These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Save Our Clones Initiative.

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#201 - 2014-11-17 06:25:23 UTC
+1. Vol is labelling frigate / small ship PVP as "low skilled" but that's just incorrect. It's fun PVP and it's fast paced, effective PVP. not to mention tackle is really important for kills.

Assuming Vol was correct, that characters should always go up and out from frigates and cruisers, there's still a good 75 million SP to be trained in cruisers and below.

So the best solution in Vol's world is what, only train up to frigates and never go back? You can't even skip frigate skills, you need them to some degree for spaceship command and gunnery. So currently there's 20 million SP in small stuff that pilots have no financial interest in being caught in. because it's "low skilled PVP" right

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Nami Kumamato
Perkone
Caldari State
#202 - 2014-11-17 11:51:50 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
13kr1d1 wrote:
The same can be said of putting modules on your combat based ships. It's not a choice of should I shouldnt I. It's a forced option just like the clone, because the consequences of not choosing is a blown up ship and no ability to kill anyone else.


OK, but let's look at the alternative. In EVE you have a number of slots to fill, and it's not always an incorrect choice to leave one empty. You might do so because a particular fit maxes out your CPU and power grid before you have filled all your slots, for example. Is such a fit optimal? Well, you have to figure that out.

A design that required every module slot to be filled would take away the meaningful choice of fitting in such a way that you can't fill that last slot. This might preclude an interesting, effective choice.

Clone grades aren't like that. There's no reason you would ever not upgrade a clone, other than being unable to spare the money.

Quote:
I don't agree that it's good game design objectively to try to "weed out" such decisions. I think it's subjective.


Let's say it's subjective. The game designers have come to the conclusion that, subjectively, they want to get rid of clone grades.

Hope that helps clarify.


I understand this - totally do.
Upgrading your clone is a thing that you do regardless of where you are in the game.
However what bothers me in relation to all these small changes rolling out, is that with every removal it seems a bit of EVE's soul is lost.Every time some small thing is removed I feel like EVE's "lore" dies a little bit.
Again, totally understand the game-dev idea behind the removal, but then again clones were and still are a huge part of EVE's storyline and universe.

Clones should have grades, it's normal and it's what would logically happen in the ultra-capitalistic world of New Eden. Not everybody would have access to top of the line 1 bazillion skillpoint clones, some would have cheaper one, some others will have expensive ones. Clones are disposable - totally agree - however there should be a difference between them.

How about a reverse change - we put a hard limit on the number of SP a certain clone-grade may hold, such as that your training will not progress if your clone's brain cannot handle the data? This way we don't pay not to lose skillpoints but we pay to be able to progress in training.
After all, you need to have a special brain to understand Astrometrics V :P
Or how about we have different types of clones that give small bonuses to a certain skill - you would have clones for Industrialists, clones for Researches or clones for the pew-pew loving fans, clones for FC's (I dunno, explanations can be found really easy, like : an FC-specialised clone has more I/O ports and neural connections than a standard clone allowing for faster and more efficient data flow, which in turn increases the effectiveness of links and such)

To sum things up : I feel the clone is slowly becoming the respawn-point/soul-guide , and although in essence it always was that - the coat of polish that it had in EVE made it feel very very different. And in the end it's one of the reasons that we love this game so much - because it's different.

Fornicate The Constabulary !
Areen Sassel
Dirac Angestun Gesept
#203 - 2014-11-17 12:51:34 UTC
Nami Kumamato wrote:
Or how about we have different types of clones that give small bonuses to a certain skill - you would have clones for Industrialists, clones for Researches or clones for the pew-pew loving fans, clones for FC's (I dunno, explanations can be found really easy, like : an FC-specialised clone has more I/O ports and neural connections than a standard clone allowing for faster and more efficient data flow, which in turn increases the effectiveness of links and such)


We do have different types of clones that give bonuses to a certain skill; ones with implants in.

This isn't just pedantry; there's two real points. First of all, any clone specialisation scheme has to feel different to implants. A naive implementation is, essentially, just a special kind of implant that medical bays sell.

Secondly, implants mean that Rhea won't be "risk-free" PvP. Sure, you can go out in a bare clone, and it'll cost you no ISK - but you're foregoing skillpoints until you can jump back into one with attribute implants. You're also foregoing any implant bonus to pertinent skills. If you're willing to put some more ISK on the line, you can have more skillpoints, and get bonuses to skills while you're out there. That's a meaningful choice.
Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#204 - 2014-11-17 13:01:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Leannor
CCP Darwin wrote:
13kr1d1 wrote:
Unezka Turigahl wrote:
Most games have one death and it is meaningless. Eve has two deaths that are both full loot-loss deaths with the possibility for a third XP death if you're forgetful. It stupid. It adds nothing. Good riddance.

