|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Skex Relbore
Space Exploitation Inc
166
   |
Posted - 2012.07.18 18:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Honestly I'd like to see the clone cost substantially reduced or eliminated. I'd also like toe see all training implants removed and a flat 5 points added to every attribute.
Replace learning implants with combat implants that would give a benefit worth of risking them rather than simply being a impediment to having fun.
All the Risk this ISK sink that nonsense is well.. nonsense. The fact is that if an expensive clone is causing someone to not PVP then it's not acting as an isk sink at all because for it to be a sink it has to actually be spent and if you don't go into risky situations because of that disincentive then the isk sink effect is the same as if the clone cost didn't exist at all.
The people who oppose such a change are the same short sited dipshit's who complain about risk aversion encouraging blobbing and carebearism. It's the same stupid mentality that leads to people thinking that if L4 missions were moved to low sec only that there would be a sudden influx of stupid carebear's flying faction fit pirate battleships into low sec (isn't going to happen).
An activity is only a risk if people actually engage in it. The only real result that comes from expensive clones is that high sp players are more risk averse. they're less likely to engage in PVP period and when they do they're going to more likely to blob and select fights where they face little if any challenge.
Ships are a good thing to risk. It's something an individual player can control, you can risk anything from a few hundred thousand to well a hell of a lot depending on what you take out into combat. Want to be reckless and just go hop on anything and everything, grab a Rifter with T1 modules and knock yourself out. Want to risk big and increase your chance of victory grab that officer fit faction ship and tear it up.
Clones on the other hand are not mitigated by player choice you can't say screw it I want to go on a suicide roam unless you've ensured that you've got the cost of a new clone in the bank otherwise you'd best stay docked until you can get some more isk. I'd far rather that isk be spent on ships and modules that I could blow up than sit idle in someone's wallet because they're unwilling to risk their clone.
Implants aren't quite as bad, but coupled with the 24hr Jump Clone timer create a major disincentive to taking risk. Implants in particular affect lower skill point players (read newer) since they have more limited options and thus the most driving desire for new skills as quickly as possible. So low SP players have the most (need/desire) for high value learning implants but generally fewer options to pay for them thus less likely to actually go out and have fun and more likely to sit around waiting for skills to train. Back when I had a couple million SP and new skills opened up new items and opportunities rapidly I cared far more about my skill point acquisition speed than I do now with 60mil sp and the ability to fly pretty much everything I want competently and most skills take weeks to train. I tend to roll with a couple +4s (if I can find them) or +3s if I can't nowadays but I used to live in high sec in a +5 clone and the hunger for more sp/options coupled with the 24hr JC timer kept me screwing about in high sec much longer than if that hadn't been a concern.
This insistence on meaningless disincentives to risk taking leads to most of the ill that people complain the about in this game, Blobbing, ganking, lack of targets, clinging to high sec, you name a complaint odds are you can trace the bulk of it it back to silly mechanics like clone costs and learning implants. Sure you can't make someone who's completely risk averse change their behavior but you can shift those on the margins. I know I'd have been (hell would be) far more reckless if I didn't have to keep those two concerns in mind.
Eliminate both, if you must have an idiot test to force people through, make the cost equivalent to that required to change home stations or install jump clones that way they still risk SP if they forget to update their clone and we can laugh that much more at them since they really didn't have an excuse. Replace learning implants with combat implants and a flat 5 point increase to all attributes and encourage more players to go into situations their pods aren't likely to survive earlier and more often. . |
Skex Relbore
Space Exploitation Inc
173
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 04:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:So it's not that you can't afford it. You just don't want to  Yeah sorry bro, no sympathy here. Especially not over such a petty sum. If top end clones cost half a bill or something then yeah, but the reality is that 45 mill should be a trivial sum. If it isn't, you can stop training before your clone cost gets high (I've diverted my skill training to alts and am lurking just under the 92.5M mark) If you're still training, you probably have at least a rack of +4s, and maybe some hardwires - these will cost at least as much as you clone and most likely a fair bit more.
My clones are only 13 mil and it's not a trivial sum to my wallet. It may not prevent me from PVPing that combined with 40+ mil in implants does affect how I play and the risks I take and I'm not a particularly risk averse player.
I had honestly expected a more rational position from you. As I stated up thread the idea that these mechanics serve any purpose other than to discourage risk taking is idiotic. All they do is discourage people from playing and encourage blobbing and ganking. If you've ever been pissed about getting blobbed you have no business supporting either of these stupid mechanics.
People are too damned risk averse in this game, Hell it's the source of most of the bitter vet tears, "OMG, why won't those carebears won't fly under my guns and give me easy kills."
Gee maybe just maybe stupid outdated poorly thought out mechanics that discourage playing the game might have something to do with it.
Personally I'd far rather that vet with the 45 million isk clone spend that isk on 10 fitted rifters that could actually generate some game play than in the service of some silly e-bushido "people must risk **** for my game to have meaning" bullshit.
