These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey] Clone Costs

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#221 - 2013-05-15 18:58:58 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:

Consequences in EVE should be the risk of losing SHIPS in space, or implants on clones, not reasons to stay docked up like medical clone costs or skill losses that add no content to the game whatsoever. Remove clone costs and remove the skill loss penalty altogether, as they hurt new players in particular. The added risk and the added isk sink will simply be the added amount of people in space risking their ships.


100% agree.

When I go out to PvP I never intend to fly my pod home. And I know CCP Rise had this mentality when he did streaming as well. It's OK to lose some ISK, but I want to go out and PvP again ASAP when I die. There should be consequences, but they should not impact gameplay.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#222 - 2013-05-15 18:59:48 UTC
I say either make it a single price, since implants and ships are expensive to replace or fix it at (1,000,000 + current SP x 120%) x .01 isk. The part in the parenthesis is how much SP your clone is good for.

I can has blogging skills!
Draqone an'Alreigh
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#223 - 2013-05-15 19:08:52 UTC
Another thing about clones I'd love, and which is directly related to the issue at hand.

Allow us to have an option that would automatically! upgrade our clone and subtract ISK (if available) at death. A simple tickbox at the medical facility would reduce the annoyance and tedium of buying a new clone (since it's not really "hard" Roll ). If the option is selected there would be a popup warning the player if not enough ISK is found or the clone for some reason can not be upgraded.

Inducing the proliferation of common sense throughout EVE Official forums since April 27th, 2013.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#224 - 2013-05-15 19:09:23 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:

100% agree.
When I go out to PvP I never intend to fly my pod home.

And this is the problem with the current mechanics in my opinion. Why do we even bother having pods at all? Why not just simply auto transport to the nearest station upon ship death.

Pod death is meant to mean something. It is meant to be a step above a simple ship death. Ships are expendable, but a pod kill are the ultimate way to humiliate and destroy your opponent. Right now this is simply not the case at all, and what I just quoted above sums up all that is wrong with the current pod mechanics.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#225 - 2013-05-15 19:25:13 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Pod death is meant to mean something. It is meant to be a step above a simple ship death. Ships are expendable, but a pod kill are the ultimate way to humiliate and destroy your opponent. Right now this is simply not the case at all, and what I just quoted above sums up all that is wrong with the current pod mechanics.


Podding is also an important tactical option in w-space, because it takes an opponent out of a fight and sends them to k-space, where they can't easily reship and get back in to the fight.

This also makes the ability of bubbles to trap pods important.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Adunh Slavy
#226 - 2013-05-15 19:28:34 UTC
You know what would be more fun and give CCP its ISK sink. Ship Crew. You hire crew to man your ships. When the ship pops "you" die and go off to a clone, but crew use escape pods and go all over the place like the new exploration mechanic's 'explosion' of stuff. Other players can scoop them up and use them, sell them on the market, whatever.

The bigger the ship, the more crew there is.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Edward Pierce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#227 - 2013-05-15 19:35:54 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
A small comment on EVE philosophy from me related to some of the conversation in here:

No one here at CCP wants to reduce consequences in EVE as a whole.

The fact that your actions have real consequences is obviously one of the most central parts of EVE design, and I promise that we don't want to move away from that as an over all design philosophy. The thing we are looking at with clones, is that currently the consequences are attached to something arbitrary (account age) which is potentially causing people to actually engage in less risky behavior overall.

There's a lot of directions the clone system COULD go, and I can't say anything specific about that right now. The important thing here is that we A: don't want to make a style of game-play, which we like, inaccessible via an arbitrary tax, and B: generally, consequences aren't going anywhere, so don't worry.

Lowering the cost by 30% is moving in the right direction, but if we already know it's a bad mechanic, why stop there? Bring it down further or cap it at a certain amount as a band aid measure while you decide on which way you want it to go?

I just worry that this temporary fix to a dumb mechanic will only serve to push the real fix further down on your list of priorities, much like fixing local rep hull bonuses was briefly touched on but has yet to be actually fixed.

