These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#361 - 2013-05-17 02:17:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Corey Fumimasa
OfBalance wrote:


And my argument is that they in-fact make the game less interesting. If you want to make a legitimate counter-argument, I would start with -why- you think that this disincentive makes the game interesting.

Yes, it is a consequence, but just because something is a consequence of your game actions does not validate it as a good mechanic worth preserving. AOE doomsday and old sov mechanics (not that the new sov. is much better) had a hell of a lot of consequences, but it wasn't making the game more interesting. It simply made the game more tedious.\

My point has been that it obviously discourages pvp, I believe that is the "interesting," part of the game. So your argument must be that discouraging pvp, to some degree, makes the game more interesting. And thus I really can't understand how you hold that position.



Disincentives are interesting because they remind players of the risk. They set the stage for loss or victory. Like a wager at a poker table it lets you know that "the game has started, there will be a winner and a loser here." This transitional phase of forcing oneself to do something that is counter to our natures reinforces the magic circle and excites the fight or flight reflex which is what makes Eve exciting.

And the Idea of removing all disincentives to PvP just for the sake of PvP has no brakes, no stopping point. Once accepted then ships and mods should be free as working for them is a significant disincentive.

Clone costs discourage PvP for a very small but vocal part of the player base; only those players who have skilled up to very high SP levels, that still want to PvP, and have trouble earning ISK. And even some of those players like the risk / reward system as it stands. Its tough for those people, but the mechanic would be very difficult to scale based on ISK generation, so they are stuck with a one size fits all value.

Also of note; these people have the option to move to empire space where there are no bubbles. There are plenty of fights there. Its not like this precludes all PvP because it can't be overcome, options already exist in game to mitigate clone loss.
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#362 - 2013-05-17 02:25:33 UTC
Between going to bed and getting into the office, seems there's been a ton of activity in this thread Lol

I think what most opponents of this misunderstand is:

It's not so much the arbitrary cost of clones for high SP characters. It's more to do with the costs relative to your ship.

Personally, I don't care if I get podded, unless I'm rocking a pirate set. It's an accepted risk that if I PVP, I may lose my ship, and if I lose my ship, I may get podded. The part most people (I think) are discussing is that because of this inherent risk of getting podded in a PVP situation, it does not make it financially viable to fly something disposable because your clone costs end up costing more than your ships.

The second issue is that, a lot of people automatically default to the argument that SP = power = experience = whatever. This is a fallacy as someone with 100m SP does not automatically have the experience or ability to make more than someone with 50mil SP.

Finally, there's also the issue of core/support skills. I think we can all agree, someone who PVPs a lot, would more likely than not have trained up all those skills to 5. A lot of people are saying, you can always choose to keep your clone costs low by using alts to fly different ships etc. Or training beyond X amount of skillpoints is your decision etc. However, assuming what Tippia posted is correct, i.e. applicable skills cap at around 30mil SP for a t1 cruiser, then imagine youve done up all your core support skills. If instead of flying a thorax, you wanted to fly a stabber instead. What makes more sense? Training Min Frig 4 -> Min Cruiser 5 and| Small t2 proj -> medium t2 projectiles OR training Core/Support up to a reasonable level then Min Frig 4 etc.?

e.g. A dictor pilot training up beyond the skills for his dictor means his clones cost more, and a dictor pilot is pretty guaranteed a pod loss 99% of the time. What happens when this pilot accumulates more SP over time? Is flying his dictor still a viable choice? Or if this pilot were to stop at dictors, what happens if he wants to fly something different or bigger? Train up another alt on those core skills?

Someone brought up an example of if clones costed 1M for up to 400mil SP. That's a pretty extreme example. I'd say something along the lines of, 1 mil ISK per 10mil SP?

tl;dr it's not the absolute costs but the relative costs of clones that needs to be looked at.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#363 - 2013-05-17 02:28:14 UTC
Disincentives and risk/reward mechanisms are two entirely different things. A disincentive implies that there are no upsides to a particular activity. In a poker game, you're risking your money, but you also get the chance to make more than what you put in. Meanwhile, paying for my expensive clone won't make my ship more effective, or the enemies drop more loot when I kill them, than if I didn't pay for the clone and risked SP loss.

