Clone Upgrade Bills: A Painful Throwback

Avatar
I agree to a certain extent, clone costs are a tad outrageous but I think theres a fine line between discouraging pvp because of economic factors and risk-free pvp. The potential to inflict massive losses and damage to someone is one of the things that makes eve great. tl;dr clone costs are a little silly, especially for people who die a lot =)
Avatar
EVE needs isk sinks. This is one of them.
Avatar
I am with you about the removal of the Insurance and I think it would be enough to lower the upgrade cost to a really low level ike to 1 million at maximum, removing them would be still far better!
Avatar
If you live in 0.0 don't the clone costs go to the alliance that holds the station ?
Avatar
Hitting insurance will basically make SRP impossible for smaller alliances, widening the gap between megacoalitions with tech and smaller alliance. For example, the alliance I am in manages to run a near total compensation SRP for ships lost in alliance fleets. However, looking at the finances, without insurance this would not be possible without securing additional revenue streams.Clone upgrade costs are explicitly not regressive, in that they are designed to make it comparatively easier for a new player to pvp than an old player. Making the accounts with inftybillionsp commit something when they go out to fight helps even the playing field, because the low sp player can afford to suicide a thousand rifters, the old player may have to be a little more careful, given his extra SP and presumably knowledge.Overall, this seems like it would be a giant "fuck you" to any newer (<1 yr) player and players without megacoalition membership.
Avatar
With age comes power and flexibility. Why should that not be offset with higher costs? As for a ship representing real investment and real time, if it's reimbursed then it wasn't your investment to start with, and whether you win, lose, or get blue balled, you're spending the time playing the game in any case.
Avatar
I factor in the insurance premium and payout into GSF's strategic doctrine reimbursements. I also endure a ton of complaints for doing so. You would not believe the number of people who either forget to insure,or have insured the same ship multiple times and not lost it. I personally have an apoc I've been carting around since we lived in Delve (circa 2009 battleship), that I've probably insured 5 or 6 times.What I'm saying is that while I agree the insurance system is dumb, it's effects are not as large as you would argue. 1) nobody remembers to insure every ship every time, 2) not every ship dies before the insurance expires.Also, I'm all for the current medical clone price system. It encourages pilots to create a new character on that account instead of continually training the one character. Tired of paying 20mil every time your main dies in an inty? Use one of your character slots and train an interceptor only character. Your argument would be stronger if you had one character per account, but we can have up to three. If you don't take advantage of that fact, the clone costs are on you.
Avatar
I disagee strongly width this. Im an old player with many millions of sp, and my clone cost rarely factors into my pvp choices.
Avatar
I would rather pay isk to upgrade my clone (insure my clone so to say) then lose skill points or some other longer term loss.
Avatar
More skillpoints already provide exponentially decreasing returns by the skill tree... It makes no sense that you should also pay exponentially MORE to maintain those skillpionts...
Avatar
I just broke the 100mil skillpoint barrier on my main. Clone costs are 20mil a clone (atm). This does play a factor in my PvP choices - I don't fly frigates anymore. They die too fast, and even after fittings and before implants they cost significantly less than my clone does. And in frigate pvp, you are far more likely to loose your clone than you are in cruiser/BS pvp. I will occasionally fly cruisers, but mostly I fly T2 ships/BC's/BS's/capitals, because they are more survivable, and if I die and loose those, at least the 20mil clone cost seems like a minor cost, instead of the major one.
Avatar
It ends up being a tax on PVP though. When your clone costs more than the ship it starts to dis-incentivize casual PVP.
Avatar
Nothing about learning implants? Isn't that a close issue to this one?
Avatar
My main is hovering right below 92mil SP. I rarely fly anything bigger than a cruiser. I give absolutely no fucks if I get podded because I'm having fun when I pvp. Get fucked you whiny "MY SUPERCAPITAL ENDGAME GOT NERFED :qq:" faggot.
Avatar
The issue is to get the same effect on that inty, you have to train a bunch of support skills up again. Get AWUs V again is not fun.
Avatar
By the time clone costs are a issue, you should have the skills to fund them, why reward players who can't understand the basic of making isk?, Is removing clone cost any really different from making a freighter gank proof in regard to mollycoddling bad players?
Avatar