If your intent is to reduce the amount of risk aversion caused by clone costs, 30% won't cut it.
Resilan Bearcat
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2013-05-15 20:03:29 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
A small comment on EVE philosophy from me related to some of the conversation in here:

No one here at CCP wants to reduce consequences in EVE as a whole.

The fact that your actions have real consequences is obviously one of the most central parts of EVE design, and I promise that we don't want to move away from that as an over all design philosophy. The thing we are looking at with clones, is that currently the consequences are attached to something arbitrary (account age) which is potentially causing people to actually engage in less risky behavior overall.

There's a lot of directions the clone system COULD go, and I can't say anything specific about that right now. The important thing here is that we A: don't want to make a style of game-play, which we like, inaccessible via an arbitrary tax, and B: generally, consequences aren't going anywhere, so don't worry.


The reduction of 30% does not address the bigger concern with the system. The cost for the high end clones is still way too high. The scaling of cost as your skill points increase is too steep. The 30% straight reduction, doesn't help this non-linear scaling of the clone costs.

In my opinion, clone costs should be removed or set to a flat fee for all players. Clone costs are not the best way to achieve consequences in the game. There is already a consequence of PvP in the potential of losing my ship and possibly my implants. There is no reason to add an additional arbitrary tax based on the age of my account.
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc.
The Fourth District
#229 - 2013-05-15 20:06:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Sofia Wolf
Marlona Sky wrote:
Sofia Wolf wrote:
I'll be contrarian voice here and say I don't think clone cost reduction is a good idea.

Fundamental principle of EvE design is that defeat matters, this is what makes it distinct among MMO on the market. If one loses as ship, that ship is gone for good, and all the time spent to acquire that ship is waisted. This is what gives meaning and significance EvE pvp.

Price we pay when we get poded is just an extension of that principle, and removing or even reducing that price establishes dangerous precedent as it is contrary to before mentioned design principle.

Also escalating price of clone with increasing clone XP can also be viewed as extension of another eve game balance principle, that small improvement in power come with disproportionally large increase in cost. This is why BC will cost 5 to 10 times price of cruiser despite providing much smaller increase in combat utility. Same is the reason why Jaguar or Wolf cost 50 times more then Rifer. So by extension it is only right and proper that more powerful clones (with more XP) will cost drastically more then less powerful clones (those of n00bs with less XP).

I would warn CCP designers to be wary of changes that would diminish impact of loss, on any level , being it losing space, losing ship or losing clone.

That said there are some things that could be improved when it comes to game clone mechanics. I think some boring and tedious parts of manipulating them should be automatised. For example when I want to plug an implant why do I have to go through ritual of pausing skill learning, plugging whatever I want to plugin, then restarting skill queue? When I get podded why do I have to manually update my clone, can't that be done automatically with normal ISK cost being detracted form my wallet? When I clone jump why do I also have to do boring ritual of going to pod, pausing skill queue, jumping, restarting skill queue and then opening again munch of my station interface windows because for some stupid reason they close down when I clonejump?

So yes there are improvements to be made with clone mechanics, but those are not on the line of making combat defeat and loss of pod less sigificant events. Keep it real!

I'm going to assume you have another character that is your main. Because in the two years Sofia has been playing you have been involved in a very tiny amount of PvP. If anything you are very close to representing the risk averse game play clone upgrade cost encourage. I can only imagine what what little PvP you will involved with later down the road when your clones cost far, far more, if you risk anything at all. Ugh


Well it is a ad homonym to pull my PvP experience in to this discussion. Yes I'm bad at pvp, you got me there, but what has that to do with this issue?

So why don't I pvp more? What I can tell you it is not for clone loss aversion. Properly fit t1 frig will cost cost me more then my current clone cost. Properly fit t1 cruiser will cost more then average 5 years old character clone. Frankly it is kind of silly to talk about clone cost as deterrent to more pvp, even most basic pvp fits on cheap end will out-price clone cost of average age eve player.