And no, I've never personally lost XP. I just know stupid when I see it.


So you don't like the core of Eve gameplay. Don't wander into lowsec, you may not enjoy it.


With the caveat that I'm not a game designer, I do understand the reasoning and I'll share it.

The fundamental issue is that clone grades don't add a choice. When you are pod killed, you aren't presented with an interesting question -- "Should I upgrade my pod? How much should I upgrade it?"

Instead, you either upgrade, and protect your skill points against an inevitable further pod kill, or you don't, and suffer. One choice is so incredibly better than the other that you'll always pick it, unless you happen to forget.

Good game design isn't about punishing mere forgetfulness. It should be about presenting a meaningful choice to a player and letting them pick which way to go, with benefits to offset risk. Clone upgrade costs just don't do that -- they present a choice for which there's only one right answer.


and thus Darwinism would prevail. TwistedLol

[Edit: oh my, excuse the pun!]

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"
Xavier Holtzman
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#205 - 2014-11-17 13:07:05 UTC
How did this thread reach 11 pagesQuestion

I do not like the men on this spaceship. They are uncouth and fail to appreciate my better qualities. I have something of value to contribute to this mission if only they would realize it. - Bill Frug
Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#206 - 2014-11-17 13:07:55 UTC
Xavier Holtzman wrote:
How did this thread reach 11 pagesQuestion


lets make it 12!

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"
MidnightWyvern
Fukamichi Corporation
SAYR Galactic
#207 - 2014-11-17 13:33:23 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
Jvpiter wrote:
13kr1d1 wrote:

Your post is ironic considering that what's being stated is accepting the costs or consequences of actions or choices. How do you think that makes you right, or makes me a hypocrite? I'd like to understand the logic in this.



I accused you of hypocrisy because in this thread you are advocating for solving a game mechanic by investing in alts.


In a different thread, as I have quoted, you find it unacceptable that alts are a solution to a game mechanic.


E: Added correct quote for this reply.

Dat OP roast tho. Smells like bacon.

This OP has dedication, I'll give him that.

Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!

Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
Christopher AET
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2014-11-17 13:34:34 UTC
To the OP. If it helps you can pay me 50 million ISK every time you lose a pod. I am more than willing to provide this service and help you have the game experience you want.

I drain ducks of their moisture for sustenance.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#209 - 2014-11-17 14:35:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Vol Arm'OOO
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Anyone who can fly a T3 can pay off medical clones.
"Can" and "willing to if they are given a choice" are not the same thing.


Thats the point - clone costs impose risk on high sp lvl players for participating in low skilled pvp. People who dont like that are just inclined to perfer risk free pvp which is not the way eve has ever been.

That would be true if we had "epic soulbound gear" that only older players have and are divided by levels of characters. EVE does not work that way. When I fly, for example, a Kestrel I have the same amount of skill points for that ship as most of the 3 month old characters who fly Kestrels. The fact that I have a Dreadnought trained to 5 does not give me an advantage in a frig fight whatsoever. So basically, as it is now, I'm risking the same as my 3 months old opponent + being penalized for having trained skills completely unrelated to frigates. Not to mention the fact that the amount of skill points in this game does not mean that you'd be better at actually flying the ship.

With clones removed it wouldn't be risk free PvP. Instead I'd finally risk the same as my opponent.


Completely missing the point. In eve, the entire game is supposed to be premised upon risk v. reward. To make eve pvp meaningful there are supposed to be consequences to your actions. Hence eve (as opposed to many if not most other mmos) imposes a death penalty. Up until these proposed clone changes, there were only two types of death penalties - isk and and potential clone degradation for those forgetful enough to update their clone. The isk penalty came in two forms - ship loss and clone fees.

For vets, ship loss becomes increasingly meaningless as they naturally acquire isk. To use your example, a loss of a kestrel to most vets is meaningless isk wise - hell t1 frigs are frequently used as throwaway cyno ships. OTH, to a newer player a kestrel and its mods may comprise a significant portion of their total net worth. Thus, if clone costs are not factored in, there is an imbalance - a newer play is risking significantly more then a vet. In fact, without clone costs, the vet is functionally engaging in riskless pvp, cause the loss of a t1 frig is meaningless to him as there is no significant death penalty associated with the loss.

