These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

So CCP wants to change how clone cost works what next?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Merouk Baas
#61 - 2013-02-09 02:10:12 UTC
Shrug, waiting for the medical-themed expansion.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2013-02-09 02:44:02 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Let me put it this way, which makes more sense?

I understand that having cheap 'foreverclean clones' for null pvp appears desirable but it's ultimately a tax on implants and nothing else

Implants already cost ISK, there's no need or reason to tax them again

That is, there is a reason to change clone costing, but there is no reason to tax implants
fukier
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2013-02-09 02:48:43 UTC  |  Edited by: fukier
you know i would not mind seeing insurance for implants. i think this is what ranger1 is calling for.

that with player made and marketable clones would be epic!

edit: i would not have good insurance for sets of implants just like tech II insurance is not worth the isk investment.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Velarra
#64 - 2013-02-09 02:57:14 UTC
Clone Costs:

- Clone
- Attribute implant(s)
- "Home" station - (with or without medical services).
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#65 - 2013-02-09 03:23:51 UTC
Flat clone costs and the removal of standings requirements for jump clones in high sec.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#66 - 2013-02-09 03:51:50 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Flat clone costs and the removal of standings requirements for jump clones in high sec.


Close. But in that scenario it would be better to remove clone cost altogether.

Anything that is reasonable for a very new player will be insignificant to a player with several months - 10years in game.
Vice versa, any flat cost that is noticable by a vet will be way too high for new players.

-We currently have a greater than linear rate of ISK/SP Saved increase as we progress up the ranks.

-At least a linear progression would hold some logical sense (same isk/SP rate)

-The benefit, or effects that translate, from high SP players into any one (or even a given set) of ship hulls or player activites from the whole SP lot is usually very small. If we were to use this as the basis for a cost/benefit analysis it would indicate that a less than linear progression tapering off to an eventual SP cap would make the most sense.

At what SP level and what cost it should taper off is the best question to ask. And I think it will likely come down to an arbitrary decision, unless someone can point to any known reasoning behind established clone costs for a given ISK/SP Saved

I say: once you hit 60mil SP the costs start rising at a much lower rate and that anyone over 120mil SP clone costs are capped.

I'd say:

10mil SP saved = 500k isk clone cost
20mil SP saved = 1M isk
40mil SP saved = 2M isk
60mil SP saved = 3M isk
80mil SP saved = 3.5M isk
100mil SP saved = 4M isk
120mil SP and up = 5M isk

This is close to current for the initial linear progression. We cap out at 5M isk..

high enough to keep people from spamming themselves

low enough that any real cost for loss is linked to the combat/attrib implants, the ship hull and the modules... all items influenced by the player driven market.

For comaprison, if we just accepted a linear progression built on the current system, the above would look like:

10mil SP saved = 500k isk
60mil SP saved = 3M isk
120mil SP saved = 6M isk
200mil SP saved = 10M isk

still pretty reasonable.

To view the absurdity that is our status quo:

10mil SP saved = ~500k isk
60mil SP saved = ~10M isk
120mil SP saved = ~30M isk
200mil SP saved = ~65mil

Crazy. Somewhere around 50mil SP - 100mil SP the rate of increase spikes 3-fold and then tapers back to it's greater than linear rate

There are graphs somewhere that someone did on this years ago, I cba to find them though because everyone laughed at me when I brought this up in '09 / '10

WELL ITS TIME TO PAY TEH FIDDLER FORUMS! YOU WILL RUE THE DAY! I TOLD YOU SO!! HISTROY HAS NAMED ME THE WINNER1!

/maniacal laughter
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2013-02-09 05:34:09 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
The game needs more isk sinks, not less. If you keep clone costs the same but turn them into an insurance that would probably increase the sink, especially for players who do things like mission running in highsec. In other words, players that are highly unlikely to actually lose pods, but undock and so feel compelled to stay covered just in case.
Manufacturing, pricechecking alts, cyno alts, etc. that don't undock would not be affected by this change since they have no reason to buy clone upgrades as they are never in danger of getting podded or they don't have enough skillpoints to need clone upgrades.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#68 - 2013-02-09 05:49:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
The game needs more isk sinks, not less.


edit: i'm stupid

edit: edit: hey now, stop liking the post where I say I'm stupid.
goddammit so much
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2013-02-09 05:57:54 UTC
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
You make an argument for clone insurance, but you don't articulate what the mechanic actually is

That might be because if I did so, I'd be repeating myself, since I did just that in an earlier post in this thread.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#70 - 2013-02-09 06:03:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
You make an argument for clone insurance, but you don't articulate what the mechanic actually is

That might be because if I did so, I'd be repeating myself, since I did just that in an earlier post in this thread.


my bad, i'm stupid. post edited

but I still don't understand, because that system would not be more of an isk sink? (which you said is needed)

And this still doesn't answer who it is we are trying to impact the most with the fee (if anyone) and the current structure vastly penalizes pure SP accumulated.. and there has been no real reasoning ever discussed as to why this is (probably part of the reason they want to change it, they built the structure before anyone was in these upper tiers)

This would impact everyone equally per clone tier just like is done now. I don't think the issue is that clones cost isk but the structure and reasoning behind the current tiers.

And it might introduce more problems than the current system:

Though it is a nice idea for heavy pvp'rs... an issue discussed in the past, that players would be able to use alts within set ideal tiers that can basically spam into combat feeling no impact from many many clone losses.... not something I'm overly afraid of (the market will adjust ship/mod/mineral/etc costs to compensate if this is large enough of an issue) but there it is. There have been good arguments against it in the past.

