These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#241 - 2013-05-15 17:52:40 UTC
Mangold wrote:

So. What do you enjoy in this game then?

I took the time and searched your character on Battleclinic. To me it doesn't look like you're that interested in pvp, at least not in space. Market pvp perhaps?

In my opinion insurance should be removed, clones even more expensive and isk much more difficult to get. It's been ages (years actually) since I got a hate mail for podding someone or killing a ship. Losses just don't matter anymore and in my humble opinion that takes the edge out of the game. Don't get me wrong, I hate losing ships and pods aswell and it does hurt my wallet aswell. That's what makes this game special.




Well my old characters are gone.

This character's skills are a bit skewed at the moment thanks to me deciding to train BC5, destroyers 5 etc ready for those changes. So stuck training perception/willpower skills at moment which I've decided I might as well continue for awhile before changing the attributes to balance things up more.

Then it'll be a matter of finding a new player corp, but present options are, merc, WHs or might go back to 0.0.

But then that's EVE not really a fast trak to anything.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#242 - 2013-05-15 19:01:14 UTC
I don't know how you can have such strong feelings about clone costs. There's a balance... I mean yah it's inconvenient for those w/ a fair amount of SP, but it's not a deal breaker at this point in the game. The flip side is that clone costs are a big ISK sink (I think it's big... or it should be...). Do you really want to remove or nerf a sink? We need more ISK sinks not fewer.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Adunh Slavy
#243 - 2013-05-15 19:06:54 UTC
March rabbit wrote:


should i continue?


Sure go right ahead, doesn't change the fact that a clone cost 32 mil. Please BS till you're blue in the face.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Leemi Sobo
#244 - 2013-05-15 19:10:47 UTC
CLONE COSTS ARE TO DAMN HIGH!Big smile

After i stopped participating in fun frig Fridays because of ~~dictors~~ and my unwillingness to pay the 65mio ISK extra free on top of the 2mio ISK frig three times a day, the workaround for that is obvious: farming anoms until hot-drop o'clock -> dock up -> undock in my precious BS -> bridge to random titan and drop the hell out of random dudes on the other side of the galaxy.

If i really need to fly small ships there's still the obviously ganking of miners and haulers in high-sec, one of the few places where i can fly fast and agile ships without to care about the ~~dictor~~ P

The extra reward on that are tears from moaning under skilled Kacknoobs™ whining on forums about unfair pvp.
But until I'm able to fund a week of frigs with a single day of shooting red crosses again I'll continue to do so. Bear

Don't get me wrong I'd love to roam all evening in frigs and die a lot instead of shooting red crosses to pvp a bit in over sized ships.
But hot-dropping and ganking is just the most time and cost efficient form of pvp for me in eves current state.
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#245 - 2013-05-15 19:14:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Six Six Six
Gogela wrote:
I don't know how you can have such strong feelings about clone costs. There's a balance... I mean yah it's inconvenient for those w/ a fair amount of SP, but it's not a deal breaker at this point in the game. The flip side is that clone costs are a big ISK sink (I think it's big... or it should be...). Do you really want to remove or nerf a sink? We need more ISK sinks not fewer.



People playing the game verses an isk sink,

I'd have people playing the game personally.





Quick method to an isk sink.

Make an alt transfer billions of isk to that alt and delete that character. If you can do that you may actually really care about isk sinks. But it has to be a sum that will make a difference to you.
Mangold
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
#246 - 2013-05-15 19:15:00 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
March rabbit wrote:


should i continue?


Sure go right ahead, doesn't change the fact that a clone cost 32 mil. Please BS till you're blue in the face.


I agree. That is way too low. It should be much more expensive.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#247 - 2013-05-15 20:09:04 UTC  |  Edited by: OfBalance
Gogela wrote:
I don't know how you can have such strong feelings about clone costs. There's a balance... I mean yah it's inconvenient for those w/ a fair amount of SP, but it's not a deal breaker at this point in the game. The flip side is that clone costs are a big ISK sink (I think it's big... or it should be...). Do you really want to remove or nerf a sink? We need more ISK sinks not fewer.


