These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#381 - 2013-05-17 13:35:34 UTC
fuer0n wrote:
there was nothing wrong with the design. it was built and planned that way from the start.
…and the reason it's fine is…?
fuer0n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#382 - 2013-05-17 13:40:08 UTC  |  Edited by: fuer0n
Tippia wrote:
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.


it was there for people who planned ahead and actually beleived in the game. anyway they encouraged coniving so 3 char slots were good. and that mean't choosing where to spend your skill points. whiny bastards who complain about pvping with an expensive toon get no sympathy from me. they want all the pluses and none of the negatives.

you want to drive a ferrari and crash it? expect a big big ******* bill. my advice is don't crash it.
Mangold
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
#383 - 2013-05-17 13:45:08 UTC
Six Six Six wrote:


Are you still talking about shaking in your boots when your talking about in game dynamics?

How is a disincentive that prevents some people from PvPing a good thing?


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.


What you appear to be missing is that effortless pvp where losses doesn't mean anything is completely worthless (at least to me).

Sure, remove clone costs, add 100% insurance for ship and modules, even make a new ship appear in your hangar fitted the same way as the ship you just lost. That would really really make people pvp more, wouldn't it? But what would the reason to pvp be?

I really don't care exactly how much a clone costs. I've been playing since 2003 and my clone is expensive now, with or without implants. The changes you propose would benifit me but it's another step towards meaningless pvp. I want losses to hurt. I want people to get mad when I kill their ship. I want to be afraid of losing my own ship and pod. I don't want this game to end up all about killmails and killstats. I WANT PEOPLE TO NOT UNDOCK IN A NEW SHIP BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD A NEW SHIP OR POD.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#384 - 2013-05-17 13:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
fuer0n wrote:
it was there for people who planned ahead and actually beleived in the game.
And? It still doesn't make “get an alt” anything other than proof that something is broken.
Also, [citation needed] on that claim, since it's pretty much the exact opposite to why you're given multiple slots in MMOs.

Quote:
they want all the pluses and none of the negatives.
Why should it be anything negative about having played a character for a long time?
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#385 - 2013-05-17 13:48:46 UTC
fuer0n wrote:
there was nothing wrong with the design. it was built and planned that way from the start.



Very unlikely, if you have a character building game they are not going to force you to start another character to be able to play that game.

Having to start a PvP character along side your main to be able to afford to PvP, it may have been built that way or things have changed within the game since its release that has altered it from it original intention, but it wouldn't have been planned that way.
fuer0n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#386 - 2013-05-17 13:51:32 UTC  |  Edited by: fuer0n
Tippia wrote:
fuer0n wrote:
it was there for people who planned ahead and actually beleived in the game.
And? It still doesn't make “get an alt” anything other than proof that something is broken.
Also, [citation needed] on that claim, since it's pretty much the exact opposite to why you're given multiple slots in MMOs.

Quote:
they want all the pluses and none of the negatives.
Why should it be anything negative about having played a character for a long time?


because it widens the gap between new players and old. it's a balance an equalizer that you lot want shifted.
Mangold
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
#387 - 2013-05-17 13:52:19 UTC
Mangold wrote:
Six Six Six wrote:
.



Destiny Corrupted wrote:

.



- why do you pvp if losses or wins doesn't mean more than killboard stats or a killmail?


Could you please answer this question. I know we don't share the same view about this game but I would really like to know how you feel about it.
fuer0n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#388 - 2013-05-17 13:53:31 UTC  |  Edited by: fuer0n
Six Six Six wrote:
fuer0n wrote:
there was nothing wrong with the design. it was built and planned that way from the start.



Very unlikely, if you have a character building game they are not going to force you to start another character to be able to play that game.

Having to start a PvP character along side your main to be able to afford to PvP, it may have been built that way or things have changed within the game since its release that has altered it from it original intention, but it wouldn't have been planned that way.



umm they were after money. real money that as far as i can see they put back in.
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#389 - 2013-05-17 13:56:46 UTC
fuer0n wrote:
Six Six Six wrote:
fuer0n wrote:
there was nothing wrong with the design. it was built and planned that way from the start.



Very unlikely, if you have a character building game they are not going to force you to start another character to be able to play that game.

Having to start a PvP character along side your main to be able to afford to PvP, it may have been built that way or things have changed within the game since its release that has altered it from it original intention, but it wouldn't have been planned that way.



umm they were after money. real money that as far as i can see they put back in.



