These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#421 - 2014-11-21 18:53:42 UTC
Skill loss on death is a really dumb idea, except in the case of specialized, powerful ships (t3) that impose a rank 1 skill penalty for dying in it.
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
#422 - 2014-11-21 20:06:57 UTC
As a beta vet yself - my clone os over 30million every time I die.

Who cares if I can afford it, it is still money I would rather spend on loosing a ship.

I am happy to see it go for everyone.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#423 - 2014-11-21 23:53:42 UTC
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#424 - 2014-11-21 23:58:05 UTC  |  Edited by: 13kr1d1
BoBoZoBo wrote:
As a beta vet yself - my clone os over 30million every time I die.

Who cares if I can afford it, it is still money I would rather spend on loosing a ship.

I am happy to see it go for everyone.


So you just want EvE to be easier and shallower gameplay. Okay.

I'm not surprised Goons want to get rid of clone costs. Free suicide ganking Woohoo!

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#425 - 2014-11-22 00:00:55 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:


No it wont improve eve at all. Getting vets into smaller ships engaging in small combat presents a disadvantage to newer players (yes sp doesnt equal skill, but experience counts). But more to the point, getting rid of clone costs devalues death and makes pvp less meaningful. Since ship loss is not a barrier to vets (at least for typical subcap t1 hulls), death becomes meaningless for vets without clone costs. Whenever these changes have been done in other mmo's it has promoted negative conduct such as zerging and other largely thoughtless behavior.


You would be right if EVE had a leveling of WoW, but it doesn't. High level SP character in EVE is not the same as high level character in WoW. You are simply not carrying all your "gear" with you on a high level in order for you to be able to stomp on any lower level character. All ships in EVE, especially subcaps, have their respective counter even in the same class, no matter how expensive the ship is and how expensive the fit is.... and yes - no matter how much SP you got.

And yeah,... my experience from Red Moon Rising is totally useful in an environment where we had several intensive balancing changes and a lot of new ships introduced over the years (all while disregarding the fact that I have little to none experience flying many of the ships).


Regarding the "barrier", the limit as it exists now simply pushes older players to use bigger ships. You are kind of right about the barrier - except that it isn't about the cost of the ship or the clone... it's about the price difference between ships and the clones where both can be easily paid but it's simply more logical to use bigger ships than smaller ones, if you have an expensive clone. And you have to remember, except for the "dueling" mechanics (which I've personally never used), players are not limited to ship classes when engaging in PvP whatsoever. Do you really think that newer players in smaller ships are safer with most of the vets flying, say, HACs instead of at least trying to make the fight interesting by using the same ship class as the targeted opponent? Do you think that there is a barrier now that prevents older players from sitting in an AC Hurricane and roflstomping a bunch of newbies in Rifters with little to no risk whatsoever? And do you really think that vets in smaller ships are safer than in HACs?

Regarding "zerging" (or blobbing, as we call it on this side of Azeroth), you have missed the point entirely. It's more logical that the mechanic which pushes vets to use ships that outclass their opponents encourages blobbing more than having vets fly smaller ships that can be dealt with 1v1 and even easily outclassed by a new player.

Besides, removing clone costs would encourage more PvP and produce more ship explosions in nullsec (where bubbles are, which are primary pod killers) and thus more fun and activity, for vets or new players.


Like I said, people spent SP to be able to fly everything, and now they're upset with the costs. Are they too stupid to use an alt to fight in frigs? Too greedy to make good long term decisions about what to train and not to train?

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#426 - 2014-11-22 00:03:05 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Maekchu wrote:
This discussion is not about HTFU or people forgetting to upgrade a clone and not being able to cover the cost. If you think, that removing the clone costs only has these effects, then you truly cannot think outside the boundaries of your limiting head.

What removing the clone costs in reality will accomplish, is getting older players out in space more frequently and in smaller ships. This will improve EVE overall, since there will be more stuff to shoot.

I will never understand risk averse players. But undocking a 10M frigate just to lose a 100M clone, is not risk averse. That is just stupid. Yes, you can get your pod out 99% in lowsec and highsec. But what about nullsec? You cannot just say, "Well getting your pod out is easy", when you are sitting in a bubble. Come on guys, use your freaking head.

This "Save our Clones Initiative" is just for people who have a hard time with changes, or are smartbombing gatecampiners in Rancer. For improvement of EVE in general, you should welcome this change with open arms.