And I really don't see why you keep going back to that area of space preclusion argument when it has been shot down by pretty much every poster in this thread.

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
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#364 - 2013-05-17 02:30:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Six Six Six
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
OfBalance wrote:


And my argument is that they in-fact make the game less interesting. If you want to make a legitimate counter-argument, I would start with -why- you think that this disincentive makes the game interesting.

Yes, it is a consequence, but just because something is a consequence of your game actions does not validate it as a good mechanic worth preserving. AOE doomsday and old sov mechanics (not that the new sov. is much better) had a hell of a lot of consequences, but it wasn't making the game more interesting. It simply made the game more tedious.\

My point has been that it obviously discourages pvp, I believe that is the "interesting," part of the game. So your argument must be that discouraging pvp, to some degree, makes the game more interesting. And thus I really can't understand how you hold that position.



Disincentives are interesting because they remind players of the risk. They set the stage for loss or victory. Like a wager at a poker table it lets you know that "the game has started, there will be a winner and a loser here." This transitional phase of forcing oneself to do something that is counter to our natures excites the fight or flight reflex which is what makes Eve exciting.

And the Idea of removing all disincentives to PvP just for the sake of PvP has no brakes, no stopping point. Once accepted then ships and mods should be free as working for them is a significant disincentive.

Clone costs discourage PvP for a very small but vocal part of the player base; only those players who have skilled up to very high SP levels, that still want to PvP, and have trouble earning ISK. And even some of those players like the risk / reward system as it stands. Its tough for those people, but the mechanic would be very difficult to scale based on ISK generation, so they are stuck with a one size fits all value.

Also of note; these people have the option to move to empire space where there are no bubbles. There are plenty of fights there. Its not like this precludes all PvP because it can't be overcome, options already exist in game to mitigate clone loss.




You will still lose a ship, implants and a clone albeit the clone at a reduced rate. So what's your problem?

Problem is in a fleet battle not everyone is equal and as such those disincentives you talk about won't effect everyone in the same way as their circumstances are different. Which kind of makes your argument kind of null and void.
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#365 - 2013-05-17 02:44:04 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

And I really don't see why you keep going back to that area of space preclusion argument when it has been shot down by pretty much every poster in this thread.



I'm starting to think he's just having a bit of fun trolling.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#366 - 2013-05-17 02:50:24 UTC
Six Six Six wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

And I really don't see why you keep going back to that area of space preclusion argument when it has been shot down by pretty much every poster in this thread.



I'm starting to think he's just having a bit of fun trolling.

I knew that even before he began copy-pasting his old responses to new posts. But weak troll arguments are pretty easy to counter and at the end of the day present our side as more informed and rational, so I have no qualms about responding to them.

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
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#367 - 2013-05-17 02:53:04 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Disincentives and risk/reward mechanisms are two entirely different things. A disincentive implies that there are no upsides to a particular activity. In a poker game, you're risking your money, but you also get the chance to make more than what you put in. Meanwhile, paying for my expensive clone won't make my ship more effective, or the enemies drop more loot when I kill them, than if I didn't pay for the clone and risked SP loss.

And I really don't see why you keep going back to that area of space preclusion argument when it has been shot down by pretty much every poster in this thread.


I tried to be clear that the act of overcoming a disincentive is what sets the stage for the risk / reward mechanism. They are very different things, and each one serves a purpose.

As far as Empire space; I brought it up because I sensed the implication somewhere that 'clone costs completely remove the option for PvP and there is no way to mitigate that.' That statement is disproved by the Empire argument even if people don't like it.
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#368 - 2013-05-17 03:02:44 UTC
Six Six Six wrote:


You will still lose a ship, implants and a clone albeit the clone at a reduced rate. So what's your problem?

Problem is in a fleet battle not everyone is equal and as such those disincentives you talk about won't effect everyone in the same way as their circumstances are different. Which kind of makes your argument kind of null and void.


