|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
472
   |
Posted - 2013.05.15 14:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
-1
Lower clone costs increase the distance between new players and older ones, thereby limiting interaction which is the core of Eve.
The effects of this wont reveal themselves quickly, but over time new players will find themselves even more shut out and will perhaps just start avoiding all fights with high SP chars. We see this already in most instances where highsec merc corps wardec non PvP oriented corps. Power creep is already to the point that it is limiting PvP.
In terms of the nullsec sov wars, older well established alliances will receive a great boost from this change, further stagnating that theater. Say for instance 2 alliances clash and each loose a 1000 clones, if the older alliances clones cost 20 million more than the newer alliances clones then they have lost an additional 20 billion ISK over the younger corp. This drag efficiently counters the inclination to stagnate. Conversly expensive clone costs encourage Alliances to recruit and train new players even though that may hurt their kill boards.
Also reduced risk and effort may lessen the emotional engagement that Eve PvP creates. This component is perhaps the most significant element of Eve and may be CCP's greatest achievement.
Whatever you decide please keep Eve difficult and scary, I just like it that way =-)
-áKick ass soundtrack and Eve Pewpew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc4KljpRGI |
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
473
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 14:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
valerydarcy wrote:Corey Fumimasa wrote:
The effects of this wont reveal themselves quickly, but over time new players will find themselves even more shut out and will perhaps just start avoiding all fights with high SP chars. We see this already in most instances where highsec merc corps wardec non PvP oriented corps. Power creep is already to the point that it is limiting PvP.
lololwut?
TLDR : New players want to get into fights and blow stuff up. They currently do pretty poorly partly because of power creep. Lowering clone costs compounds creep which will eventually lead to disengagement with the game.
Fleet tactics should not rely on a material disparity. A well organized, competently lead team needs to win sometimes even if they are outgunned on a SP or ISK level. The reward of Eve should be in working together and engaging.
-áKick ass soundtrack and Eve Pewpew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc4KljpRGI |
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
473
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 15:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Laveaolous wrote:
You should be arguing for cheaper clones then. Lower SP players would do better if higher SP players are in smaller more fragile cheap ships surely, at the moment I may as well go for bigger/shinier ship because hell i'm already risking 30+m isk before I pick a ship.
This assumes that the combat event has no meaning or consequences beyond the engagement itself. High skill point characters will certainly be more aggressive if their cost for doing so is lowered. Of course aggression without risk will win, this is the danger of all unfettered opportunism, it works well for those on top but ultimately destroys the environment below.
No, I would prefer that you bring the bling, better KM for me and greater loss for you.
-áKick ass soundtrack and Eve Pewpew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc4KljpRGI |
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
485
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 16:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Re CCP Rise's statement in https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/MeBiatch post;
I think Eve would have more interaction if the dps/tank/cap/options disparity between well trained pilots and less well trained pilots were not so great. As it stands clone costs is one of the only things offsetting that difference, it doesn't do a great job of that.
Maybe we also talk about some options for unwinding the power creep bubble that affects all of these games after a certain amount of time. That combined with ideas for consequences that will replace the ISK setback for a clone loss.
-áKick ass soundtrack and Eve Pewpew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc4KljpRGI |
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
485
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 17:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Corey Fumimasa wrote:Re CCP Rise's statement in https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/MeBiatch post; I think Eve would have more interaction if the dps/tank/cap/options disparity between well trained pilots and less well trained pilots were not so great. As it stands clone costs is one of the only things offsetting that difference, it doesn't do a great job of that. Maybe we also talk about some options for unwinding the power creep bubble that affects all of these games after a certain amount of time. That combined with ideas for consequences that will replace the ISK setback for a clone loss. If only they made some effort to reduce the disparity between the ships newer players can fly and those the super-veterans can... Something like a ship rebalancing effort... I fail to see how you think clone cost affects the dps/tank/cap/options disparity. Total SP makes the disparity, clone costs just affects the willingness to engage and the consequence of losing.
Something like the ship rebalancing for skills would be perfect. they could tone down the advantages for skill levels by 50% across the board or something and remove a few areas that multiply a bit too sharply.
Yes total SP makes the disparity, increasing clone costs act as a limit on high SP characters as those characters are a little more hesitant to engage due to the consequences of losing.