I used to feel the same way. Not much bother to me putting several high sp characters into new clones regularly, after all most of my ~risky~ pilots were throw-away dictor alts.

At this point; however, I have to say I'm completely on the side of reducing costs. It's only "balance," in the sense that it is a punitive action against a player who might have an advantage, but for the reasons that have been covered here (only so much sp can be relevant to the ship one is flying, there is an income plateau for most vets who aren't completely lifeless out of the game, etc.) this penalty seems ridiculous. It's not actually giving newbs any help, but it is encouraging vets to ship-up as much as possible and avoid consistent encounters which could get them podded: "gudfites," if you will.

Granted, some of us are too wealthy to become really risk-averse, but I know plenty of vets who aren't sitting atop a heap of billions in assets. EVE isn't their job and they don't continue to earn heaps of isk while they idle or ignore EVE for a while, whilst continuing to sub.

Much as I dislike inflation, I don't recall clone costs being -the- huge sink. Secondly, reducing their cost spurring more risky pvp would probably lead to more isk being sunk after the fact. In much the same way reducing taxes IRL has been repeatedly shown to increase revenue because it allows for more economic growth. So while I am onboard with concern about removing isk sinks arbitrarily. I think this one is demonstrably bad for pvp and bad for the game.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#248 - 2013-05-15 20:23:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Gogela wrote:
I don't know how you can have such strong feelings about clone costs. There's a balance... I mean yah it's inconvenient for those w/ a fair amount of SP, but it's not a deal breaker at this point in the game. The flip side is that clone costs are a big ISK sink (I think it's big... or it should be...). Do you really want to remove or nerf a sink? We need more ISK sinks not fewer.

That's a very uneducated, uninformed viewpoint.

Mangold wrote:
everything written so far

You need to understand that what we're taking an issue with is not the inherent cost risk of doing pvp, but the fact that this particular risk is an NPC-based barrier to entry, and that alone.

If we're to take all of your arguments at face level, then would you also be fine with implementing a system that subtracts an extra amount of ISK directly proportional to a player's skill points form his wallet after every pvp ship loss?

That would make pvp "mean something" again, right?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#249 - 2013-05-15 22:07:43 UTC
OfBalance wrote:

I used to feel the same way. Not much bother to me putting several high sp characters into new clones regularly, after all most of my ~risky~ pilots were throw-away dictor alts.

At this point; however, I have to say I'm completely on the side of reducing costs. It's only "balance," in the sense that it is a punitive action against a player who might have an advantage, but for the reasons that have been covered here (only so much sp can be relevant to the ship one is flying, there is an income plateau for most vets who aren't completely lifeless out of the game, etc.) this penalty seems ridiculous. It's not actually giving newbs any help, but it is encouraging vets to ship-up as much as possible and avoid consistent encounters which could get them podded: "gudfites," if you will.

Granted, some of us are too wealthy to become really risk-averse, but I know plenty of vets who aren't sitting atop a heap of billions in assets. EVE isn't their job and they don't continue to earn heaps of isk while they idle or ignore EVE for a while, whilst continuing to sub.

Much as I dislike inflation, I don't recall clone costs being -the- huge sink. Secondly, reducing their cost spurring more risky pvp would probably lead to more isk being sunk after the fact. In much the same way reducing taxes IRL has been repeatedly shown to increase revenue because it allows for more economic growth. So while I am onboard with concern about removing isk sinks arbitrarily. I think this one is demonstrably bad for pvp and bad for the game.