Like how there are first world problem's this is EVE's "Bittervet's Problems". "I have so many skillpoints that the cost of replacing a clone is hurting my wallet". That is a problem that many players would LOVE to have. The truth is, when you have that much SP, making isk should be no problem at all, the cost of replacing a clone is trivial compared to your total wealth. Conversely, making Isk on a 7 digit SP count character is quite tough and replacing things like t1 battlecruisers can seriously dent our wallet, not to mention our lack of SP makes those ships very ineffectual. Removing insurance would probably price many newbies out of flying anything other than t1 frigates and maybe destroyers. Not everyone is in CFC or HBC and have access to sanctums or have corpmates shower them with isk on arrival, and a tiny amount of people canfund their activities on a lucky exploration find or scam, the majority of us have to PVE of some sort.
Avatar
I agree clone costs should be lowered just not removed. Still funny when someone forgets to upgrade their clone and lose a skill. It is not making the game any less hard or easy by having clones cost less then the ship you fly in.
Avatar
Don't forget about carriers and dreadnoughts. Losses are infrequent but the insurance clock is still ticking. Now that is a capital PvP tax alright. I'm sure it's a net isk sink. Why not overhaul it in a way that you're paying bills for every assembled ship you own instead of the tedious and stupid insurance system ?I hate the high cost on high SP clones too. And the jumpclone cooldown. Fuck that.
Avatar
Agreed clone costs are stupid, if you want to go on a cheap roam it's a nonsense that the clone cost is higher than the whole fit.
Avatar
I wish it was the case. Sadly, no.
Avatar
You're incredibly conflicted. So, you curse clone upgrade costs with the excuse that it disincents PvP, yet you call for the removal of ship insurance, something which by-and-large INCENTS PvP because people feel safer going out and getting their shit wrecked knowing that they'll have some form of reimbursement so they can go out and do it all over again.Your suggestions solve one small problem (remove clone cost differences to increase willingness to PvP in expensive clones) yet creates one massive problem in its place (removes built-in ship reimbursement to decrease willingness to PvP in expensive ships). Try harder.
Avatar
Thats a really good point, a 30m barebones medical clone when I'm flying a 20m assfrig is silly
Avatar
If you can't afford to replace battlecruisers and dont have the skills to use them well, here's a radical suggestion: fly something smaller
Avatar
Yeah and we have been for years, its just that lots of players are much older now and higher sp and if you die like 2-3 times a day, or at once in a big battle- you're looking at over 100m in clone costs
Avatar
Real men roam in alpha clones.
Avatar
While I agree that clone costs are a bit silly (I'm a few days away from breaking that 120m sp line), that isn't why I don't fly small ships. I agree that I don't fly small ships because they die easier. I don't like dying (not because of financial loss, clone costs, or implant loss) because it means I'm not in the fight anymore and thus, missing the fun. All those minutes/hour(s) of waiting for the fight and I'm back in station, sometimes unable to reach the battle, usually having to travel back in hopes of catching the tail end of the fight. Don't get me wrong, I find frigates and (especially) cruisers more fun to fly than any other ship in the game, but survivability usually wins out in the long run.That said, I wouldn't have it any other way. The risks and rewards of Eve are what keep me playing.
Avatar
Bubbles guaranteeing implant loss and needing to re-clone has made me shy away from null sec for a long time. I'm in a small corp, and I have to replace everything I use/lose myself. I can get better fights in Low sec most times anyway. The last time I went to null sec, I flew for 40 or so jumps, only to run into a saber-falcon bubble camp. They brought 20 ships to kill my drake as soon as I was tackled, jammed and unable to respond to my attackers in anyway, lost my ship, my pod and thus implants and had to buy new clone. Fuck that.
Avatar
The clone costs are not that much. I have to pay 20 mil a pod and still fly rifters. Why? Because I find it fun, the money isn't that bad. Hell with enough isk you can rat, PI, mine whatever to make money. The new guy isn't so lucky and has to work much harder. I never remember to insure my ships so I don't really have an opinion on it.
Avatar
I too feel that the clone upgrade costs are too high compared to ship costs and it seems like an unnecessary mechanic.They could just charge more to move your clone to a different station, or a fee to keep the clone in said station. They could also extend the reduced clone costs that FW systems get to null-sec for people that own that space. What about letting us clone jump more often but at an increasing ISK cost; first jump is free, every other jump within a week/month starts costing more.There are so many ways to implement ISK sinks, why make one that grows exponentially and 'penalizes' older players?
Avatar
I always pod myself when its not updated, I never pay too much
Avatar
An interesting article. I've got about 65mil SP, which means I pay 13mil per clone. There are plenty of situations as a PVPer where you absolutely must expect to lose a pod.So my expected loss from going out to null in a BC is 80mil + 13mil for a total of 93mil. If I instead go in a T1 frigate, my expected loss is 13mil +13mil for a total of 26mil. This sort of discourages cheap PVP, as having a minimum loss modifier of +13mil means that even taking a ship that is 6x cheaper is really only 3.5x cheaper once you consider the clone upgrade.This strikes me as a bit silly.
Avatar