The removal of the death penalty for vets will of course change player behavior. Vets will likely engage in more low lvl pvp, and as a result we can expect a new round of whining from players complaining that vets rollstompping (because sp doesnt equal player experience) newer players is unfair.

Basically the nerfing of the death penalty is just one more example of the limiting of risk and the wowification of eve. Hell with Thera we even now got battle fields - Yippy Roll

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Jvpiter
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#210 - 2014-11-17 14:42:29 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:


For vets, ship loss becomes increasingly meaningless as they naturally acquire isk. To use your example, a loss of a kestrel to most vets is meaningless isk wise - hell t1 frigs are frequently used as throwaway cyno ships. OTH, to a newer player a kestrel and its mods may comprise a significant portion of their total net worth. Thus, if clone costs are not factored in, there is an imbalance - a newer play is risking significantly more then a vet. In fact, without clone costs, the vet is functionally engaging in riskless pvp, cause the loss of a t1 frig is meaningless to him as there is no significant death penalty associated with the loss.



I don't disagree with this paragraph.


I don't believe we have a lot of data that says vets prey on newer players significantly, but this may be a consequence of removal of clone grades.

Call me Joe.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#211 - 2014-11-17 14:56:51 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
+1. Vol is labelling frigate / small ship PVP as "low skilled" but that's just incorrect. It's fun PVP and it's fast paced, effective PVP. not to mention tackle is really important for kills.

Assuming Vol was correct, that characters should always go up and out from frigates and cruisers, there's still a good 75 million SP to be trained in cruisers and below.

So the best solution in Vol's world is what, only train up to frigates and never go back? You can't even skip frigate skills, you need them to some degree for spaceship command and gunnery. So currently there's 20 million SP in small stuff that pilots have no financial interest in being caught in. because it's "low skilled PVP" right


By low skilled I mean low sp not low player skill. It may be "fun" but it is meaningless for many people. For instance, you can play poker for matchsticks or you can play poker for real cash. The skill involved may be the same, but for some, poker with nothing at stake is meaningless. In eve, t1 frig pvp is like playing poker for "funsies." There is nothing at risk iskwise, it is meaningless, even if some find it fun. OTH for the new player by engaging in pvp, they have substantially more at risk because the ships that they use comprise a bigger portion of their total net worth.

To make pvp meaningful for all players not just newbees, there should be meaningful risks associated with a player's decisions. Clone costs make pvp "meaningful" for vets by mandating that if a vet engages in pvp there is a minimum level of risk that they must accept. OFC some people dont like having to accept risk with their pvp - I strongly suspect these are the same people that secretly want eve to be more wow like.


I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#212 - 2014-11-17 15:02:02 UTC
Jvpiter wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:


For vets, ship loss becomes increasingly meaningless as they naturally acquire isk. To use your example, a loss of a kestrel to most vets is meaningless isk wise - hell t1 frigs are frequently used as throwaway cyno ships. OTH, to a newer player a kestrel and its mods may comprise a significant portion of their total net worth. Thus, if clone costs are not factored in, there is an imbalance - a newer play is risking significantly more then a vet. In fact, without clone costs, the vet is functionally engaging in riskless pvp, cause the loss of a t1 frig is meaningless to him as there is no significant death penalty associated with the loss.



I don't disagree with this paragraph.


I don't believe we have a lot of data that says vets prey on newer players significantly, but this may be a consequence of removal of clone grades.



Really? You need data that says vets prey on new players? CCP has imposed special restrictions on the newbee systems because of all of the newbee griefing that went on. And when those restrictions took effect, there was a hue and cry from a certain element on the forums. By removing clone costs, CCP is nerfing the death penalty for pvp. Clone costs impact vets more then newer players by design. The removal of clone costs should therefore impact vet behavior, and probably not for the overall good of eve if the goal is to get new players into the game; a game in which they will enjoy and not just be meat for vet's looking for easy kills.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#213 - 2014-11-17 15:17:34 UTC
supports are 50 million SP already, and that clone exceeds the cost of T1 frigates, so even the frig pilot has this issue.

all the SP on top of that, for other ships... none of that applies to a frigate. is that part clear to you?

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#214 - 2014-11-17 15:19:56 UTC
Won't someone think of the children?

