These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

If clones were free would more PVP?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#161 - 2013-02-19 17:35:45 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Pewty McPew wrote:
Lets forget for a moment the Darwin issue of forgetting to upgrade/renew you medical clone and losing SP.

If free medical clones were provided to all players would this encourage more people to participate in PVP?



No.

The cost of the clone is genreally cheap compared to the cost of the implants.

The ISK cost of losing ships and clones is relatively insignificant compared to the profit potential of most in game activities. An hour of carebearing can replace a dozen small ships or a couple large ships.


The people that do not PVP either 1) have no interest in PVP or 2) Really want to avoid being on someone's kill board stats.

Free clones would not change either of these factors.

And yet people who DO PVP are telling you that clone costs are a problem.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Danu Charante
Black Sun Industry and Research
#162 - 2013-02-19 18:03:59 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Danu Charante wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Another way to look at this entire clone upgrade cost mechanic is like this:

Let us pretend there was no clone upgrade costs to begin with. Now, lets say CCP puts out a dev blog that says something along the lines of...

Quote:
Hi players. We need to add more ISK sinks and to do this, we are going to add a mechanic that penalizes players who actually take risks and PvP in this game. For those unfortunate few who forget to push a button after they are podded to activate the ISK sink, we are going to penalize them severely. We are going to take away a ton of skill points. Also for those players who have been around longer, we are going to charge you more. You know because using the metric 'with age always comes wealth' is accurate.

So remember capsuleers... The more you play, the more you pay.

♥ CCP


The question is, would you have been playing EVE for so long if it had been a generic, no penalty PVP game, in the first place.
Will players still play this game in the future if it turns into a fluffy lala land.

And there you go with the slippery slope fallacy. Did I say free ships? Free equipment? Free implants? No, I did not.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=205451&find=unread

Just need a free ship and free equipment thread; then we can talk more of that fallacy you speak of.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#163 - 2013-02-19 18:31:40 UTC
Danu Charante wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Danu Charante wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Another way to look at this entire clone upgrade cost mechanic is like this:

Let us pretend there was no clone upgrade costs to begin with. Now, lets say CCP puts out a dev blog that says something along the lines of...

Quote:
Hi players. We need to add more ISK sinks and to do this, we are going to add a mechanic that penalizes players who actually take risks and PvP in this game. For those unfortunate few who forget to push a button after they are podded to activate the ISK sink, we are going to penalize them severely. We are going to take away a ton of skill points. Also for those players who have been around longer, we are going to charge you more. You know because using the metric 'with age always comes wealth' is accurate.

So remember capsuleers... The more you play, the more you pay.

♥ CCP


The question is, would you have been playing EVE for so long if it had been a generic, no penalty PVP game, in the first place.
Will players still play this game in the future if it turns into a fluffy lala land.

And there you go with the slippery slope fallacy. Did I say free ships? Free equipment? Free implants? No, I did not.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=205451&find=unread

Just need a free ship and free equipment thread; then we can talk more of that fallacy you speak of.

The fallacy Marlona is referring is your inability to adress her actual post and instead addressing something completely irrelevant. You'll notice, that you continue to do it by linking a thread that isn't about asking for free stuff, but about asking for a shorter delay between jumpclone switches. It's about flexibility in gameplay and unwillingness of people to compromise on their optimal training speed. The cost of implants is still there and so is the risk of losing them.

Not that I mind your inability to properly discuss the issue. It just makes your side of the argument seem more feeble with each post and ensures the future changes to the mechanic are increasingly more likely to favor our view on the issue.
Kristopher Rocancourt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#164 - 2013-02-19 18:32:36 UTC
clone fees are nothing when people like myself are blapping 1.8Billion isk of implants in Pods.

http://killalliance.co.uk/tears/tears-holeysheet/

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#165 - 2013-02-19 19:30:42 UTC
Kristopher Rocancourt wrote:
clone fees are nothing when people like myself are blapping 1.8Billion isk of implants in Pods.


K. Not terribly relevant though.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Danu Charante
Black Sun Industry and Research
#166 - 2013-02-19 19:45:37 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:

The fallacy Marlona is referring is your inability to adress her actual post and instead addressing something completely irrelevant. You'll notice, that you continue to do it by linking a thread that isn't about asking for free stuff, but about asking for a shorter delay between jumpclone switches. It's about flexibility in gameplay and unwillingness of people to compromise on their optimal training speed. The cost of implants is still there and so is the risk of losing them.

Not that I mind your inability to properly discuss the issue. It just makes your side of the argument seem more feeble with each post and ensures the future changes to the mechanic are increasingly more likely to favor our view on the issue.