I'm all for having risk when losing your ships, don't get me wrong. But that risk should be tied to your ship. I will welcome skill loss on capital and subcapital ships (just as with T3s) with open arms. I'd welcome decreasing, or even removing the ISK from insurance. I'd welcome changes that increase the costs of ships. But you all cry for risk, but if any of these changes would be introduced, we'd have another river of tears coming.

Now, where can we sign up for a petition to get this change out even sooner?



No it wont improve eve at all. Getting vets into smaller ships engaging in small combat presents a disadvantage to newer players (yes sp doesnt equal skill, but experience counts). But more to the point, getting rid of clone costs devalues death and makes pvp less meaningful. Since ship loss is not a barrier to vets (at least for typical subcap t1 hulls), death becomes meaningless for vets without clone costs. Whenever these changes have been done in other mmo's it has promoted negative conduct such as zerging and other largely thoughtless behavior.

Seems to me, that you are talking out of your ass. Are we even playing the same game?

Zerging? So a kitchen sink blob, where one only needs to be able to press F1 is not zerging? Narh, you are right. This has never happened in EVE. Removing clone costs will mean that ONLY NOW, blobs are introduced to EVE.

If anything, getting vets into smaller ships and enjoying smaller scale PvP, means exactly the opposite. Less blobs and hotdrops. More roaming around in smaller 10M ISK ships, that you won't have any issue losing or getting podded in. This change will mean more PvP, which is exactly what EVE needs to stay healthy. PvP is the ONLY thing EVE got going for itself. Without that, it is a very weak and clunky MMO, that really doesn't have anything that some other MMO doesn't do ten times better.

Yes, obviously will new players have a disadvantage than older players, like in ANY game. There exist no game, where older players doesn't have an advantage. Even with the same tools, older player will have an advantage based on experience alone. So tell me, how will this be any different from any other game out there? Having newbies flying around and actually getting some action (newbies will for the most part only fly small cheap ships) is much better, compared with newbies flying around space, not finding a single engagement and then leaves EVE cause they think the game is boring.


Dont see how you figure getting vets to fly smaller ships will led to less blobing. If anything it should lead to larger fleets since more ships are cheaper and essentially throw away. And zerging is not the same thing as blobing. At least to me, Zerging has always been dying and jumping right back into the fight without concern for death, which is a direct consequence of having a low death penalty.

You are kinda sort of right about eve only having pvp as its reason for being (the real world market would be my addition to your statement). But you are wrong about what makes Eve's pvp special. The mechanics of eve pvp at their basic level are pretty awful - approach, click in space, orbit, auto-shoot, there is simply nothing special about it. In truth, what makes eve pvp interesting is the meta game that goes with it. The real eve pvp is about the choices that folk make and the risks that they run in making those choices. Here, CCP is gutting the risk involved for the choices that vets make in engaging in pvp. By severally reducing the risk involved, ccp makes pvp less meaningful and therefore devalues what makes eve itself interesting.


Keep firing those truth lasers. Eventually the trolls will die.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#427 - 2014-11-22 00:05:15 UTC
What are your thoughts on AFK cloaking?
Arune Malieka
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#428 - 2014-11-22 00:08:03 UTC
Did she just ignore all the arguments given?
Jvpiter
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#429 - 2014-11-22 03:01:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jvpiter
13kr1d1 wrote:

Like I said, people spent SP to be able to fly everything, and now they're upset with the costs. Are they too stupid to use an alt to fight in frigs? Too greedy to make good long term decisions about what to train and not to train?


As I have quoted you in thread before, you are against the idea of relying on alts to address a game mechanic.


Since you seem to have run out of arguments, you keep mentioning alts as your only solution. That, and you seem to be smitten with World of Warcraft style classes where people have to make skill tradeoffs.


The tradeoff in EVE is time limited, not permanently locked away for a character.


I'm sure you will reply with some inflammatory one liner, but I'm enjoying your breakdown of coherence with each page added to the thread.

Call me Joe.
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#430 - 2014-11-22 03:10:24 UTC  |  Edited by: 13kr1d1
Jvpiter wrote:
13kr1d1 wrote:

Like I said, people spent SP to be able to fly everything, and now they're upset with the costs. Are they too stupid to use an alt to fight in frigs? Too greedy to make good long term decisions about what to train and not to train?


As I have quoted you in thread before, you are against the idea of relying on alts to address a game mechanic.


Since you seem to have run out of arguments, you keep mentioning alts as your only solution. That, and you seem to be smitten with World of Warcraft style classes where people have to make skill tradeoffs.