I really don't think a lot of people are avoiding PvP purely because of medical clone costs. Perhaps a constant PvPer would avoid a few fights to avoid paying another clone fee, but a lifetime mission runner or industrialist isn't likely to list "medical clone costs" as a reason to not "take the plunge and get into PvP". It's also just plain oxymoronic to pretend that getting rid of insurance wouldn't be an even greater disincentive on anything larger than a cruiser than clone costs have every been.Clone costs are one of the few progressive sinks in the game. The potential that long-term players could be avoiding certain kinds of PvP is not a crisis worthy of smashing the sink.
Avatar
Something to think about: If you can't afford to replace your clone, stop skilling and creat an alt.
Avatar
I am posting a more in depth article about this later, but the gist is that a newbie that specs into frigates will not have a reliable source of income. T1 battlecruisers are fairly easy to get into and get a newbies cashflow going. Skilling into what is cheap doesn't earn good money, skilling into money earners and your ability to fly cheap stuff is hampered.The main point is for bittervets to take a step back and look at the situatio described in the article. When you have so much SP that replacing a clone costs more than the disposible ship you wanted to fly. When the problem that others have is having so little SP that you can't fly ships that you want, can't fly/fit ships that can increase your income. And the ships you can fly are ineffective because of poor support skills and being nerfed because they are too "price effective". The changes proposed in the article would mean that newbies would be unable to afford flying anything bigger than a destroyer for the first 6 months of EVE. Think what that would do to retention rates.
Avatar
The biggest problem for many people is not the cost, but the travel time and medical service.
Avatar
Amazing how some people read the comments INSTEAD of the article.
Avatar
So... how does the cost of skillbooks factor into this article's viewpoint?
Avatar
For pvp-focused people who don't want to dick around with social engineering or market trading or PI or similar boring nerd shit*, isk/hour begins to plateau around the point you can fly battlecruisers on that character. Income generating ability doesn't scale in lockstep with SP.* pve is boring and it sucks, but at least you're in space and might get shot at
Avatar
And why should it be clone upgrades and not in another place?
Avatar
i for one would loke to see clone costs plateau somewhere, and not just keep going up.
Avatar
What you want it to be? Pay isk at every docking
Avatar
Have a free clone period for the first 5 million SP then charge 5mil a pod.
Avatar
What I'm hearing: I don't want to do any of the parts of the game that generate an income, but I don't want to have to pay the price for choosing to avoid those things.
Avatar
If you need an inty fitting that requires AWU V, you should consider the very cheap +1% or +2% pg implants.
Avatar
honestly, the whole pod thing needs to be reworked or abandoned.i'm in favor of ship crews to replace clones and implants, whilst adding to gameplay in other areas.
Avatar
While the goon philosophy may be to inflict massive losses, a pirate's philosophy is to inflict massive gains on themselves. Removing clone 'upgrades' costs will remove a fair amount of a pirates income, and limit their ability to negotiate ransom amounts based on age. To put it bluntly, your lemon is a pirate's lemonade.I'm not sure I'm in favor of this change.
Avatar
He also flies an imaginary internet spaceship, but refers to industry in the same virtual world as "nerd shit*". That's like the Silo calling the Reaction-array black.
Avatar
lex malcanis in massive effect there
Avatar
you pay 30 mill a clone at that level, pretender
Avatar
Then the ~consequence~ is that I'm forced not to fly a paper thin 5Mill ISK ship (which is actually bloody good fun) because CCP thinks I should pay 6 times the ship value when I die.Why should I pay a higher consequence than anybody else in the game. I not only wake up in a clone somewhere else without my ship and modules - I also have to buy a ridiculously expensive clone. The only suggestion you have is to stop training my character or buy another account or not fly the nicely rebalanced T1 frigs. How is that remotely fair and balanced or "good for the game"?
Avatar
I don't are about the clone cost but what i want is for the game to AUTOMATICLY upgrade my clone to correct level if i get podded. .....this is idiotic that i have to remember to do that my self. and its a barrier for new players i know of six player who forgot to upgrade there clone after a fight and lost SP and skills and losing an important skill is sad... and very anoying when you lose an important one. (i have lost Amarr Cruiser x5 once and suddenly i couldnt sit my curse and legion anymore).if im a clone Xeta and get poded i probl. want to get in to a clone Xeta again not a 900 000 sp Alfa clone as an example. just automaticly upgrade the clone to the previous level and bill for it.On the insurance value of the ships have always been way of i would appriciate if there was a way you could insure your pod so if you get podded you would atleast get some of the isk back from the implants.
Avatar
When dealing with cloning, lore has to be dealt with. Lore explains why things are so in the game, whether they make any sense or not. Lore also provides the underlying philosophy behind otherwise seemingly silly concepts. To get an idea of the lore behind cloning, the following link may be useful.http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/w...If the lore of the game is not valid, then I guess it can be changed. But lore does need to be considered when dealing with cost.