Her post was addressed, I'm sorry you can't see past your narrow minded view of things. Keep posting the drivel though.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#167 - 2013-02-19 19:53:51 UTC  |  Edited by: silens vesica
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kristopher Rocancourt wrote:
clone fees are nothing when people like myself are blapping 1.8Billion isk of implants in Pods.


K. Not terribly relevant though.

Actually, entirely relevent. When people are willing to risk such huge investments, the cost of a clone is essentially nil. Decimal places, to be sure.
Contrary-wise, if your implants are so expensive as to preclude risking them, lowering the cost of clones will mean nothing.


My assertion:
One hold full of ore will easily pay for the average clone cost, with ISK left to burn. Toons with clones costing more than that are experienced enough to have plentiful other sources of income far exceeding the cost* of a new clone. Therefore: Clone costs are NOT in any way a realistic barrier to PvP.



*Unless you're really bad at EVE. Or had your wallet set negative due to being caught at RMT.



Edit: removed an argument that WAS irrelevent.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#168 - 2013-02-19 20:11:33 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kristopher Rocancourt wrote:
clone fees are nothing when people like myself are blapping 1.8Billion isk of implants in Pods.


K. Not terribly relevant though.

Actually, entirely relevent. When people are willing to risk such huge investments, the cost of a clone is essentially nil. Decimal places, to be sure.
Contrary-wise, if your implants are so expensive as to preclude risking them, lowering the cost of clones will mean nothing.

Okay. So what about people who don't have implants in their clones?
Are we all forced to have implants in our clones and forced to pay for new ones every time we lose them?
Are we forced to have implants in our clones that have absolutely no effect?
Do we increase risk without increasing the reward?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#169 - 2013-02-19 20:31:36 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kristopher Rocancourt wrote:
clone fees are nothing when people like myself are blapping 1.8Billion isk of implants in Pods.


K. Not terribly relevant though.

Actually, entirely relevent. When people are willing to risk such huge investments, the cost of a clone is essentially nil. Decimal places, to be sure.
Contrary-wise, if your implants are so expensive as to preclude risking them, lowering the cost of clones will mean nothing.

Okay. So what about people who don't have implants in their clones?
Are we all forced to have implants in our clones and forced to pay for new ones every time we lose them?
Are we forced to have implants in our clones that have absolutely no effect?
Do we increase risk without increasing the reward?

Bit of a strawman there, which I propose to toss on the fire. Understandable that you built it - I did supply the raw material.

I never stated you MUST have implants (or must not). I *did* assert that the cost of clones are not a real barrier to PvP.
To be fair, however, I do now see your point about the cost of implants being irreleveant, and will concede that you *do* have a valid point there. Irrelevant to the central theme though it may be. Blink

That said: From where I sit, the difference in raw combat capability between, say, an 80m SP and an 120m SP is fairly negligible in most PvP - But what *isn't* negligible is the *time* spent between those two values. Time in which, presumbably, resources are accumulated, funding sources are exploited and developed, and so on. Economically speaking, I assert that there *is* a substantial difference between those levels or level differences of similar magnitude, such that the relative cost to the toon is approximately equal, whether or not you're implanted.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2013-02-19 20:35:03 UTC
silens vesica wrote:


That said: From where I sit, the difference in raw combat capability between, say, an 80m SP and an 120m SP is fairly negligible in most PvP - But what *isn't* negligible is the *time* spent between those two values. Time in which, presumbably, resources are accumulated, funding sources are exploited and developed, and so on. Economically speaking, I assert that there *is* a substantial difference between those levels or level differences of similar magnitude, such that the relative cost to the toon is approximately equal, whether or not you're implanted.


If anything the 80m SP guy is likely to have more wealth if he has a 40m SP alt. Or 2 20m SP alts, and so on.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#171 - 2013-02-19 20:44:53 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
silens vesica wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Okay. So what about people who don't have implants in their clones?
Are we all forced to have implants in our clones and forced to pay for new ones every time we lose them?
Are we forced to have implants in our clones that have absolutely no effect?
Do we increase risk without increasing the reward?

Bit of a strawman there, which I propose to toss on the fire. Understandable that you built it - I did supply the raw material.

It's not a strawman, I'm suggesting that clone costs are analogous to being forced to have implants that do nothing.

silens vesica wrote:
[I never stated you MUST have implants (or must not). I *did* assert that the cost of clones are not a real barrier to PvP.
To be fair, however, I do now see your point about the cost of implants being irreleveant, and will concede that you *do* have a valid point there. Irrelevant to the central theme though it may be. Blink