And how is annoying people helping them in that respect?
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#390 - 2013-05-17 14:04:31 UTC
ian papabear wrote:
Chimiera wrote:
its called limited time to play or IRL things to do.

I do see every ones point about haveing 100mil sp and not haveing isk but my point is not about my personal income but the cost of clones for older players being more of a punishment for playing a long time than a reward.

Adding reduced clone costs based on faction standing for example would help.


sorry but you have no argument here,

im 21, FULL TIME college student, part time volunteer, soon to be police academy recruit so i have to dedicate time to excercise, and yet i can still make billions easy.


What is your point? That you have a ton of free time And inspire to become an authoritarian inbred? You will never have as much free time as you do now... The OP is an adult and obviously doesn't have enough time to play.

He makes a valid point. When mechanics become disruptive to game play, they need to be revised.

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.
Othran
Route One
#391 - 2013-05-17 14:10:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Othran
fuer0n wrote:
because it widens the gap between new players and old. it's a balance an equalizer that you lot want shifted.


It doesn't do anything for new players - the new player will run out of ISK long before I do.

What it does is encourage people to stop training a character.

By any standard of measure that is bloody stupid game design.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#392 - 2013-05-17 14:11:16 UTC
fuer0n wrote:
because it widens the gap between new players and old.
…you mean that gap that the skill system already makes a non-issue? The gap that has nothing to do with what's being affected by the mechanic? Yeah, no.

That's not a good reason to have a penalty for being old.

Quote:
it's a balance an equalizer that you lot want shifted.
It's neither, actually.

It doesn't affect anything that is a matter of balance, and since it “equalises” (actually, penalises) something that is not a function of what's being measured to determine that equalisation…

…not to mention that this supposed equaliser isn't being applied in any kind of equal way.
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#393 - 2013-05-17 14:30:12 UTC
Zeko Rena wrote:
Isn't this one of the few things in EVE that actually makes money vanish, I think we need more things like that, I hope they don't make it so that one day players can produce and sell clones, otherwise we are just printing money forever from rat bounties Pirate

*sigh*

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=235781&find=unread

Just found this, looks like it is being decreased anyway.


That makes no sense whatever way one looks at it. The people with the insane amount of money who need to lose some to balance out the game are not the ones doing the PVPing and paying the absurd clone costs. All the clones do is take money away from people who already are relatively poor, this results in them pvping less cause they can't afford it which in turn results in them buying less ships and modules to pvp in which in turn hurts the whole EVE economy.

Burning money to reduce inflation only works when the people who inflate the market in the first place lose their wealth.

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#394 - 2013-05-17 14:37:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Radius Prime
Vega Umbranox wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
So make an alt. Super cheap clone.

No one says you have to keep training your original toon.


not everyone likes having or even playing alts. i HATE alts i would never use one. your suggestion is horrible go home.

there needs to be an option or atleast cut clone costs. its unnecessary imo.
it seems like a huge penalty for something the game encourages (pvp and skilling up)



Some people are loyal to their main character and get attached to the idea of that character. we arent all space sluts and just ***** out to 10 alt accounts and still enjoy it.

I NEVER have used an alt in a game other than for market checking etc and i NEVER will. its just how i play and pushing me to change that will only ruin the freedom of an mmo


Couldn't have said it better. Your main is your baby, your pride and joy, the one you started EVE in and the game is about him jouneying through the universe and learning all there is to learn. This brings EVE down to its very essence and a player shouldn't be punished for playing EVE the way it was intended.

If people have such a problem with this, maybe CCP should just add some skills that lower clone costs, Clone Bio Engineering or something. That way the advantage goes again to high SP toons but that seems to be what low SP players want... They can keep paying the full clone costs out of principle then...

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.
Doc Severide
Doomheim
#395 - 2013-05-17 14:47:31 UTC
The whole idea of clones is stupid and unnecessary, just get rid of them completely. Just like Rigs and Implants. Why the hell not just let us remove them???
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#396 - 2013-05-17 14:52:44 UTC
Radius Prime wrote:
If people have such a problem with this, maybe CCP should just add some skills that lower clone costs, Clone Bio Engineering or something. That way the advantage goes again to high SP toons but that seems to be what low SP players want... They can keep paying the full clone costs out of principle then...

bad idea. Like Learning skills your "Clone Bio Engineering" will be MANDATORY for everyone. Thus there will be lots of people complain about it "I MUST TRAIN IT TO V TO UNDOCK FIRST TIME".