P.S. It was quite badass when you sacrificed nix for that 10th anniversary event, even if I was not there I respect that. o7

Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows...
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc.
The Fourth District
#230 - 2013-05-15 20:10:29 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
A small comment on EVE philosophy from me related to some of the conversation in here:

No one here at CCP wants to reduce consequences in EVE as a whole.

The fact that your actions have real consequences is obviously one of the most central parts of EVE design, and I promise that we don't want to move away from that as an over all design philosophy. The thing we are looking at with clones, is that currently the consequences are attached to something arbitrary (account age) which is potentially causing people to actually engage in less risky behavior overall.

There's a lot of directions the clone system COULD go, and I can't say anything specific about that right now. The important thing here is that we A: don't want to make a style of game-play, which we like, inaccessible via an arbitrary tax, and B: generally, consequences aren't going anywhere, so don't worry.


I have to disagree with CCP Rise that clone cost is arbitrary cost. It is not bound to account age is mistakenly claimed, but to character’s XP. Character's XP will directly improve player's combat (and other) capabilities, so it is not inappropriate to charge additional cost for losing more powerful clone, much on the same principle as we charge more for losing more powerful ship.

To be honest reducing clone cost by 30% is hardly a disaster, I don't expect significant metagame shifts because of it alone. What I’m fearing is slippery slope. If faulty reasoning that is used to justify this change takes root more significant game changes may be introduced that will lead to serious weakening of game design principles that I mentioned in my original post.

Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows...
Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
#231 - 2013-05-15 20:13:40 UTC
What if basic pods that have plug spots for learning imps up to +2 are free or very low cost. And if you want to use hardwirings, attrib imps with secondary effects and combat boosters you have to purchase a model from the medical service that costs something? It's noob friendly on one hand and fair + equaliy priced for everybody in general. There would still be an isk sink and pod loss would still have a reasonable chance to mean something. I guess these could be tiered from +1 to +5 and priced accordingly too.
Edward Pierce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#232 - 2013-05-15 20:26:15 UTC
Sofia Wolf wrote:
I have to disagree with CCP Rise that clone cost is arbitrary cost. It is not bound to account age is mistakenly claimed, but to character’s XP. Character's XP will directly improve player's combat (and other) capabilities, so it is not inappropriate to charge additional cost for losing more powerful clone, much on the same principle as we charge more for losing more powerful ship.

To be honest reducing clone cost by 30% is hardly a disaster, I don't expect significant metagame shifts because of it alone. What I’m fearing is slippery slope. If faulty reasoning that is used to justify this change takes root more significant game changes may be introduced that will lead to serious weakening of game design principles that I mentioned in my original post.

Higher SP gives you more options for pvp, but when flying a combat T1 ship 90m SP won't necessarily be better than 45m SP since a lot of higher tier skills won't impact your ability to fly that ship. Higher SP don't make a "more powerful clone", that's faulty reasoning right there.

The difference between the consequences of losing an expensive ship vs losing an expensive clone is that I have the ability to chose what ship I fly, but I don't get to choose which skills to take on my clone to reduce the cost. You can always chose to not fly what you can't afford to lose, but not on the clone.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#233 - 2013-05-15 20:31:10 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
So getting podded in 0.0 in a 1m frigate still costs me 32m.


For now, but if that makes a lot of people happy as a first step, it may cost much less in the not too distant future.
I'm confused by this statement. It seems like if the feedback is that people are happy with this change, there is less incentive to further lower the costs.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Saiphas Cain
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#234 - 2013-05-15 20:44:24 UTC
Player made clones, corpse harvesting, and learning drugs are the way to go on this.

New Eden is a dirty place and there's no reason condoning the mass murder of ship crews should be looked over with a blind eye while corpse harvesting is taboo.

Basic clones could be easily implemented as a new P4. Say, Biotech Research Reports, Transcranial Microcontrollers, and Biomass makes a clone. I don't see the point in clone upgrades since a neural map is a neural map and if a clone brain can't take the memories and training of a great carrier pilot it's not going to be any better at taking the memories of a ditch digger. They both lived as long and formed as many memories. Just because one is memories of fleet battles and the other is of throwing dirt with a shovel doesn't matter on a synaptic level.