Your point was that clone costs aren't a barrier to PVP because they're insignificant compared to the cost of implants.
I'm explaining that this is still not a good argument because implants are something I CHOOSE to run with. I can undock with cheap implants if I don't want to risk that much, or I can undock with more expensive implants and get the benefit of those while also increasing my risk.
With clone costs, I don't really have a choice. I can either undock in my clone (let's say it costs 30M isk, so that's a character between 92.5M and 120M SP) and hope I don't get podded so I don't have to pay the expense, or I can choose to only use more expensive ships that are significantly tankier so my clone isn't as at much of a risk, or I can undock without updating my clone which is for obvious reasons stupid, or I can train alts (which frankly is something I shouldn't be forced to do).
Or I can just not undock at all.

silens vesica wrote:
That said: From where I sit, the difference in raw combat capability between, say, an 80m SP and an 120m SP is fairly negligible in most PvP

And yet, the difference there is a whole 25 million more ISK the 120m SP character has to pay each time they get podded.


silens vesica wrote:
But what *isn't* negligible is the *time* spent between those two values. Time in which, presumbably, resources are accumulated, funding sources are exploited and developed, and so on. Economically speaking, I assert that there *is* a substantial difference between those levels or level differences of similar magnitude, such that the relative cost to the toon is approximately equal, whether or not you're implanted.

So if I spent the time (paid for the experience of my character, essentially, since time is valuable especially in this game) to train my character, why should I have to pay yet again just so I can hold onto what I gained from the time that I spent on training my character?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
Phantom-Recon
#172 - 2013-02-19 20:47:34 UTC  |  Edited by: XxRTEKxX
I would like it to be that there be two types of clones available. Clones that can have implants, if lost then player must reupgrade again as you currently must do. As well as clones that cannot use implants, however if lost, there is no need to upgrade to insure SP.

So if i want to PvP without the risk of losing a pod and having to spend isk to upgrade clone to keep sp, then i hop into a Clone that cannot use implants. Upside:PvP without having to upgrade everytime POD is lost. Downside:Lose the benefit of having implants.

Implant Clones - Upraded to protect sp
Disposable Clone- No Implants allowed, but dont need to be upgraded to protect SP.

Or once an implant is plugged into a clone, if pod is lost while implanted, clone must be upgraded. If pod with no implants is lost, then there is no need to upgrade when you wake up in station.
Hevymetal
POT Corp
#173 - 2013-02-19 20:49:21 UTC
Having a medclone cost fast approaching 40 mil a pop. I would say YES, I would be more apt to PVP if clones were free. I don't mind jumping into a nonimplanted clone to go give a whirl at PVP.

Explain then why I should have to pay 40 mil more ISK then a noob when we are both flying the same 10 mil ISK frig?

I will admit I'm a PVP noob, but why should I be penalized just because I have more SP then my opponent? If I didn't have the additional "Bitter Vet" tax penality and just lost the cost of the ship I was flying I would be alot more willing to accept the fact I will die, I will lose ships and still PVP. At a minimum of 50 mil (clone+ship) per podding, no thanks I'll carebear in hisec.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#174 - 2013-02-19 21:29:41 UTC
Hate this - Mult-quoting limits. Evil

James Amril-Kesh wrote:

It's not a strawman, I'm suggesting that clone costs are analogous to being forced to have implants that do nothing.
OK, not a strawman, but I still don't think so. It's an ISK sink - a not-unreasonable one.

Quote:
Your point was that clone costs aren't a barrier to PVP because they're insignificant compared to the cost of implants.
No. It was not.
I did, however make the mistake of incuding two seperate arguments in one post (one of which was, frankly and admittedly, off-target), so you are forgiven for the mis-read. OTOH, I ALSO corrected myself, and clarified, so you still lose points.

Quote:
With clone costs, I don't really have a choice. I can either undock in my clone (let's say it costs 30M isk, so that's a character between 92.5M and 120M SP) and hope I don't get podded so I don't have to pay the expense, or I can choose to only use more expensive ships that are significantly tankier so my clone isn't as at much of a risk, or I can undock without updating my clone which is for obvious reasons stupid, or I can train alts (which frankly is something I shouldn't be forced to do).
And my point being - which I *did* clarify - is that the relative costs to the economic status of disparate-level toons is approximately level. So it's a moot point.

Quote:
And yet, the difference there is a whole 25 million more ISK the 120m SP character has to pay each time they get podded.
So? The older toon ought reasonably to have access to commensurately greater economic resources, so it should be a moot point.


Quote:
So if I spent the time (paid for the experience of my character, essentially, since time is valuable especially in this game) to train my character, why should I have to pay yet again just so I can hold onto what I gained from the time that I spent on training my character?
'Cause EVE is harsh and full of ISK sinks. But nothing you've said here makes me believe that the actual costs involved are significant barriers. Sounds to me more like whinging about ISK-sinks.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#175 - 2013-02-19 21:37:52 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
So? The older toon ought reasonably to have access to commensurately greater economic resources, so it should be a moot point.

