Marconus Orion wrote:
Sheynan wrote:
What about introducing a relatively long skill that cuts the clone costs ?


Seasoned players, who want to fly small stuff will have all that maxed out, so they have time for that skill. (and by this to further specialise into small-scale instead of going "meh I'll start training titans and caps now because I have everything else maxed out PVP-wise" )
And new players who have more important skills to train, don't need the skill.
WIN-WIN Smile

Or just remove them completely.


I support this, at 150mil sp - 45mil clones are fookin expensive!!!!
Laechyd Eldgorn
Avanto
Hole Control
#98 - 2012-07-18 10:12:12 UTC
Insurance makes just things even more complicated, I believe even ccp wants to make thing simplier

Death would still have a meaning even if medical clone costs were cut down to REASONABLE level, you will still lose a ship and implants. When your average cheapy pvp clone with like 2x+4 implants gets destroyed cost is more than tech 2 frigate at high sp levels. This is not reasonable and realistic at all.

Remember this would only affect on medical clone cost which is relevant mostly when you want to fly ships which get destroyed pretty easily.
Amy Garzan
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2012-07-19 18:59:04 UTC
Support this. Moar PVP = Better EvE
Galea Wildfang
Inebriated Consortium Enterprises Inc.
#100 - 2012-07-25 07:34:57 UTC
Well, risking a ship and the implants you fly with is the risk you take. Clone costs are nothing you can chose. You can't do anything to lessen your risk. I think the whole 'losing SP' idea is a bad one and clones should go to the trash bin.

It might encourage players to keep training their characters instead of forming an alt fleet if you get rid of clones or their costs.

Some people might have made a name for themselves and don't want to jump to an alt to have fun. The current concept discourages people to keep training their mains or fly into pvp with it.

In conclusion, I support the idea.