Anyway, Tippia ran some numbers at one point that showed the maximum number of skillpoints you could apply to a tech-two fit tech-one cruiser and it was around 45million. That number would be less for frigates and destroyers. So when a vet jumps into a frigate it's not as if the thing suddenly goes God Mode or something, it's just a lot of wasted SP.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Jvpiter
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#215 - 2014-11-17 15:22:36 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:


Really? You need data that says vets prey on new players? CCP has imposed special restrictions on the newbee systems because of all of the newbee griefing that went on. And when those restrictions took effect, there was a hue and cry from a certain element on the forums. By removing clone costs, CCP is nerfing the death penalty for pvp. Clone costs impact vets more then newer players by design. The removal of clone costs should therefore impact vet behavior, and probably not for the overall good of eve if the goal is to get new players into the game; a game in which they will enjoy and not just be meat for vet's looking for easy kills.


I'm not sure the 100 million+ SP vets are whelp img rookies.


Gankalyst or Bomber builds are much cheaper in SP and the clone cost penalties don't really apply to them.


Are cap pilots storming rookie systems?

Call me Joe.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#216 - 2014-11-17 15:31:29 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Won't someone think of the children?

Anyway, Tippia ran some numbers at one point that showed the maximum number of skillpoints you could apply to a tech-two fit tech-one cruiser and it was around 45million. That number would be less for frigates and destroyers. So when a vet jumps into a frigate it's not as if the thing suddenly goes God Mode or something, it's just a lot of wasted SP.


Assuming that this was directed at me - That's not at all what i am implying. Its clear that higher sp doesnt necessarily mean higher player skill. OTH higher sp is usually a good indication of more player experience (ofc there are exceptions such as buying the character etc...). Regardless, the long you are in the game the more isk you generally acquire. I remember being a newbee and thinking I was rich when I got 100mil drp off of some ded site, now I got 6 bil liquid and nearly 30 bil in assets and in comparison to many other vets I am just a piker. Being a vet with a large pile of isk means that you can absorb losses which newer players cant. By having clone costs, the game imposed a minimal level of risk on players who otherwise would view certain types of pvp as risk less. Risk v. reward is good for pvp and for EVE. Nerfing the death penalty and removing risk from pvp for vets is bad.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#217 - 2014-11-17 15:32:47 UTC
Jvpiter wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:


Really? You need data that says vets prey on new players? CCP has imposed special restrictions on the newbee systems because of all of the newbee griefing that went on. And when those restrictions took effect, there was a hue and cry from a certain element on the forums. By removing clone costs, CCP is nerfing the death penalty for pvp. Clone costs impact vets more then newer players by design. The removal of clone costs should therefore impact vet behavior, and probably not for the overall good of eve if the goal is to get new players into the game; a game in which they will enjoy and not just be meat for vet's looking for easy kills.


I'm not sure the 100 million+ SP vets are whelp img rookies.


Gankalyst or Bomber builds are much cheaper in SP and the clone cost penalties don't really apply to them.


Are cap pilots storming rookie systems?



Go to any rookie system and you tell me. But here is a hint - if there wasn't a problem ccp wouldn't have made it a banable offense to screw with rookies in rookie systems.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Kyle Concordokken
Doomheim
#218 - 2014-11-17 15:32:59 UTC
I've always been fine with losing ships. I've always been fine with losing stuff in those ships. I've always been fine with losing valuable stuff I've plugged into my brain.

What I've never enjoyed has been the prospect of losing character progress. It's like playing Pokemon, finally catching that Abra and then forgetting to save and losing it.

It's just not fun. So, kudos.

Hopefully in the future we can have the option of paying for clones that give us further, specialized bonuses not just from implants. Also, learning implants suck.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#219 - 2014-11-17 15:33:16 UTC
13kr1d1 wrote:
Post here to save our clones.


Do not support - therefore I am not posting here.

Umm... yeah.

Anyway, I support the devs on this one - "choosing" to pay the clone update wasn't interesting gameplay - it was just a hassle that needed to be taken care of under penalty of stick. There's no carrot, only stick.

I don't mind the cost - never have - but I'm game to see what the devs have in store to fill the clone space if they can improve on what's there now.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Kamahl Daikun
State War Academy
Caldari State
#220 - 2014-11-17 15:35:07 UTC
Azda Ja wrote:
A GTFO tab is good for saving your clone, try that.


This.

I used to be horrible at getting my Capsule out of harm's way after I lost (yet another) ship. A GTFO tab and expecting to lose a ship are all you need. The only thing that'll stop you is a Bubble. And those are only in nullsec.

So, really, if you're losing so many clones that the near negligible cost of upgrading your clones is becoming a problem, the problem is you; not the clones.