Avatar
What a terrible, ill-thought-out proposal. Reducing the risk for older players (through clone cost removal) and 'balancing' that by increasing the barrier to newer players (through removing insurance) flies directly in the face of what makes PvP in Eve great.If you have more SP, then you should have greater abilities, and the advantages that come with that. If, however, you don't want to risk your precious, high skilled clone, and want to fly something low skill/cheap....train up a new character. You don't get to have the advantage of all those SPs without risking something extra! Everything is as it should be.It's the risk that makes Eve what it is. And don't think for a minute that offering up bullshit insurance payments as a sacrificial cow is in any way balancing. That's just about shifting risk from older players to newer ones (who are more likely to have a greater proportion of their ship's total value insurable.)Also it's 'tenet' not 'tenant,.
Avatar
The ransoming is more due to peoples implants than the price on a new clone. You can still ransom peoples +5 implants. The 20 million per clone (my current) gets expensive when you're fighting in sabres or intercepters and gets podded for the 10th time in an evening.
Avatar
It is an isk sink, yes. It's also an obstacle that makes people not play the game in all it's facets. What is worth more to ccp? The sink could easily be distributed to other mechanics instead. For instance by lowering/removing insurance.
Avatar
Clone upgrades are seen as a direct expense. It has a psychological effect on the users. Reduced insurance does not. Especially in the light that t2 ships have very low payout anyway. Ships such as interceptors and dictors have a laughable insurance payout that might as well be removed.
Avatar
I never insure anything. If I insure a ship it doesn't dies until after the insurance runs out.
Avatar
"Even more encouraging is pilots who have shied away from combat their whole career as a capsuleer. Currently if they want to give it a go, it comes at a heavy price tag."So when you write these things, do you actually believe them, or is this CSM electioneering? Do you really believe someone who has run missions or mined their whole EVE career and accumulated a mountain of SP, is shying away from PvP because of clone costs? Really? This is what, all of 10 people?
Avatar
Great solution, professor.
Avatar
I assume if you've got the skill to fly a capital class ship, you be able to rat and do sites in null a hell of a lot quicker than some 3 month newbie in battlecruiser.Skill points raises abilities, unless you've dumping all your skillpoints in a field that you don't use, this should lead to improvement in your ability to make income. Additional if you've been playing the game long enough to drive a capital, you should have set up some passive and semi passive income sources that bring in a nice steady amount of isk.If you been playing the game to the point capital ships are a realist choice and haven't managed to get your income working well enough to cover clone costs.. then really you failing at isk generation as badly as a afk miner in a untanked retriever during war dec does at pvp.Station trading a fun one I find for semi passive isk generation, take a big pile of stuff from Jita, then dump it on market in a quiet system for markup. Its often 30 minutes work and slowly releases isk over what can be quiet extend frame. Have enough stuff on the market and you'll start making nice healthy daily profits before too long.
Avatar
How about this for a counter-proposal: Multiply all clone upgrade prices by its tier (alpha x1, beta x2, gamma x3, etc.) ... BUT that clone grade is permanent until you upgrade it again. In other words the clone that originally cost you 30mil will now be 600mil, but when your pod goes pop, you wake up in a 120m sp clone. You re-ship, undock and go pop again, you wake up in a 120m sp clone... and so on. If you can afford the 3.75bil for the top tier clone upgrade, you never have to worry about your clone again! At the same time, new players making their first clone upgrade to beta spends 80k isk (reasonable for the newbs).If you are trained above your current clone level and go pop, you will still lose those skillpoints above your clone grade as per normal. Then the old vets can hop into a rifter without feeling the pressure of losing 30m for getting podded.As a transitional workaround until everyone gets into a permanent clone, you will be allowed to continue to purchase one-time clones at the current rates until you buy a permanent clone. Once you purchase a permanent clone upgrade, the one-time clone option will no longer be available to you.In this way, this clone issue gets transformed from a PvP tax (as if losing a ship and/or implants isn't punishment enough) to a balanced isk sink for all. If looked at in a certain way, this would cost the carebears a lot more because they probably won't go through 20-25 poddings between upgrades!
Avatar
But your argument doesn't justify why I should pay a higher clone cost other than ~because I can~. I repeat - Paying massive amounts of ISK for a clone on top of implant costs and everything else is just silly. Its a dis-incentive to T1 pvp
Avatar