That's a good argument. I don't know how big of a sink clone costs are tbqh... I guess if I knew that I'd have to re-evaluate my position. If it is significant relative to overall sinks, say 30%+ of total sinking... then I'd have to disagree with you. Much less than that and you'd turn me around on the topic.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Gogela wrote:
I don't know how you can have such strong feelings about clone costs. There's a balance... I mean yah it's inconvenient for those w/ a fair amount of SP, but it's not a deal breaker at this point in the game. The flip side is that clone costs are a big ISK sink (I think it's big... or it should be...). Do you really want to remove or nerf a sink? We need more ISK sinks not fewer.

That's a very uneducated, uninformed viewpoint.

Insightful counterargument, as usual.

volume of posts ≠ quality of posts, DC.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Grog Barrel
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2013-05-15 22:36:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Grog Barrel
Gogela wrote:
I don't know how you can have such strong feelings about clone costs. There's a balance... I mean yah it's inconvenient for those w/ a fair amount of SP, but it's not a deal breaker at this point in the game. The flip side is that clone costs are a big ISK sink (I think it's big... or it should be...). Do you really want to remove or nerf a sink? We need more ISK sinks not fewer.


me and my wallet don't truly need an isk sink at this moment to be honest, but if it was about an isk sink being extremely needed, I wouldn't mind if CCP would just delete everyone's account 50% of the isk. In such cases percentages are way better than absolute numbers.
Mangold
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
#251 - 2013-05-15 22:36:34 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Gogela wrote:
I don't know how you can have such strong feelings about clone costs. There's a balance... I mean yah it's inconvenient for those w/ a fair amount of SP, but it's not a deal breaker at this point in the game. The flip side is that clone costs are a big ISK sink (I think it's big... or it should be...). Do you really want to remove or nerf a sink? We need more ISK sinks not fewer.

That's a very uneducated, uninformed viewpoint.

Mangold wrote:
everything written so far

You need to understand that what we're taking an issue with is not the inherent cost risk of doing pvp, but the fact that this particular risk is an NPC-based barrier to entry, and that alone.

If we're to take all of your arguments at face level, then would you also be fine with implementing a system that subtracts an extra amount of ISK directly proportional to a player's skill points form his wallet after every pvp ship loss?

That would make pvp "mean something" again, right?



Sure, why not? If you can find away to do that according to the Eve universe. I doubt you can that and you're probably only trolling, but go ahead.

I see that you want to make the game easier and, in my opinion, less appealing by making everything easier to come by. By your standards I suppose we should just remove clone costs all together to make it even simpler to pvp. And then what?

NPC barrier to entry. Complete BS. You could say that about all ships, modules and ammo too....and how about the skill books you need to use the stuff....
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#252 - 2013-05-15 22:46:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Because it's been explained many times already, in this thread, others, and even by CCP.

I'll summarize yet again: there are many types of "sinks" and "faucets" in the game, not just those pertaining to ISK, but also minerals, moon goo, and even Aurum. All of those sinks and faucets interact with each other, so vilifying only the creation of ISK while ignoring the creation of other things, or praising the disappearance of ISK while ignoring the disappearance of other things, is a rather harebrained endeavor.

To make two really simple examples: Let's say that there are a lot of extra ISK sinks, like you and some other players wish, so that the overall amount of ISK in the game is declining. On the other hand, the production of minerals is growing. This would make minerals drop in price significantly, and intrinsically push a lot of people out of production. Now there would be much less stuff to use in the game, and activity levels would go down, causing people to leave the game.

On the other hand, let's say that there are no more ISK sinks, but minerals are still getting destroyed at a decent rate, although growing overall. Now ships are going to be super-expensive, causing a lot of people to spend ever more time grinding for cash. The industrialists, tired of ultra-competition, would leave in droves, and activity would also decline in this case.

These are two very simplistic examples, but you should get the idea. The best possible scenario is when both ISK production and material production are positively correlated*. And for a long time, aside from a few months after incursions came out, they were. And even now, they still are. And the economy is healthy because of it. Saying that we need more ISK sinks, without looking at the whole picture, is ignorant and uneducated, because to do so would be to ignore the principles and relationships on which the EVE economy is based.

