EVE General Discussion

And that pertains to making isk how exactly?

You of all people should support this, Providence aint exactly a money making hotspot, why should you waste 100m on a clone when you can spend that 100m on an Abbaddon, or implants, or what have you.

What, you think just because you ground up a bunch of alts, everybody else should be hobbled by clone costs?

Again, you of all people should understand the appeal of using a single-character.

Who wants to switch chars just to build a shield booster?

The "Eve is about planning!" thing just rots people brain where they don't understand basic things like "logging out, in, out, in" is not a fun way to play a game.

Just because you built your characters around Eve's bad design doesn't mean the design should never get better.

That's like people who trained learnings to level 5 complaining that new people don't have to go thru that crap.

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. 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.

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

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.

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.

Thanks for playing for so long now heres a penalty which goes against all time investment in game.

It serves no purpose other than giving a newer player something other than skills to buy at the start and a sink of isk - thats it.

scrap it completely and just have a clone button and move it to standings for recloning - thats

Is there a reason not using alts should be punished in any way?

There are a couple of good ideas about this clone "issue", the clone cost proportional to the required sp for the ship you were killed with, if a noob needs 1.5M sp with all 5 for a frigate the vet one can have a basillion, still doesn't need or use more than 1.5M sp.

Of a fixed amount per "X amount" SP you pay once, after paying, no matter how many times you get killed you don't pay anymore except your implants, looks interesting too.

Explained your view of balanced?

Anyone advocating that alts are the way to go is frankly a ******* idiot

Yay for gameplay where you train the same basic crap time and time and time again

Flat rate fee for med clones is the way to do this. Simple as that.

If you want isk sinks then there are FAR better areas to look at than med clone costs, which only serve to discourage PvP.

Oh and the clone cost reductions people are linking are nice but its still crap game design.

Actually, I think that's the whole point of assigning a cost to being podded. An economy like in EVE needs currency sinks in order to function correctly and this is one of them.

To me the issue about podding is more about finding some kind of balance between risk and reward. While it's true that there is an effect of diminishing returns with continuing to train a highly skilled character, there can also be no doubt at all that a highly skilled character with better skills in gunnery, tanking, maneuverability etc. and presumably being piloted by a more experienced player, has a risk profile that diminishes over time.

In other words, they win more often, which they should.

But players who enjoy the benifits of winning more often should *also* feel the pain when they do lose, and that pain should be in proportion to the risk they ran of losing. So when you look at the "total risk" as the chance of losing mulitplied by the cost of losing then newer players have a higher chance of losing but a lower cost when podded and older players have a lower chance of losing but a higher cost. ....

I honestly think that CCP really intended this to be a "leveling" instrument so that newer players are not perpetually playing at a disadvantage, at least in terms of the normative ISK risk they run from PVP.

Is it the only way that leveling the risk/reward playing field could be approached? I don't know, but I think it is working more or less as intended.

Are the costs too high? I don't know. I don't have a pointy enough tin foil hat to see if the ISK-risk graph is level throughout the skillpoint spectrum. My feeling is that it can't be because pod costs continue to go up as PVP effectiveness levels out at higher skill point levels... but whatever compared to the amount of isk older players generally make, it seems like a drop in the bucket to me.

Do I think people are complaining about a non-issue? Yeah, pretty much.

fixed for you

Hint: collecting SP != playing the game

This thread is very much like the recent SWTOR "Repair costs are too high for level 55 raiders!" Huge thread, multiple people agreeing.

ISK sinks are part of MMO's, unfortunately. CCP may or may not agree, I guess we'll see in an upcoming patch, if any.