I don't think that's unreasonable considering the amount of time you have been playing the game. I would like to think you can afford it.
Avatar
No. Older players have it good enough as it is skill point wise and most of the time ISK wise. They can't have this too. I would have no problem paying x10 more ISK a clone as a 100m+ sp character than a new character because I have so many things they don't. That's like saying we should tax the rich the same as the poor, it's fundamentally wrong.Nice idea, appreciate you taking the time to write it and I was happy to read your argument.
Avatar
Because you should be richer, just like a player dong level 4 missions should be more aware that ganks are very real.Eve is a complex games with different areas effecting each other in different ways, do want a Eve were carebears do missions in safe bubbles and null sec is full of respawn free ships were people pvp without ever touching a market or something?
Avatar
I will agree to this when blood/pod/suicide jumping is no longer available. In terms of force projection this will make it SO much easier... and that's not exactly what Eve needs right now is it?
Avatar
If only your premise of "High SP = High earning potential" were accurate. Sadly, for your argument, those two things are not directly connected. A character from 2003/4 owned by a weekend warrior gamer can have well over a 100 mil SP yet have little more realized income earning potential than your 7 digit SP noob pilot because earning potential in EVE is linked to available ingame time (spent actually playing) and not total time (spent training). If the weekend warrior doesn't have the time to spend ratting, mining or PI/manufacturing then all those millions of skill points has zero effect on ISK earned.
Avatar
Not a bad article. I agree that the med/skill clone cost is probably not helping combat. I don't think insurance is a big deal though and think removing it might not produce the desired outcome.*and not to be that guy but* there were some editing issues that detracted from the article overall as in one or two cases the word used didn't fit into the context of the sentence/paragraph.
Avatar
I think insurance is fine, but default payouts need to be reduced if not removed outright. Clone upgrades are a bit silly, and if their removal warrants the addition of another ISK sink, there are plenty of avenues (NPC station manufacturing slot fees, anybody?)
Avatar
I disagree with the flat removal of insurance. I'd go for it being limited to peaceful ships only.As for the theoretical abuse of no insurance. It's a bloody daft and extreme trumped up concern. Who would do this and what benefit? Either-way, implementing the setting of your medical clone to have a 24hour cool down solves the problem (the mechanics of which are already in game and acceptable).Do agree pods and the increasing insurance costs is meh.
Avatar
Stop thinking like that. You're wrong. Many people have to use corp ships because they are unable to keep up. 100mill could be 20mill more than they have in their wallets.
Avatar
God forbid that we take ships out on drunk roams and lose them gloriously. DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING!More seriously, removing ship insurances radically changes the cost-effectiveness balance between T1 and T2 ships, and causes a serious skill inflation issue.
Avatar
As far as suicide podding goes, the clone cost can be related to pod death frequency. Also, decreasing the damn Jump Clone timer should be decreased. Even to 12 hours is fine by me.
Avatar
Bullshit. Insurance has massive psychological value.
Avatar
Just make it so that you can't change your med clone station more than once every 24 hours, just like Jump Clones. Done.Basically turns death cloning into a poor-mans Jump Clone that also nukes implants. Seems fair to me.
Avatar
Marlona Sky, a well-known goonswarm membercripes
Avatar
? a goon saying that it may be wrong to not let people play the game in all it's facets???? :O should hmm ice interdictions come to mind
Avatar
That was playing the game.
Avatar
You don't have to pay a higher clone cost - you could just fly around in an alpha clone and get rid of those annoying extra unused skill points.
Avatar
You think 30m is rough? Try 45m. Huge jump and has pretty much priced me out of flying fun frigates or the suicidal interdictors. Where I used to be involved in combat several times a day, I just stick to necessary CTAs these days.
Avatar
Seriously? Unless you're one of the year 1 purchases with over 92,500,000 SP your Sigma clone only costs 20 million. I say "only 20 million" as a year old player because I routinely fly around in Null with 20-30mil of implants in my head.The guy with close to 100,000 SP isn't worrying about the clone cost, he's worrying about the 1.6 billion Slave set in his capital clone, or the full set of +5s in his learning clone.or the 6% hardwirings in his Marauder clone.If you've been in this game more than a year and aren't sitting on at least a billion liquid ISK your doing it wrong.As for insurance, CCP should definitely remove insurance from Capital ships, but insurance is at a good place for subcaps. It takes the bite off a loss when you fly tech 1 ships, particularly when your new and fitting meta 0, while offering basically nothing towards the people flying shiny Tech 2 ships.
Avatar
You've got three clones per account. Use em.
Avatar
So your answer is start over?! How does that make for compelling game play?
Avatar