Not everyone is equal and so it is very difficult to accurately scale reward and cost to each player. That is true of all these games, it doesn't invalidate the basic formula. Eve has always had strong disincentives to risk, it is a hallmark trait. They may change a bit, but I don't think they are going to go away.

Six Six Six wrote:


I'm starting to think he's just having a bit of fun trolling.


I'm spending some time on these posts because the ISD's went through and purged GD earlier. They left this one up which kind of surprised me. It might get a read through.

OfBalance
Caldari State
#369 - 2013-05-17 03:11:03 UTC
Six Six Six wrote:
OfBalance wrote:
Six Six Six wrote:

You are wrong, it's only a disincentive for those people that can't afford to keep replacing them. If you have more isk than you know what to do with then isk becomes practically worthless to you and in those cases it's certainly not a disincentive.


And thus entereth the "all vets are impossibly wealthy," fallacy again.




Not at all, just because you're a vet doesn't mean to say you have plenty of isk.

But the more isk someone has above what they need the more worthless it becomes to them.


And thus this disincentive aimed at vets, makes no sense. It has nothing to do with removing idle isk from the economy because idle players or isk hoarders are not going to be risking their clones in pvp anyhow.

So just to sum the principle up again: Disincentive for pvp, bad isk sink, bad game machanic.
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#370 - 2013-05-17 03:16:04 UTC
OfBalance wrote:
So just to sum the principle up again: Disincentive for pvp, bad isk sink, bad game machanic.


Yep, totally agree.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#371 - 2013-05-17 03:25:28 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:

Clone costs discourage PvP for a very small but vocal part of the player base; only those players who have skilled up to very high SP levels, that still want to PvP, and have trouble earning ISK.


And that legitimizes the mechanic is anything but bad?

So we know it benefits nobody. You've implied that it is a net neutral to the supposed majority of players it affects. You have also admitted that it negatively affects some players.

By your own description this is a bad mechanic and you're doing a great job of proving that point.
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#372 - 2013-05-17 03:32:48 UTC
OfBalance wrote:
Corey Fumimasa wrote:

Clone costs discourage PvP for a very small but vocal part of the player base; only those players who have skilled up to very high SP levels, that still want to PvP, and have trouble earning ISK.


And that legitimizes the mechanic is anything but bad?

So we know it benefits nobody. You've implied that it is a net neutral to the supposed majority of players it affects. You have also admitted that it negatively affects some players.

By your own description this is a bad mechanic and you're doing a great job of proving that point.



I wouldn't bother arguing with him, he's only testing you out. He's just playing games. He pretty much said as much in a reply to one of mine earlier but I didn't take the hint at the time.
Agustice Arterius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#373 - 2013-05-17 03:54:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Agustice Arterius
Edit:

You know what.

It's not worth responding
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
#374 - 2013-05-17 04:06:41 UTC
CLONE COSTS ARE TOO DAMN HIGH

Now with 100% less Troll.
Abigail Sagan
Skeleton Liberation Front
#375 - 2013-05-17 12:54:38 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:
Lets look at it from another angle; clone costs are a pain that gets more painful as you skill up. This "pain" is part of what balances the equation of older players v newer ones.


So are you saying that EVE Online is a game, that has to become more and more painful, the more loyally you play it? I don't like the sound of that.

Instead I thought most people play games for.. what is that word... ah yes.. fun. Most people play for fun. It would be more fun to the veterans, if they could participate in a fight with a frigate, instead of not having that option because of clone costs. And it would be more fun to all PvP community, because there would be more ships to shoot at.

Corey Fumimasa wrote:

But it has some issues as far as game playability. So lets say clone costs get reduced (which will probably happen) and theorize about what, if anything, will replace that weight on the scale.

For instance they could start charging a fee for storage. So that older players who have accumulated more stuff would pay more.


Oh no, no they couldn't! I don't even have an idea on how many stations I have rubbish assets in. I would go bankrupt in a moment, and I would have to stop playing. No fair!

Corey Fumimasa wrote:

Or they could base highsec docking rights on SP's, so that high sp chars could not dock in the highest security systems.