That has been particularly discredited several times in this thread. After a certain point there's not really any increase in potential income. Of course this also depends on what your SP is focused on, but as your SP increases your income potential levels off... yet your clone costs increase exponentially. There's a pretty significant disparity here.

silens vesica wrote:
'Cause EVE is harsh and full of ISK sinks. But nothing you've said here makes me believe that the actual costs involved are significant barriers. Sounds to me more like whinging about ISK-sinks.

The fix I proposed would potentially increase the isk sink while making it more fair. It would also still cater to your idea that more SP = more potential income, but it wouldn't become ridiculous.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#176 - 2013-02-19 22:52:22 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
So? The older toon ought reasonably to have access to commensurately greater economic resources, so it should be a moot point.

That has been particularly discredited several times in this thread. After a certain point there's not really any increase in potential income. Of course this also depends on what your SP is focused on, but as your SP increases your income potential levels off... yet your clone costs increase exponentially. There's a pretty significant disparity here.

silens vesica wrote:
'Cause EVE is harsh and full of ISK sinks. But nothing you've said here makes me believe that the actual costs involved are significant barriers. Sounds to me more like whinging about ISK-sinks.

The fix I proposed would potentially increase the isk sink while making it more fair. It would also still cater to your idea that more SP = more potential income, but it wouldn't become ridiculous.

Fairly enough stated. I disagree with your position, but reasonable people might so do.

Here's the real bottom line from my perspective: Folks are trying to bribe people to PvP by altering the costs, which are, I assert, not a real barrier. Bribes don't work. None of the hair-brained schemes I've seen bruited about here in GD will work to get more people into PvP because they miss the central cold, hard, obeservable fact: Those who want to PvP are already so doing. They find a way. They deal with the costs. They accept the risks, and they go out and pew-pew.

Altering the costs will not increase PvP by anything more than a smidgin, because those who actually want to PvP are already out there finding ways to meet the relatively minor costs. In my opinion, those people who claim clone costs as a reason for avoiding PvP are NOT truthfully interested in PvP in the first place - or they're making excuses - or are simply whinging about minor ISK sinks - or are horribly bad at EVE - or have simply missed the point.

There is one exception to this - Those corporations and alliances (Red v. Blue, EVE Uni, I'm looking at you!) who actively *teach* PvP as a mission *do* raise the numbers of Pew-Pew pilots. But even then, they only manage to recruit those as are interested.

Want more people doing the pew-pew? Get more people to log in. Clone costs are NOT the reason people don't subscribe, nor are they the reason subscribers don't log in.

As for the discrediting, I've seen a number of anecdotes. I've also seen a number of assertions - none backed up any better than mine. I don't see data.
Until such time as reasonably complete data becomes available, I propose we retire to our respective corners.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#177 - 2013-02-19 23:05:02 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
I guess the fundamental problem here is that I don't particularly disagree with you on clone costs not preventing people from PVPing, however I do think clone costs are problematic for other reasons.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Kristopher Rocancourt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#178 - 2013-02-20 12:14:19 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kristopher Rocancourt wrote:
clone fees are nothing when people like myself are blapping 1.8Billion isk of implants in Pods.


K. Not terribly relevant though.

Actually, entirely relevent. When people are willing to risk such huge investments, the cost of a clone is essentially nil. Decimal places, to be sure.
Contrary-wise, if your implants are so expensive as to preclude risking them, lowering the cost of clones will mean nothing.

Okay. So what about people who don't have implants in their clones?
Are we all forced to have implants in our clones and forced to pay for new ones every time we lose them?
Are we forced to have implants in our clones that have absolutely no effect?
Do we increase risk without increasing the reward?


if you do not have implants, you need to reassess your ability to play this game correctly.

http://killalliance.co.uk/tears/tears-holeysheet/

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#179 - 2013-02-20 15:07:01 UTC
Kristopher Rocancourt wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kristopher Rocancourt wrote:
clone fees are nothing when people like myself are blapping 1.8Billion isk of implants in Pods.


K. Not terribly relevant though.

Actually, entirely relevent. When people are willing to risk such huge investments, the cost of a clone is essentially nil. Decimal places, to be sure.
Contrary-wise, if your implants are so expensive as to preclude risking them, lowering the cost of clones will mean nothing.

Okay. So what about people who don't have implants in their clones?
Are we all forced to have implants in our clones and forced to pay for new ones every time we lose them?
Are we forced to have implants in our clones that have absolutely no effect?
Do we increase risk without increasing the reward?


if you do not have implants, you need to reassess your ability to play this game correctly.

That has **** all to do with the argument here.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#180 - 2013-02-20 15:09:07 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I guess the fundamental problem here is that I don't particularly disagree with you on clone costs not preventing people from PVPing, however I do think clone costs are problematic for other reasons.

Fair point.

Care to start a thread on it? Blink

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc