So. What do you enjoy in this game then?

I took the time and searched your character on Battleclinic. To me it doesn't look like you're that interested in pvp, at least not in space. Market pvp perhaps?

In my opinion insurance should be removed, clones even more expensive and isk much more difficult to get. It's been ages (years actually) since I got a hate mail for podding someone or killing a ship. Losses just don't matter anymore and in my humble opinion that takes the edge out of the game. Don't get me wrong, I hate losing ships and pods aswell and it does hurt my wallet aswell. That's what makes this game special.

should i continue?

I don't know how you can have such strong feelings about clone costs. There's a balance... I mean yah it's inconvenient for those w/ a fair amount of SP, but it's not a deal breaker at this point in the game. The flip side is that clone costs are a big ISK sink (I think it's big... or it should be...). Do you really want to remove or nerf a sink? We need more ISK sinks not fewer.

Sure go right ahead, doesn't change the fact that a clone cost 32 mil. Please BS till you're blue in the face.

I don't know how you can have such strong feelings about clone costs. There's a balance... I mean yah it's inconvenient for those w/ a fair amount of SP, but it's not a deal breaker at this point in the game. The flip side is that clone costs are a big ISK sink (I think it's big... or it should be...). Do you really want to remove or nerf a sink? We need more ISK sinks not fewer.

I don't know how you can have such strong feelings about clone costs. There's a balance... I mean yah it's inconvenient for those w/ a fair amount of SP, but it's not a deal breaker at this point in the game. The flip side is that clone costs are a big ISK sink (I think it's big... or it should be...). Do you really want to remove or nerf a sink? We need more ISK sinks not fewer.

I used to feel the same way. Not much bother to me putting several high sp characters into new clones regularly, after all most of my ~risky~ pilots were throw-away dictor alts.

At this point; however, I have to say I'm completely on the side of reducing costs. It's only "balance," in the sense that it is a punitive action against a player who might have an advantage, but for the reasons that have been covered here (only so much sp can be relevant to the ship one is flying, there is an income plateau for most vets who aren't completely lifeless out of the game, etc.) this penalty seems ridiculous. It's not actually giving newbs any help, but it is encouraging vets to ship-up as much as possible and avoid consistent encounters which could get them podded: "gudfites," if you will.

Granted, some of us are too wealthy to become really risk-averse, but I know plenty of vets who aren't sitting atop a heap of billions in assets. EVE isn't their job and they don't continue to earn heaps of isk while they idle or ignore EVE for a while, whilst continuing to sub.

Much as I dislike inflation, I don't recall clone costs being -the- huge sink. Secondly, reducing their cost spurring more risky pvp would probably lead to more isk being sunk after the fact. In much the same way reducing taxes IRL has been repeatedly shown to increase revenue because it allows for more economic growth. So while I am onboard with concern about removing isk sinks arbitrarily. I think this one is demonstrably bad for pvp and bad for the game.

That's a very uneducated, uninformed viewpoint.

I don't know how you can have such strong feelings about clone costs. There's a balance... I mean yah it's inconvenient for those w/ a fair amount of SP, but it's not a deal breaker at this point in the game. The flip side is that clone costs are a big ISK sink (I think it's big... or it should be...). Do you really want to remove or nerf a sink? We need more ISK sinks not fewer.

That's a very uneducated, uninformed viewpoint.


You need to understand that what we're taking an issue with is not the inherent cost risk of doing pvp, but the fact that this particular risk is an NPC-based barrier to entry, and that alone.

If we're to take all of your arguments at face level, then would you also be fine with implementing a system that subtracts an extra amount of ISK directly proportional to a player's skill points form his wallet after every pvp ship loss?

That would make pvp "mean something" again, right?

(1) Sure, why not? If you can find away to do that according to the Eve universe. I doubt you can that and you're probably only trolling, but go ahead.

(2) I see that you want to make the game easier and, in my opinion, less appealing by making everything easier to come by. By your standards I suppose we should just remove clone costs all together to make it even simpler to pvp. And then what?

(3) NPC barrier to entry. Complete BS. You could say that about all ships, modules and ammo too....and how about the skill books you need to use the stuff....

As far as ISK sinks go, clones rank so low on that list that they're not even in the top five.

So I managed to force myself to read more of the posts in this thread.

I am shocked.

What the **** do you guys want? Risk free pvp with losses without a meaning?

What brought me to this game was the fact that every single loss was permanent and a major setback. In the beginning (2003) even losing a cruiser was something that could make a grown man cry. Today people throw t3 ship after t3 ship in a fight and don't care a thing about the losses as ISK is plenty and easy to get. Pods are actually one of few losses people tend to care about especially if they have forgotten to upgrade their clone and lose skillpoints.

If you reduce the impact of a loss even more the meaning of pvp will decrease even more.

All the talk of "making people pvp more if the losses costs less" is just a step in the completely wrong direction. What the **** do you want? Evey single ship in game in your hangar spawn when you log in? Just log onto the test server instead.

Don't ****** ruin my game.

The alternative is to make clones a player-driven service, like pretty much every other service in the game, aside from skill books and insurance, plus some other very minor ones.

I never said I want to control NPC pricing. I said that prices should be lower, because the overall perception between the majority of people who are in the business of losing pods on a regular basis (read: 0.0 pvpers) think they're too high for high-SP character. The whys have already been talked about in detail in the previous pages.

The alternative is to make clones a player-driven service, like pretty much every other service in the game, aside from skill books and insurance, plus some other very minor ones.

The majority of players with well designed and implemented character concepts think that clone costs should be higher. Cheap clones are an advantage to those who want a win and not a challenge. There's actually some other games on the market that specialize in that feeling.

Eve is an experiment in how "real" a virtual world can be made to feel. You wont get that with circus rides and kiddy shows.

You speak like a consumer who demands satisfaction because you paid for a product and you are entitled to it. This mindset leads to overconsumption as people cannot ever be satisfied by passive entertainment, they continually consume in order to sate the hunger.

Try to view Eve as a great experiment, a journey, that we all have the privilege of taking together. revel in that, and soak up the possibilities that it can realize and present. You will be thinner but not so hungry perhaps.

That's a good argument. I don't know how big of a sink clone costs are tbqh... I guess if I knew that I'd have to re-evaluate my position. If it is significant relative to overall sinks, say 30%+ of total sinking... then I'd have to disagree with you. Much less than that and you'd turn me around on the topic.

I'm good with player crafted clones. lets say a beta clone would require 3000 tritanium and a corpse, and a Phi would require 3 corpses and 6 melted nano ribbons. That would actually stop clone costs from being eroded by inflation. +1