play for 10 years, have huge amounts of isk then whine about clone costs. go cry more :P
Avatar
I think you are missing the point of the article.
Avatar
I think it would be great if every item in the game was player made, but they are not. Granted buying skill books is a huge ISK sink, far more than clone upgrades, if CCP was able to find a way to weave in the ISK sink for players to create the skill books and sell on the market themselves, I would be for that.But to answer your question, skill book cost does not factor into the article at all.
Avatar
Okay then, your proposal is great in that you have to pay additional cost for additional advantage. In order to make any sense, let's make it so that cost of clone you have to pay if podded depends on skills you actually used, not total SP. My vast BC/BS skills offer no advantage to me when I'm flying an AF and I refuse to pay for them as if I was using them. I agree on insurance part though, an author clearly disregarded newer players while thinking that out. On a related note, stop promoting already strong alt gameplay. CCP's financial problems aren't mine.
Avatar
I thought about digging into the several flaws with the current clone upgrade system in detail in my article, but cut them out to make for a shorter read. I did not want to go into great detail and really wanted to focus on the benefits of removing them completely. In high insight, I should have left them in to make for a stronger argument for their removal.That said, I will highlight some of them now in this post:First off, the formula works of an exponential curve. So while the ISK to skill points coverage is very high at early clones, over time it becomes less and less. For example at the first clone you pay 40 thousand ISK to cover 1.38 million skill points. That is 34.5 skill points for each ISK. Pretty good. Now look at the clone upgrades further down. The clone upgrade I currently am using is the one that cost 45 million ISK and covers 156 million skill points. That is 3.47 skill points for each ISK. A massive difference.Another thing not to be ignored is why that clone covers up to 156 million skill points, I am not using 156 million skill points. I am paying for a 156 million clone to cover 127 million skill points. So when I went from 120,000,000 skill points to 120,000,001 - having to use the 156 million skill point clone put me at 2.4 skills per ISK.Finally in the time it takes me to fully utilize the cheapest clone to cover my skill points, a new player will have had 13 different clones to pick from that matches their current skill points. So not only does the ratio of ISK per skill become more and more expensive, your number of options to choose from becomes very limited on what best fits your current number of skill points.Even with training skills at 2,610 sp/hr with +4 implants; it will take me over a year and a half to utilize the full potential of the clone I'm already paying for now.What people need to realize is that while the clone upgrades works on an exponential curve, a players income does NOT. The goal of my article was to remove all this silly formula complexity for the sake of complexity and to offset ISK facets with ISK sinks and open the door to allow for more action in space. Action that is not bias on how long you have been playing the game.Some of you say the clone upgrade for veteran players needs to be super steep so it helps the younger players have a chance in PvP. Tell me then. If I am fighting a younger player, how does me sporting a 45 million ISK clone 'help' that other player in blowing me up? The simple fact is it is irrelevant during combat. When it does become relevant is the decision making on if that older player is going to engage the younger player at all and what ship they decide to bring. Already you can see players commenting on being priced out of flying certain ships. Choosing not to engage at all in some cases. At least not till they have incredibly overwhelming odds so they wont lose their pods.And the other factor not to be ignored is when clone upgrade costs deter combat so much, nothing is being risked. I am not looking to create meaningless PvP. I am looking to discourage 'no PvP'. After all, this is a PvP game. Risking a ship, fitting and implants is good enough. Penalizing players even further because they keep playing the game discourages that ship, fitting and implants from undocking - is simply appalling.Anyways, sorry about the insanely long comment, but I had some issues with getting my Disqus account to work and was unable to chime in after the article was posted. Side note is that using the insurance removal as an example of where to shift the clone upgrade ISK sink was a bad call, but there is plenty of other areas it can go to that would make sense. That said, I firmly believe a total removal of clone upgrades is needed.
Avatar
Um, I was actually one of those supporting nerfs to titans and super carriers. Even while flying one.
Avatar
That is what I was thinking.
Avatar
"Also it's 'tenet' not 'tenant'."Not sure how I missed that. Good catch! As far as your idea of training more alts, that is terrible.
Avatar
"If you've been in this game more than a year and aren't sitting on at least a billion liquid ISK your doing it wrong"So if everyone was to be 'doing it right' where does all this extra ISK come from so everyone can have a billion ISK in their wallet?
Avatar