If an isk sink is so damned important just bump the market transaction fees a fraction of % it would have a far greater affect on the isk supply than what people spend keeping their docked clones up to date. |
Skex Relbore
Space Exploitation Inc
176
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Billyboy Joe wrote:Yes, but you guys have to understand that there are costs in building a new clone.
Biomass, expensive machinery, intricate bioengineering, who pays for that?
If you can't afford it perhaps you shouldn't be skilling up.
Realism argument fails because it doesn't cost the same to change home stations or install a jump clone. What you think they actually load your clone up in an industrial and ship it from your old station to the new one? How to you reconcile this with jump clones? If "realism" was something that mattered to the developers every clone would cost the same since they'd all have to meet the same specifications to work.
It's not though. It's purely a game-play mechanic that was put in place because death penalties were a major THING when this game was in development they wanted to put a "Gotcha" in that people could screw up to reinforce their "cold harsh universe" theme.
It also wasn't much of a big deal back when most players had fewer than 50 mil sp and clone costs were still pretty reasonable it could almost have been considered a rational decision when the game was developed since there was no actual experience with how the mechanic would work. In concept it's fairly sound stronger character should cost more because they should lose less. But the game mechanics often have unintended consequences that aren't always obvious to the developers when they dream them up. Players can be real damned creative particularly when you put enough of them together.
I don't know exactly what consequence the developer who implemented this mechanic intended or what their vision of how the game would/should look when they dreamed it up. For all we know they thought that people would be too reckless and aggressive if there wasn't some sort of governor on their behavior.
What I can say for certain is that this mechanic discourages risk taking, I don't know how much it discourages it. But I know that it does. And frankly I don't see any benefit from this system that actually justifies it's existence. It's effects as an isk sink are trivial at best and any "risk" it injects can not be mitigated in any way other than to not play or to blob the hell out of your opponent and ensure that you never pick a fight you aren't guaranteed to win.
When it comes to ship loss you can tailor your risk. You can fly anything from a free noob ship to an officer fit Titan, how much you risk is only limited by your will and wallet. Clone costs on the other hand are fixed thus they put a hard floor on what you can choose to "risk". Thus you quickly get into scenarios where the rational choice is to not take that RISK because there isn't sufficient REWARD to justify it. |
Skex Relbore
Space Exploitation Inc
177
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 00:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ron Maudieu wrote:Can't afford to lose your pod? Then don't undock. 
That's exactly what people are doing which is the problem. They either don't undock and there for don't PVP or they only engage when they are at no actual risk of loss as in in large blobs or severely uneven ganks.
The idea is to get people to undock and don't give me that "why don't we just make ships free too" it's not the same thing, because different ships do actually offer different capabilities depending on what you spend on them and hell if you really want you can use a free ship (hello newb ship) so it's not comparable. |
Skex Relbore
Space Exploitation Inc
183
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 07:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
JC Anderson wrote:If costs are a problem, then just jump into a Rifter, or a Stabber.
Shouldn't be beyond the means for anybody even after clone costs.
Have you actually read the thread? The point is that having an expensive clone discourages that option. That as much fun as it would be to take risks and fly fun cheap ships it doesn't make much sense when your clone costs more than 10 fully T2 fit rifters.
That while the argument "just jump in something cheap" works when it comes to ship choice, that the argument falls apart once you try to apply it to medical clones. Because you can't just choose to use a cheaper medical clone and this well just make an alt nonsense is a bullshit argument. I spent the time I spent playing this character and training him the way I did in order to play not to sit him in a station collecting dust.
I ask this other than "this is the way it's always been" what conceivable reason would one have to defend this mechanic?
Because as best I can see this mechanic doesn't serve any purpose other than to discourage long term players from going out and playing the game. That this mechanic that people keep claiming is so damned important because OMG RISK!!! actually results in people taking fewer RISKS.
The number 1 complaint I see coming from PVPers is that people playing this game are too risk averse. Yet here is a mechanic that does nothing other than to encourage such aversion.
Now I understand that consequences are part of what makes PVP interesting and meaningful. But such consequences need to be balanced with the other aspect of what makes PVP interesting, which is fun.
Too little risk and the game play becomes meaningless and boring but too much risk and it goes from meaningless and boring to tedious and boring which is many times worse.
The simple fact that people playing this game are so risk averse suggests to me that there is too much consequence relative to the potential fun. Hell just the fact that people feel compelled to create alts with the same skill focus as their main just with fewer total points is a glaring sign of a problem. Making specialized alts to cover different skill areas or for a limited purpose like a cyno alto or market toon makes sense. Making a specialized alt just to dodge the death penalty mechanic is stupid.
When the primary answer to dealing with a game mechanic is "make and alt or don't play" there is something wrong with that mechanic.
Oh and I'm pretty sure I've seen some of the people arguing against changing the mechanic telling players to train PVP skills on their indy characters so they could take advantage of kill rights. How exactly does that square with your "specialized alt" bullshit?
My argument is simple, I think there are too many game mechanics that discourage people from engaging in risky behavior. Further I think it would be far more effective to address those places where such mechanics serve no useful purpose other than to discourage risk taking than to sit around whining about it or trying to shame them into taking risks with e-machismo. |
|
|
| |
|