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#397 - 2013-05-17 14:55:41 UTC
Mangold wrote:
Six Six Six wrote:


Are you still talking about shaking in your boots when your talking about in game dynamics?

How is a disincentive that prevents some people from PvPing a good thing?


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.


What you appear to be missing is that effortless pvp where losses doesn't mean anything is completely worthless (at least to me).

Sure, remove clone costs, add 100% insurance for ship and modules, even make a new ship appear in your hangar fitted the same way as the ship you just lost. That would really really make people pvp more, wouldn't it? But what would the reason to pvp be?

I really don't care exactly how much a clone costs. I've been playing since 2003 and my clone is expensive now, with or without implants. The changes you propose would benifit me but it's another step towards meaningless pvp. I want losses to hurt. I want people to get mad when I kill their ship. I want to be afraid of losing my own ship and pod. I don't want this game to end up all about killmails and killstats. I WANT PEOPLE TO NOT UNDOCK IN A NEW SHIP BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD A NEW SHIP OR POD.

it's really nice to see that smart people are still present in this forums

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Six Six Six
Doomheim
#398 - 2013-05-17 15:22:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Six Six Six
March rabbit wrote:
Mangold wrote:
Six Six Six wrote:


Are you still talking about shaking in your boots when your talking about in game dynamics?

How is a disincentive that prevents some people from PvPing a good thing?


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.


What you appear to be missing is that effortless pvp where losses doesn't mean anything is completely worthless (at least to me).

Sure, remove clone costs, add 100% insurance for ship and modules, even make a new ship appear in your hangar fitted the same way as the ship you just lost. That would really really make people pvp more, wouldn't it? But what would the reason to pvp be?

I really don't care exactly how much a clone costs. I've been playing since 2003 and my clone is expensive now, with or without implants. The changes you propose would benifit me but it's another step towards meaningless pvp. I want losses to hurt. I want people to get mad when I kill their ship. I want to be afraid of losing my own ship and pod. I don't want this game to end up all about killmails and killstats. I WANT PEOPLE TO NOT UNDOCK IN A NEW SHIP BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD A NEW SHIP OR POD.

it's really nice to see that smart people are still present in this forums





Smart what's smart about over reacting?

Don't think anyone has mentioned free clones, they've mentioned reduced price clones which is what this is about. Can't say I've noticed anyone asking for 100% ship insurance and module cover or even a ship exactly as it was before other than Mangold. Probably with the old type argument of it's this now it'll be something else later, which can happen but the EVE players wouldn't let that happen because I doubt any of us want that.

It's just about clone cost reduction shall we keep it to that.
fuer0n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#399 - 2013-05-17 16:32:47 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Tippia wrote:
fuer0n wrote:
because it widens the gap between new players and old.
…you mean that gap that the skill system already makes a non-issue? The gap that has nothing to do with what's being affected by the mechanic? Yeah, no.

That's not a good reason to have a penalty for being old.

Quote:
it's a balance an equalizer that you lot want shifted.
It's neither, actually.

It doesn't affect anything that is a matter of balance, and since it “equalises” (actually, penalises) something that is not a function of what's being measured to determine that equalisation…

…not to mention that this supposed equaliser isn't being applied in any kind of equal way.




EDIT: No personal attacks, please - ISD Tyrozan and you know dust should have could have been so much better.
fuer0n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#400 - 2013-05-17 16:36:37 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Tippia wrote:
fuer0n wrote:
because it widens the gap between new players and old.
…you mean that gap that the skill system already makes a non-issue? The gap that has nothing to do with what's being affected by the mechanic? Yeah, no.

That's not a good reason to have a penalty for being old.

Quote:
it's a balance an equalizer that you lot want shifted.
It's neither, actually.

It doesn't affect anything that is a matter of balance, and since it “equalises” (actually, penalises) something that is not a function of what's being measured to determine that equalisation…

…not to mention that this supposed equaliser isn't being applied in any kind of equal way.



EDIT - No personal attacks, please - ISD Tyrozan

the only reason im still here is old aquantances. they turned out to be not what i expected. cya.

ps i s till miss real games.