An automatic system to pay for the clone upgrades would be very welcome. Who actually makes the decision to NOT upgrade their clone? Any kind of skill point loss is always someone forgetting. Still, it would not address the other main issues I brought up in the article.
Avatar
The cost actually do the opposite. Instead of a plateau, you it turns into a cliff.
Avatar
Ok its pretty simple why a more expedience player should be able to afford a pricey clone easier.1) Make isk via pve quicker, because your skills are better. For example a earlier level 4 mission runner might slowly struggle through with a drake. A high skill one can just blitz via a tengu.2) They will have more options to create isk at a higher rate (like a freighter instead of a tech 1 industrial, passive isk from research agents and PI)3) Have a larger amount of isk in general to throw around from unused isk, allowing them to make investments with larger profit margins (capital ship production springs to mind.)I'm not saying this will be true of everyone, there will be those guys who invest there skill points poorly into stuff they don't need or use, as well as the obvious cases of people who just don't know how to use the isk. But the second one especially more a culture issue than a design issue, like overbling a mission runner and then complaining about being ganked.Another case in point, look at the Greedy Goblin, while he's a example of a highly skilled played, he's not that skillpoint rich, but he's rolling in the isk because he knows how to use it.
Avatar
This person is very unimaginative. I look at clone cost as a reflection if the advancement of neural pathways in the clone brain. Learning is a very complex process, to artificially simulate the process has to be expensive. The more you know, the more costly it is to implant skills.i would also imagine that an old mind is awfully hard to reproduce inside a young head.
Avatar
Clones are to expensive, period!
Avatar
It only makes nullsec more viable if you also buff nullsec manufacturing -- increase the number of lines at station or vastly improve the pos industry interface (by e.g. making it possible to control pos assembly at station and automove goods from station <-> pos for a fee (more isk sink!))
Avatar
... And if you don't get podded, then that cost wouldn't have happened anyway.
Avatar
I pretty much stopped going to null in cheapo ships after i reached the upsilon level clone because i don't have the time to grind up another 45mill ISK per T1 frigate/cruiser i can manage to lose in a day.
Avatar
I like your idea, however completely removing the penalty of getting podded might not be the way to go.
Avatar
Ones ability to earn ISK contra the players SP level stops increasing after a point. If we were to take mission running as an example, a 20 mill sp character focused on flying the perfect mission tengu can perform just as well as the +100mill SP veteran can.
Avatar
Losing all your implants (if any), and getting removed from the field of battle is penalty enough.
Avatar
Yes and no, it just means older players are more likely to join there younger corp mates in suicide ganks & t1 frigate pvp.
Avatar
"the most common reason I see players proclaim is the "hardcore" factor. It reminds players they are playing game based in a cold and dark universe. That there are consequences for your actions /.../ Anyone that has played past the trial period realizes this game is not for the faint of heart. Hopefully, they have come to realize that losing a ship represents real investment and real time".Isn't that the exact opposite of what EVE has become?Incidentally, that is also the reason why clone costs (and restrictions on the jump clones) are absurd: it's ridiculous to pay 100m for a clone (or micromanaging implant sets over 24h timers) when the game is heading in a direction of flying ships worth pocket-change: and the credible argument that could be made for dealing with the clones.This wouldn't be an issue if the encouragement wasn't to get into Tech I Cruisers for pointless explosion, as development belive softer consequence lead to more explosions that in turn is belived to lead to more content and better new player retention.Obviously, that entire strain of logic is false and only leads to disparities in economy, scaling issues, shallow progression and less content with more demand where it occures that do more to scare off any sensible new player that seek interaction than it does to retain whatever pampered player that is the target of encouragement here.That leads back to the original argument: yes, clone costs are absurd given ship-design and current game direction - though is the problem the clone costs or the (ship-) design direction?
Avatar
This change, I like it. Another!!
Avatar
EVE is hardcore. It's not WoW. If you want a cheap death, go play WoW.
Avatar
It has no psychological value. I am a former black ops, dictor, interceptor, bomber, and just about every other small easily popped ship pilot. I have flown more missions; lost more ships; than I care to admit to. After the first 20 or so ships, I stopped insuring them. It was pointless, the pay out barely covered the cost of getting new modules, much less the ship itself. The ONLY thing that kept me flying these ships was reimbursement from my Corp or Alliance, and you only got that if you flew that ship during a Fleet mission. So no, insurance played no part in my descision. Unless you consider the fact that insure paid too little to be worth getting.
Avatar
Agreed, playing the game for longer shouldn't mean you can't enjoy the simpler things.Sent from Ben Hocking's mobile.