As far as ISK sinks go, clones rank so low on that list that they're not even in the top five. You can check some QENs for the stats. Much lower than market order taxes, for example. And a lot of clone purchases are mere upgrades, and not replacements.

* Preferably with a positive trend, since that would mean the game and its economy are expanding.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#253 - 2013-05-15 22:52:55 UTC
Mangold wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
You need to understand that what we're taking an issue with is not the inherent cost risk of doing pvp, but the fact that this particular risk is an NPC-based barrier to entry, and that alone.

If we're to take all of your arguments at face level, then would you also be fine with implementing a system that subtracts an extra amount of ISK directly proportional to a player's skill points form his wallet after every pvp ship loss?

That would make pvp "mean something" again, right?



(1) Sure, why not? If you can find away to do that according to the Eve universe. I doubt you can that and you're probably only trolling, but go ahead.

(2) I see that you want to make the game easier and, in my opinion, less appealing by making everything easier to come by. By your standards I suppose we should just remove clone costs all together to make it even simpler to pvp. And then what?

(3) NPC barrier to entry. Complete BS. You could say that about all ships, modules and ammo too....and how about the skill books you need to use the stuff....

(1) We don't need RP reasons for such a change. CCP can just make it, and call it a death tax or whatever. But as long as we're clear that you support something like this.

(2) Read my above post.

(3) I don't remember buying ships, modules, and ammunition from NPC stores. What game are you playing again?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
In Spirit
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#254 - 2013-05-15 23:37:15 UTC
Quote:
As far as ISK sinks go, clones rank so low on that list that they're not even in the top five.


So why are you even arguing about the ISK sink then?

Being able to die and come back to life with all your memories intact by way of cloning technology is a service. Services typically cost money. What's the problem?

I'm going to try your ridiculous argument the next time I buy a big steak. "WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE STEAK COST MORE THAN THE HAMBURGER?! WHY SHOULD I BE PENALIZED FOR EATING FOOD?!"
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#255 - 2013-05-15 23:43:11 UTC
If clone prices were this expensive, but set by the players, then I wouldn't have a problem.

As they are right now, they're completely arbitrary in pricing.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
In Spirit
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#256 - 2013-05-15 23:51:12 UTC
Why should clone costs be set by the players? Is there some player owned cloning service outside of a titan/Rorq that I don't know about? I would suspect that 99.9% of cloning services are provided by NPC's. You do know what that NP part of NPC's stands for right?

I'll tell you what, how about you come mow my lawn, answer my phone, wash my car and take out my garbage. When you're done I'll tell you what I'm going to pay you for the service you provided.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#257 - 2013-05-15 23:52:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
What?

I want to buy ships from the market from NPC sellers for a fixed price.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
In Spirit
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#258 - 2013-05-16 00:05:36 UTC
What?

That applies to clone cost how? For someone trash talking people's degrees, you sure have a hard time focusing. Players make ships, players set the price on those ships. NPC's provide cloning services, players should be able to tell those NPC's how much ISK they're going to pay for that service? That's what you're saying?

Since you seem to be the champion of the entitled, I'd like to only pay $1.00 for my subscriptions. Go tell CCP what you think they should make us pay.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#259 - 2013-05-16 00:12:06 UTC
Well then I don't want players to make ships. I want NPCs to make ships, and sell them to me for ISK directly. And the more SP a ship takes to fly, the more expensive it should be.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Yokai Mitsuhide
Doomheim
#260 - 2013-05-16 00:18:17 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.


There is plenty of risk in the game without adding the need to update your clone everytime you die. You risk your ship, your implants, your fittings. Instead of getting right back out there and having fun you gotta make sure you can afford to update your clone again first. And the higher SP you have...the less likely it is you're going to want to do that. It doesn't take anything away from the game if you remove this feature. You're overreacting with the "Don't ruin my game" comment.