Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No, I like it as it is... it's one of those things in EVE that makes me remember that she's a mean old crazy *****.

when you have over 160M SP the thing starts to get really expensive. Well used to be way worse. Not so long ago the pod used to cost way more than a battleship on this SP level :P

It already does without the need for a varying penalty based on toon age.

Podded - lose implants. Hurt.

No implants? Being hurt every second you sit in that pod compared to someone dotting about in high/low sec.


Why should an empty clone cost twice the ship you lost it in "because $AGE"?

It's flat out dumb.

Either flat fee it, or get shot of it.

I don't disagree entirely with that. 50 million for a pod upgrade seems excessive.

Hmm, to be absolutely honest, I could do without reocurring clone insurenaces.

I have been called a bitter-vet like most of you and I am not and neither are you, but I believe this one is a feature that stuck around due to our affinity of being creatures of habits - and for no other reason.
If you imagine for the sake of the arguemnt, that you upgrade your clone once or not at all and the SP would be safe and someone would suggest the system we have now, almost everyone in the forum would rage and take the opposite position as you are doing now. Just saying.


I find it detrimental like the pure learning implants and these are the things keeping me, not completely, but from the more casual form of PvP. Instead of jumping into an adequate ship when the mood strikes you you have to consider 3 things instead of one and each thing adds enormously to the perceived (if not always real) cost.

1.) The ship
2.) The Implants
3.) The clone itself

1. If you want to PvP you count the ship as lost and even if you do not have an appropriate ship it is easy to throw somethign that kind-a fits together and head out. This risk or los of value is calculated and can easily be dealt with in mind as in finances.

2. Adding the implants adds an enormous risk factor to the consideration, especially if the engagement is casual and the implants do not bring any benefit to the venture in themselves (arguing only pure learning implants here). This is more of a gamble then a calculated risk, you might get the pod out, you might not. Can you jump clone, have a jumpclone, can install one, is the cooldown finished, how far is that clone... all considerations that will add to the resistance to PvP.

3. Losing the clone itself is another gamble and risk that further lowers the willingless to 'just head out and wing it' and adds up in more doubt in the venture and more possible and/or calculated loss.


In most cases, where I would have just jumped ship and head out to assist a friend or just go for some spree, the costs, gambles and effort (yes, there is way more effort involved in considering) beyond the ship are what kept me from engaging in PvP and lead me to do just another mission or mine some more... not really what most here would like to see promoted.

My observation and rationalization and conclusen are to do away with clone insurance (one permanent upgrade at max) and the pure learning implants. All the sets already have bonusses to attributes and give another, active and event related reason to use or save (store) them. The only thing the pure implants do is prevent you from undocking in most cases.

And no, no hit on the economy, it will balance iteslf out. Not sure how ppl will get richer from not paying clone upgrades but getting blown up more °°

Cheers

TL;DR Reverse the circumstances, check your arguments and consider the results.

Nope, not support.


you need a consequence for loosing your pod, and when I move my stuff around I take in to account med bays locations, it add gameplay.


I could risk loosing SP pionts by setting my clone in a station with no medbay, to rejoin the fight sooner.

If anything it would be cool to pre-buy death clones, so if I know i'm going be spending a week in null with a lot of pvp action i could pre-buy 20 clones. and not to worry till i loose the 19th clone.

Not supported. It's one of the very rare ways to balance the new/old player imbalance. With 100+m SP, your capabilities should make the ISK cost trivial.

That's a faulty assumption. High SP do not make high income, they can of course, but correlation does not make causation. High SP don't cause great amounts of ISK to appear - so one can blow them to bits again

Something to add to my above post.

This is also a reason why I do not train my FW char. This changfe might well convince me to activate dual training again.

It would also stop all discussions about more clone skills for better and faster clone exchanges (not jumps) and more ... I see only positive results from this.

While a certain amount of SPs is needed to generate income, it doesn't scale linear. If you can fly the best ratting ship with 20m SPs, the other 100m doesn't help you that much. But you still get punished for you ability to fly different ships. However, I consider the "income in relation to SPs" issue separated from clone costs.

While the general rule in EVE applies "Fly what you can afford to lose" it doesn't appear to apply to clones - as far as I can tell. Of course, I assume that you don't want to lose any SPs. It does however, as previously stated in this thread, apply to implants. While having some token penalty to update your clone is fine, see jump clones, the current cost doesn't seem well thought out as it stands.

Nor do I feel that it is something that plays well with the narrative. Take nullsec with its conquerable stations where you can decrease the repair cost to 0. But you can't influence the clone cost?

Which brings me to another suggestions - let the current clone cost stand in NPC stations, but let conquerable stations have the ability to set the cost themselves (and the owning corporation keep any revenue).

Nothing. But you're less combat effective and train slower.

You're telling me that is not paying a price up front?

It's like a down payment on the consequences.