(Editor's Note:This submission comes to us from Marlona Sky, and speaks to an issue close to our hearts: the sheer silliness of escalating clone costs with character age, which unquestionably disincentivizes PvP in a PvP game. We do not agree with Marlona's argument that insurance should also be removed, but we print it anyway in the interests of promoting discussion.)

And so you were podded. Ship destroyed, modules looted by those who just crushed you and your implants are vaporized. Now it is time to pay for being a loyal customer. The longer you have played, the more you pay. This is how I view the clone upgrade cost. Perhaps this slap to the face for playing the game so long is that 'cold and dark universe' CCP was talking about. Oh, here is a check from the insurance company for taking my ship into combat. Gives a nice warm and fuzzy feeling. I wonder how The Secure Commerce Commission could still be in business if the total of the premiums is far less than what they pay out. Bizarre indeed.

Time to eliminate both.

I'm going to cover three major impacts such a change would have - economical, psychological and game play. All three affect each other.

 

The Economic Impact

So why the upgrade cost to begin with? Aside from the obvious ISK sink factor, the most common reason I see players proclaim is the "hardcore" factor. It reminds players they are playing game based in a cold and dark universe. That there are consequences for your actions. This is not WoW or some other, where you go “Oh I died. Let me go get my gear and everything is wonderful again. Oh look a field of daises to frolic in.” Anyone that has played past the trial period realizes this game is not for the faint of heart. Hopefully, they have come to realize that losing a ship represents real investment and real time. I hardly think adding an additional slap to the face for the sake of it is necessary to remind them this game is hardcore. Aside from the sky rocketing cost, it becomes an additional task to do after you die and before you can rejoin a fight. Mandatory extra mouse clicks. Gross.

Some argue, "With age, comes wealth." This is simply untrue. In fact one can make a fortune in their first days through scamming and other such ventures such as a lucky drop from an exploration site. Some random wreck left to the void from a recent battle, you just happened to pass by and find some expensive module. Not every player is devoting tons of time to the game becoming a second job. Many players boil down to weekend warriors, only having a few hours a week to play, even after years and years of subscribing.

Without further delay, on to the removal of ship insurance. Completely. Not only is insurance on something that is flown into combat absurd, it injects ISK into an already bloating economy. Granted, insuring a ship is an initial ISK sink, but the payout is far more. How many times have you insured a ship and near the end you feel compelled to take it out on a drunk roam so it will die gloriously, all so the insurance will not expire in vain? It's stupid and pointless, and if we get rid of it we can remove one more faucet and do that much more to combat ISK inflation.

 

The Psychological Impact

Players who want to fly small and fragile ships are constantly punished due to the ship's low survivability. If a fleet needs interceptors for tackle, critical interdictors, even T1 frigates and cruisers, older players shy away from such roles due to the low survivability. Players should not be dissuaded from flying a ship or filling a role all due to how long they have been playing the game. Some have argued a player can always stop training a character before they hit a clone upgrade cost they feel is out of their budget and start-up another character. So this is the choice? More alts? What kind of message does that send? So now you are training another character who will spend a vast amount of time and skill points retraining core skills your first character already has trained. That is simply poor game design and the players should not be subjected to find workarounds that at best are still terrible.

With the shackles of clone upgrades gone, players will find themselves flying a larger variety of ships and flying them more often. Even more encouraging is pilots who have shied away from combat their whole career as a capsuleer. Currently if they want to give it a go, it comes at a heavy price tag. We all know that PvP and PvE are vastly different in terms of tactics, ship selection and setups. As an older player trying to make the switch, they will suffer sever setbacks and have a higher chance to give up on PvP fast. There are so many people shouting at high sec players for avoiding combat with other players, the older they get, the more likely they will continue to avoid it more. This change will remove the ever thickening wall and open a door, a door for them to become more involved in the more explosive and adrenaline pumping part of the game some of us already enjoy.

 

The Gameplay Impact

By now you have noticed all three topics have overlapped a bit and hopefully you understand the butterfly effect here. This change may not introduce brand new game play, but will help highlight and promote smaller fleet action more often. There might be a few of you who will proclaim that such changes would greatly benefit older players while the younger ones would barely notice. Here is why they are wrong.

An older player, encouraged to ship down and fly a small frigate, is using only a very small portion of his skillpoints. After all, how many skill points you have in battleship or HAC related skills are completely irreverent if you are in a frigate? If you look at the younger player in a frigate, the disparity in skill points between the vet and them is much smaller than it might be if they were in larger ships, something that may shrug the frigate off or tank long enough for friends to bail out the vet. The odds have increased for the younger player to win the fight.

Some might argue here that the removal of insurance would work against the removal of clone costs and dissuade pilots, especially smaller ones, from PvPing. That before long, they'd only be able to afford an Ibis. I disagree - a central tenant of PvP in EVE is to "fly only what you can afford to lose." Conveniently, frigates, even to a young player, are very affordable.

“And what about suicide podding to go anywhere?”

One thing the current clone cost measures do is prevent (or at least limit) suicide podding to bounce all over the game. If CCP is concerned with this, they've got a bunch of creative developers, and I'm sure they could find a way to mitigate it. On the other hand, implants and hardwirings still certainly exist, so perhaps the loss of ability to use those would be penalty enough. What's important is that players would no longer be penalized for how long they've played the game, hopefully encouraging more pilots to take the plunge and get into PvP.

I have been exploding internet spaceships since 2005. While I do love me a good large scale fight, I thoroughly enjoy small scale PvP as well.