EVE General Discussion

Sorry it took me a minute, I am drunk and tired.

While the argument about compared to frig cost does make sense, either way the clones are not all that expensive. If you have been around long enough to have an expensive one, you should more than be able to afford it.

What an asinine thing to say.

I had to google death cloning, because no one I knew ever called it that. Now I googled for the source of this claim but seem to fail at finding it. Where the hell is this being talked about? There's no thread in F&I either.

Thanks!

Suck it up. CCP should remove clone coverage all together, all ships should cause loss of SP very much like a T3 crusier when the ship goes pop, smaller ships cause greater loss of SP while bigger ships offer greater "protection" for the hitpoint trade off, and the only trade off is the isk involved for the price of the hull or the price of the pod (clone coverage).

Fly cheap with less SP or fly expensive with more skill points for that hitpoint buffer + DPS a battleship/cap gives you, risk the isk or lose the SP.....cause your entire complaint reeks of risk aversion once a limit has been reached that a human psyche cannot tolerate anymore; I distinctly remember Goons slamming Hulks into space dust a few years back and what would you know....you are a Goon complaining that suddenly it "costs to much" to fly a ship yet hulks were getting damn expensive while Goons manipulated the market. Suddenly clone costs are getting too high, but you are probably dying more often then making the income to replace it....sounds like poor playing ability. HTFU and fly what you can afford, pod included which stores the back up of your skill points.

Like I said, risk the isk or risk the skill points.....both should be risked. Sounds fair, there isn't one cost valued in isk....there is just the value of RISK.

Hell, the entire death of a clone sounds like the solution to your problem....CCP just needs to allow the ability to remove a section of the skill points from the main pilot and distribute to another "clone" .....now your clone is "cheaper", but its going to cost more since you will not be immortal

Thanks. Guess I should have done more digging.
It's a shame this gets removed. I loved travelling by DEATH!

my ceo said I can post on an alt. my main is for hauling and mining, and we don't want unwanted attention.

no, invalid. It's not as true now, but j-holes have a reasonable expectation of privacy. you hide and pod-die sometimes.

The issue is we're all paying a monthly subscription, and a med clone cost is double subscription +.

Unlike Industry and market which are based on, and designed to provide a good chance for, a net gain of ISK, PVP is [already] inherently lossy. the medical clone cost is ISK that disappears from the game, in addition to game assets that are destroyed (ships, fittings, cargo, implants). medical clone costs are an example of CCP double dipping, no, triple dipping: subscription, asset loss, med clone fee.

subscriptions are justified by real-world commerce. asset loss (ship, fitting, cargo, implants) are justified by in-game commerce. med clone costs are justified by lore.

it's not "fine" because the cost of med clones can add up to an unlimited sum of ISK that is -deleted- from the game. It is not throttled by number of times per day, or total ISK lost per day. it is literally a black hole of ISK, and with telemortation coming to an end, there is no practical benefit. it is a huge gameplay tax on PVP, which is the one play style that would keep the player economy running through asset loss if it wasn't for this giant hole in the jugular.

clone cost ISK benefits no one other than CCP. not the player, not the player economy. and we're already paying CCP.

---

The everything-T3-for-guaranteed-SP-loss is ironically a viable, valid idea. A ship as versatile and tanky as a T3 should come with SP loss drawbacks. I can agree with that. But by that logic, a not-T3 should come with a no SP loss guarantee.

It's like your government sends you a letter after a car accident. It says,

true, it's a smaller ISK sink for some, and it's not an ISK sink at all for many. it's like a risk, and it's as if people avert it.