ITT: "encouraging more PVP" == "making null/low/WH safer".

Medical Clone costs can be escaped easily. Just don't upgrade your clone, and boom. Cost escaped. Sure, it costs you some SP, but so does "escaping" the cost of learning implants.

Let your pod costs be about the stuff that actually gives you an in game advantage, like hardwirings and pirate implants.

well the thing is
CCP is trying to split the gamer population.. giving it a more defined definition.
High sec : Safe zone for the anti-social and timid nerds
Low sec : Low life that gets bullied in school and now is trying to make up for it, and incursion runners too.
Null sec : For the gladiators and intellectuals of the society , trying to make a name for themselves by exploring the riches of the unknown.

So... EVEN if people buys your argument, the very aim of it alone would make the chances of it actually being implemented VERY slim

A sensible proposal. +1

This! I want this so bad..

If you remove implants from the game but give the bonus, those people living in Null/lo-sec and WH space are therefore receiving the benefits of those implants without having to risk there loss.

So therefore removing the possible loss = "making null/low/WH safer"
if something is as profitable as was but with less risk attached, I would think that would almost be a text book example of safer.

eh, they just want to add +10 learning implants, saying how long it takes to lvl for capitals and supers. They are flying in null sec, so they feel that they should be flying these ships, and get them faster then most pilots. I suppose its fair if you think about it.

Exactly the same thing as investing in a 15-billion Tengu and then staying docked because you can't afford to lose it, or buy another ship.

If you remove implants from the game but give the bonus, those people living in Null/lo-sec and WH space are therefore receiving the benefits of those implants without having to risk there loss.

So therefore removing the possible loss = "making null/low/WH safer"
if something is as profitable as was but with less risk attached, I would think that would almost be a text book example of safer.

You can't really compare potential loss to normal losses. Losing the potential means you are not any better nor are you worse off, where as actually losing something means you are only worse off.

So lets promote risk aversion while making it more expensive for those who take risks?

being its late I will just make this quick

It's not this does not effect me, actually it would give me a boost as I don't have implants installed but it would mean that players such as myself would get a bonus over those people who choose not to PvP or those who are lucky enough not to die very often.

It would reduces the risks taken by players and so would very much be making the game safer the very thing the author of that piece has complained about on other threads.

being its late I will just make this quick

I still have no clue what this thread is on about ...

Would this get people to do more PvP? Absolutely!
Would it get more people into low and null? Yes!
Do you still keep the risk vs reward dilemma? Yes
Do you keep all the implants for the poeple that like to invest in +5 implants? Yes

Problem solved! Now please send my your iskies as a payment for this marvelous idea!

Or just don't use implants if you can't afford to lose them. Not rocket science here, and no reason to add more complexity when its not needed. Also your 3rd point contradicts your 4th point.

Yes, they do.

Your first point is valid. You are however admitting to be a person to be totally against removing the learning implants. Others wants them gone. I am giving a middle way here. Besides the point still holds. You CAN use the implants if you can afford to lose them. My idea just makes it easier not to use them (an equally effectiv idea would be to remove the timer on clone jumping, but that would just bring lots and lots of other problems instead)

My 3rd and 4th points does not contradict as you can still choose to risk your implants if you so do choose: Imagine doing PvE stuff such as mining in null sec. Most people would keep their normal clone to use their learning implants while they mine. They are thus risking their implants as they normally would. People that know they are about to jump into a big fight with bubbles everywhere would most likely choose the disposable clone yes, but I am hoping that you should still consider my idea "better" than just removing the implants totally.

No, they unequivocally do not. Your aversion to risking those implants is what prevents PVP.

Do you fly around in ships that you can't afford to lose?

If yes, you're an idiot.

If no, apply the same logic to implants.

If you can't afford to lose the implants in your head, don't plug them in.

It's so simple.

Yes I do agree that your idea is better then a blanket removal. However what you are suggesting isn't really risk. you have almost complete control over when that risks occurs. The whole basis of risk is that you don't have a choice, that's what makes it what it is. I see what you doing by taking the middle ground however I still don't see it as being needed. This is Eve **** happens and people die, you need to have the mentality that its going to happen and plan accordingly, not change the mechanics to suit those who don't want to.

So a site that shall remain unnamed due to its title, just posted an article on "The Case for Removing Learning Implants"

The best quote from this article was, "Empire players tend to have a huge advantage in this regard - they can do virtually everything with a full +5s and hardwirings since pods can warp out almost instantly in the event that they lose a ship, and NPCs never shoot pods in any case. Players in nullsec generally find themselves with implants that speed up the skills they may be training at that time and inexpensive hardwirings, simply because losing a pod is nearly inevitable after losing a ship when bubbled."

So in reality the whole thread was another "Make Null even safer" thread.

Being that you can still get ganked in Hi-sec and podded, hi sec dwellers still have the ability to have their implants destroyed. The null sec residence how ever has chosen a more PvP based life style with the risks attached.

Removing implants would just be a step in dumbing down EvE and making the Nullbears less risk exposed.
They go on and on about how easy Hi-sec is while fighting to have Null made even safer.

So all in all don't bother reading it, its just more covert Null tears.

Implants on there own does not prevent PvP yes, plugging them in does! I think we both agree on this.

No, we don't agree. Plugging in implants has a variety of effects on your character, but it's ones own aversion to risk that prevents them from PVPing while those implants are plugged in and most certainly not the implants themselves.

The risk averse in EVE should not be coddled. Even less so when those who are risk averse hang out in areas of the game that increase risk or expect risk at every corner.

A disposable jump clone does not remove that, it just makes the choices easier to implement. People that have implants plugged in will get bonus over poeple that use a disposable clone (both learning speed and bonuses from pirate implants and hardwirings). As the disposable clone only would work for a limited time it would not be that useful. I personally like going on extended exploration trips into low and even null. For this I would not be able to use a disposable clone as my time would be limited and I do not want to miss out on my learning and scanning strengths implants.

Instead of making a disposable clone just allow JC in the same station and lower the cooldown(but don't remove it). The issue I have with disposable is that from the sounds of it there is no cooldown. There should be some risk when flying in a implanted clone even if that means you choose to sit a fight out if your that risk adverse. While it may suck for them that's the risk they take.

...