The tradeoff in EVE is time limited, not permanently locked away for a character.


I'm sure you will reply with some inflammatory one liner, but I'm enjoying your breakdown of coherence with each page added to the thread.


I'm aware you're trolling, but the issue is that people are complaining about the cost of losing a pod when they have access to alts. I don't think alts are good, but they're complaining while ignoring their own ability to combat the cost issue.

The only ones incoherent are the people with more ISK than sense in this thread.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
Arune Malieka
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#431 - 2014-11-22 03:17:08 UTC
She really is a master of this I must say.

22 pages later and I'd say we've cycled through the same arguments at least 5 times or so.
Jvpiter
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#432 - 2014-11-22 03:22:22 UTC
13kr1d1 wrote:


I'm aware you're trolling, but the issue is that people are complaining about the cost of losing a pod when they have access to alts. I don't think alts are good, but they're complaining while ignoring their own ability to combat the cost issue.

The only ones incoherent are the people with more ISK than sense in this thread.


Trained PVP alts are even more expensive than 80M pods, especially considering how many PVP disciplines there are.


How are you solving a prohibitive cost issue by suggesting a more expensive alternative?

Call me Joe.
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#433 - 2014-11-22 03:22:48 UTC
Arune Malieka wrote:
She really is a master of this I must say.

22 pages later and I'd say we've cycled through the same arguments at least 5 times or so.


People keep bringing up the same issue as if its new. It'll receive the same boilerplate response. Post on your main.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
Maekchu
Doomheim
#434 - 2014-11-22 03:28:30 UTC
Well, good thing is that removal of the clone costs WILL happen. So this discussion will change nothing.

So all in all, it doesn't really matter that the OP just ignores the counter arguments and calls everyone who oppose her views as trolls.

Truth lasers fired!
Arune Malieka
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#435 - 2014-11-22 03:37:35 UTC
13kr1d1 wrote:
Arune Malieka wrote:
She really is a master of this I must say.

22 pages later and I'd say we've cycled through the same arguments at least 5 times or so.


People keep bringing up the same issue as if its new. It'll receive the same boilerplate response. Post on your main.


*would look for her main, unfortunately she is literally only 3 months old and has less than a third of the isk most have at this point. So just sort of sits on the login page dreaming of what her alts might one day look like. surely they will be beautiful.*
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#436 - 2014-11-22 05:32:50 UTC
Maekchu wrote:
Well, good thing is that removal of the clone costs WILL happen. So this discussion will change nothing.

So all in all, it doesn't really matter that the OP just ignores the counter arguments and calls everyone who oppose her views as trolls.

Truth lasers fired!


Well normally I would agree, but ccp did back out of making sb decloak each other again so nothing is written in stone. But yea, if I was going to prognosticate, I would bet that clone changes are coming regardless of what we say. Of course CCP's direction lately has been short sighted and myopic, so its no surprise.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#437 - 2014-11-22 09:41:59 UTC
Arune Malieka wrote:
Did she just ignore all the arguments given?

the op fails to recognise that the function of a sub mmo is to support what players want to do and provide an engaging, entertaining experience

the op also fails to understand that medical clone bills are not an engaging or interesting mechanic

the op continually suggests 'options' that are inviable, tedious or an outright waste of time and sub money

the op seems to think that forcing players to do something they don't enjoy is a good mechanic for a sub mmo, or that just because a mechanic can be worked around means it's not a bad mechanic

so in answer to your question yes the op is sitting there with her fingers in her ears accusing others of trolling in a fallacious attempt to discredit them
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#438 - 2014-11-22 10:40:19 UTC
Pod death should result in SP loss. Just a small amount, but enough to make it a deterrent that you would not want to lose your pod.
FunGu Arsten
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#439 - 2014-11-22 11:28:19 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Pod death should result in SP loss. Just a small amount, but enough to make it a deterrent that you would not want to lose your pod.

the more you pvp the worse you become // i like your highsec attitude!
Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#440 - 2014-11-22 20:13:07 UTC
I know !

New clone insurance will cover basic cloning facilities. You will be charged monthly for coning services. If you do not play eve and make isk, you will accumulate debt. Then missions and plex are your only way out of this.

Second, basic clones will dethaw in 12 hours after podding. Upgraded clones will come back to life 3 hours after podding.

Premium clones will come with implants preinstalled (refunded) and come back to life within 15 minutes. This premium will cost 250 million per month.

This will be a huge ISK sink, CCP will restrain suicide scouting that way.

The elite works in Deep Core Mining.

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again