Oh no, no they couldn't! Well, okay, maybe they could, but I would go bankrupt again, and would have to stop playing! No fair either!

Corey Fumimasa wrote:

Or they could do nothing, just drop clone costs a bit and call it a day. The sink effect probably wouldn't change much as people get in more fights and get a bit riskier with their less expensive clones.


Oh no, no they could... wait, yes, yes they could! That sounds wonderful! I could go to fights, learn some PvP fun, lose ships & clones and buy some new ships to replace them. And sink iskies via taxes while doing so!

Corey Fumimasa wrote:

All three ideas are kind of bad but you get the idea. Is this balance between old and new chars important and how can it be balanced if clone costs are removed or lowered.


Could you explain with tiny little words so that even I can understand what is 'kinda bad' about option number three? Thank you.

Have fun (or pain if that is what you prefer) and fly only what you can afford to lose!
fuer0n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#376 - 2013-05-17 12:56:09 UTC  |  Edited by: fuer0n
Chimiera wrote:
As you may of guessed by the topic im one of those old vets well passed 100 million sp ( not sure if i should laugth or cry ) any way i like to pvp how ever im not all that well off isk wise half of the problem being my clone costing more than my ship does half the time What?.

With the next expansion adding more free sp my clones will most likely be costing 45 million each and even more for players even older than me. i have the skills to fly the ships i want but it hardly seems worth it when one dicter bouble equels im f**ked

With full set of implants +4s im looking at 100 million isk if i die Shocked thats one hell of a death penalty. Clone cost need to be reduced or caped to a level were its not a detriment to pvp.

TL;DR clones cost to dam much if your a vet


it's why ccp originally gave you 3 char slots...................better yet don't get podded.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#377 - 2013-05-17 13:01:09 UTC
fuer0n wrote:
it's why ccp originally gave you 3 char slots.
…except that if the only rational answer is “get an alt”, then that's pretty much all the proof you need that something isn't working properly.
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#378 - 2013-05-17 13:09:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Six Six Six
fuer0n wrote:
Chimiera wrote:
As you may of guessed by the topic im one of those old vets well passed 100 million sp ( not sure if i should laugth or cry ) any way i like to pvp how ever im not all that well off isk wise half of the problem being my clone costing more than my ship does half the time What?.

With the next expansion adding more free sp my clones will most likely be costing 45 million each and even more for players even older than me. i have the skills to fly the ships i want but it hardly seems worth it when one dicter bouble equels im f**ked

With full set of implants +4s im looking at 100 million isk if i die Shocked thats one hell of a death penalty. Clone cost need to be reduced or caped to a level were its not a detriment to pvp.

TL;DR clones cost to dam much if your a vet


it's why ccp originally gave you 3 char slots...................better yet don't get podded.




That's not why you get three slots.

Most games (say most in case there's an exception) give you multiple slots. They want you to play the game as long as possible. In other games they want you to make alts because the content can be limited and spreading it over alts will mean you'll play for longer.

In EVE they don't give you so many because this game is more about character development and doesn't have the same kind of limited content as most other games. You get extra slots so that if you get bored with the character you're playing for any reason, you can just park it (or use it as an alt) and start afresh keeping you in the game longer.

If you need to have more than one character (not including games where you control multiple characters like Dragon Age) to be able to play the game then there's something wrong with the design. In EVE they encourage alts and multiple accounts but you don't need them to play EVE they just make life easier.
fuer0n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#379 - 2013-05-17 13:29:21 UTC
there was nothing wrong with the design. it was built and planned that way from the start.
Mangold
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
#380 - 2013-05-17 13:31:33 UTC
Corey Fumimasa wrote:


-Normalizing the feeling of risk for pilots of different skill levels. This is the hard core PvPers who want glorious kills with big numbers that will hurt. They want Eve combat to remain scary and dangerous because they enjoy it that way. That group will often point out that the cost for Eve combat has come down over the years as ever denser sources of ISK have been uncovered and pushed into the economy. So in real terms the clones and the loss of combat in general is less than it was 5 or 6 years ago.


This. Couldn't have said it better myself.