I like the idea, but at the same time as long as your insurance is up to date you can just write this off as a necessary cost of playing the game and might as well have no clone cost at all.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#71 - 2013-02-09 06:19:52 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
It would potentially be more of an isk sink because of the sheer number of players who don't lose pods on a regular basis. Instead of buying a clone and forgetting about it until the next time they have to upgrade, they'll have to buy a new clone once every insurance period and when they have to upgrade if they want to stay covered. Obviously this would decrease the sink for PVP'ers, but overall it evens things out across the board and doesn't arbitrarily punish people who do their PVP in areas of space where either bubbles are allowed or smartbombs are much more common.

Removing clone costs entirely wouldn't be a good idea because that would remove an isk sink, which is needed because of the inflation in the game (the sinks don't come anywhere close to balancing the amount of isk pouring into the game from things like mission bounties). Keeping clone costs flat across the board isn't a good idea either because what would be a manageable clone cost for a new player would be absolutely trivial to someone with a lot of skillpoints, and a meaningful cost for someone with a lot of skillpoints would be far too much for a new player to bear. And reducing clone costs at the higher levels doesn't address the issue that it still unfairly affects those who do their PVP in certain areas of the game.

As far as using alts to spam into combat, ship losses are why this isn't done on a regular basis, at the lower tiers clone costs are fairly trivial anyway if you're determined to spam ships into combat.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#72 - 2013-02-09 06:34:00 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
As far as using alts to spam into combat, ship losses are why this isn't done on a regular basis, at the lower tiers clone costs are fairly trivial anyway if you're determined to spam ships into combat.

Of course, we're the ones who have newbies in ships which can be spammed into combat Cool

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2013-02-09 07:08:29 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
As far as using alts to spam into combat, ship losses are why this isn't done on a regular basis, at the lower tiers clone costs are fairly trivial anyway if you're determined to spam ships into combat.

Of course, we're the ones who have newbies in ships which can be spammed into combat Cool

You are... RAZOR isn't as newbie friendly.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#74 - 2013-02-09 07:15:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
It would potentially be more of an isk sink because of the sheer number of players who don't lose pods on a regular basis. Instead of buying a clone and forgetting about it until the next time they have to upgrade, they'll have to buy a new clone once every insurance period and when they have to upgrade if they want to stay covered. Obviously this would decrease the sink for PVP'ers, but overall it evens things out across the board and doesn't arbitrarily punish people who do their PVP in areas of space where either bubbles are allowed or smartbombs are much more common.

Removing clone costs entirely wouldn't be a good idea because that would remove an isk sink, which is needed because of the inflation in the game (the sinks don't come anywhere close to balancing the amount of isk pouring into the game from things like mission bounties). Keeping clone costs flat across the board isn't a good idea either because what would be a manageable clone cost for a new player would be absolutely trivial to someone with a lot of skillpoints, and a meaningful cost for someone with a lot of skillpoints would be far too much for a new player to bear. And reducing clone costs at the higher levels doesn't address the issue that it still unfairly affects those who do their PVP in certain areas of the game.

As far as using alts to spam into combat, ship losses are why this isn't done on a regular basis, at the lower tiers clone costs are fairly trivial anyway if you're determined to spam ships into combat.


Ok, I'm sold on the overall idea. Though our solutions are very different, I think they both make sense.
(I might even like yours a little bit more.)

I'm still not sold on the original price model though. I think there should be a set isk/SP-Saved function at the least

and if there is any change in isk/SP saved as we move through the tiers it should probably be the inverse of the current system's rate of change.

If it stays the same I'd certainly be interested in CCP's reasoning behind the structure as it seem (to me anyways) a bit counter-intuitive.
Corbin Blair
Doomheim
#75 - 2013-02-09 07:18:12 UTC
They said they were looking at clone costs. They didn't say they were going to remake the whole clone system from scratch.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#76 - 2013-02-09 09:08:00 UTC
I smell a use for frozen corpses on the horizon.

It would be nice to see those using their corporate clone vats as "respawn points" actually having to start worrying about putting in what they take out. Eve is harsh/has consequences/leet PVP and all that stuff.


It would certainly be the end of disco SB pod popper BSs.


Bring back DEEEEP Space!
fukier
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2013-02-09 14:31:17 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I smell a use for frozen corpses on the horizon.

It would be nice to see those using their corporate clone vats as "respawn points" actually having to start worrying about putting in what they take out. Eve is harsh/has consequences/leet PVP and all that stuff.


It would certainly be the end of disco SB pod popper BSs.





that and they could add biomass to ship wreks... i mean there are 1000's of people on the larger ships so that means potential for lots of spare parts to make your clones out of.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#78 - 2013-02-09 14:50:18 UTC
fukier wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I smell a use for frozen corpses on the horizon.

It would be nice to see those using their corporate clone vats as "respawn points" actually having to start worrying about putting in what they take out. Eve is harsh/has consequences/leet PVP and all that stuff.


It would certainly be the end of disco SB pod popper BSs.





that and they could add biomass to ship wreks... i mean there are 1000's of people on the larger ships so that means potential for lots of spare parts to make your clones out of.


I have his upper leg and her lower leg.

I have his upper leg... and her lower leg.

I have HIS upper LEG AND... HEEEER LOWER LEG Shocked

and seriously I can't undock until I find a torso so.. tell the gang to wait 10 min
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#79 - 2013-02-09 15:02:21 UTC
also, I'd be real interested if we could see data on clone usage across the base.

how many never use them and how often the pvprs (at their varying degree of pvp activity) use clones.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2013-02-09 15:10:54 UTC
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
also, I'd be real interested if we could see data on clone usage across the base.

how many never use them and how often the pvprs (at their varying degree of pvp activity) use clones.


i wonder if you can get the metrics from eve-kill?
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.