Frozen corpses recycle into components for high grade learning boosters. ( Yes, drugs from corpses is very 40k/Slennesh... don't care. It's a sick and twisted idea and we should totally do that. )

Low Grade learning boosters, Empire legal, could be made from gasses like other boosters - adding impetus to Low Sec development as Marlona Sky suggested.

This way it's another income source from Lowsec, the carebears that want the best learning boosters must deal in illegal substances and ostensibly pay people who have done PVP for them, and clones become another player made commodity tying directly into Dust.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#235 - 2013-05-15 20:51:35 UTC
Saiphas Cain wrote:
Player made clones, corpse harvesting, and learning drugs are the way to go on this.

New Eden is a dirty place and there's no reason condoning the mass murder of ship crews should be looked over with a blind eye while corpse harvesting is taboo.

Basic clones could be easily implemented as a new P4. Say, Biotech Research Reports, Transcranial Microcontrollers, and Biomass makes a clone. I don't see the point in clone upgrades since a neural map is a neural map and if a clone brain can't take the memories and training of a great carrier pilot it's not going to be any better at taking the memories of a ditch digger. They both lived as long and formed as many memories. Just because one is memories of fleet battles and the other is of throwing dirt with a shovel doesn't matter on a synaptic level.

Frozen corpses recycle into components for high grade learning boosters. ( Yes, drugs from corpses is very 40k/Slennesh... don't care. It's a sick and twisted idea and we should totally do that. )

Low Grade learning boosters, Empire legal, could be made from gasses like other boosters - adding impetus to Low Sec development as Marlona Sky suggested.

This way it's another income source from Lowsec, the carebears that want the best learning boosters must deal in illegal substances and ostensibly pay people who have done PVP for them, and clones become another player made commodity tying directly into Dust.


+9000, very nice <3

.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#236 - 2013-05-15 20:56:58 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
You know what would be more fun and give CCP its ISK sink. Ship Crew. You hire crew to man your ships. When the ship pops "you" die and go off to a clone, but crew use escape pods and go all over the place like the new exploration mechanic's 'explosion' of stuff. Other players can scoop them up and use them, sell them on the market, whatever.

The bigger the ship, the more crew there is.

made me chuckle. :)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#237 - 2013-05-15 21:00:49 UTC
No to player-made clones. It's nice that you want more stuff to be player-made but that still doesn't address the real problem.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Xeros Black
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#238 - 2013-05-15 21:05:31 UTC
Its a good change a good first start.

I could see clone cost being a percentage of the previous ship lost as an awesome feature so you would update your clone but only be charged for it when you actually lose the pod. Would likely equal to more pvp so more clone loss and actually an increase in isk sink.

The other solution is a 5 million isk cap on clones i don't like it as much as the former but its likely much easier to setup.

My 2 Cents
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#239 - 2013-05-15 21:05:36 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
No to player-made clones. It's nice that you want more stuff to be player-made but that still doesn't address the real problem.

I don't have anything against player made clones. In fact it is a nice idea. But like you say above, it won't actually address the real problem. I think CCP need to really work out what is the purpose of a pod death as right now it is simply a very boring mechanic which doesn't add anything to gameplay.
Edward Pierce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#240 - 2013-05-15 21:19:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Pierce
CCP Rise, would you be able to go a little more into the details of how and why you chose that 30% across the board figure?

It seems to me like the real problem is not 'across the board' so neither should the solution.

Even after the changes a Mu clone (keeps 20m SP) is keeping 21.32 SP/isk while a Tau clone (keeps 120m SP) is keeping 5.71 SP/isk. The top grade clone is keeping 3 SP/isk while the first clone is keeping 49.28 SP/isk.

If you want to see if changing the cost of clones will impact player behavior, I don't think your 30% across the board approach is significant enough to reflect on the higher SP player's play-style. Perhaps a cap on the SP/isk ratio of clones would be more appropriate?