Its not perfect but combined with inflationary reduction in the real cost of clones over time it does act as a sort of equalizer.
-áKick ass soundtrack and Eve Pewpew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc4KljpRGI |
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
486
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 18:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Callduron wrote:...edited for space...
And this is in TEST which is probably where the greatest integration of new and old players happens. Most players in null simply to everything possible to minimise risk entirely or we see veteran pvpers move to low sec to keep their Slave sets safe.
We go out in everything with everyone. After an hour of roaming there's usually a pod as +1 and -1, and the scouts have been promoted to hero tackle  .
Pods don't automatically vaporize in null, when your fleet is getting burned down at a rate that may or may not be faster than you are burning down the other fleet very few FC's are calling pods for primary.
The thing about full SRP alliances is that it completely skews the cost/risk equation.
I often wonder if part of the movement against clone costs is spawned by players who get used to full SRP and so they don't notice the price of clones climbing because the cost of PvP has been made so affordable for them by the SRP. Then they suddenly hit the point where clone costs overtake ship costs and only then do they notice.
-áKick ass soundtrack and Eve Pewpew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc4KljpRGI |
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
486
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 18:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Sa'haira wrote:Good.
I fall into a subset of players that ccp doesn't really seem to acknowledge (which i don't have a problem with, we're not spending much nor adding much through participation), who only play for a month at a time every now and again to keep in touch with people and be nosy.
... the next time i get podded it's likely to be a choice between pve or just leaving the game again. (hint: i get a few hours spare 'gaming' time a week, i'm certainly not spending it pve'ing).
So you are isk poor and SP rich, take the alpha clone out and see what the SP hit is like. It doesn't sound like you are using all the SP's anyway.
Is there a way to control where the lost SP's come from? do they start with partially trained skills?
-áKick ass soundtrack and Eve Pewpew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc4KljpRGI |
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
487
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 22:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
MekaJonna wrote:Solution needs to be an implementation that combines the current system with the idea of a monthly fee.
....edit for space.... cost more up front, but would pay them selves off in the long run for players who get podded a lot.
Having both system like this would not only benefit those who PVP, but would also keep those who don't get podded a lot from having issues with paying for subscriptions.
The subscription fee idea has the potential to reduce the balancing effect of clone costs the most. Well removing them entirely from the game would be worse I guess.
Much better to make them a player made item. There have been all kinds of cool ideas about how that would work. And body snatchers would be an awesome new profession.
-áKick ass soundtrack and Eve Pewpew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc4KljpRGI |
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
490
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 10:51:00 -
[9] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Corey Fumimasa wrote:The subscription fee idea has the potential to reduce the balancing effect of clone costs the most. Well removing them entirely from the game would be worse I guess.
Much better to make them a player made item. There have been all kinds of cool ideas about how that would work. And body snatchers would be an awesome new profession. You keep referencing this non-existent "balancing effect" of the current system; paying more when your clone dies doesn't make you worse at pvp, it only makes you pvp less frequently, which is bad for the game.
Some people want more, others would like to see less. I think the level of PvP over all of New Eden is about right. Devaluing combat and lowering the risk factor across the board to appease a minority of players that live in a particular area is inconsiderate to everyone who A. Wants combat to remain expensive and risk intensive for the thrill factor or B. Thinks the level of combat is fine as is.
Most of the people affected by high clone costs live in null or w and just want to go roam with their friends. Thats a localized issue where PvP could be made more accessible in those areas, perhaps by having swaths of Null in which bubbles don't work on pods. They could be seeded with valuable deadspace pockets that only allow frigs in order to encourage small ship combat. And so there is more PvP where people want pvp and the level as a whole and the current risk factor remain pretty constant.
There are options to get these people into the fights they want without lowering the risk / danger / cost equation that has already come down to the point of boredom for many.
Also, Eve is a as much about resource management as it is about PvP. Clone costs and long term character development are an interesting part of that game.
Lowering the cost of PvP to make it more common also reduces the interaction between the two different styles of gaming, resource management and PvP. This interaction is a terrific part of Eve and PvP without it and without the real risk for loss would be pale shadow of what it once was.
-áKick ass soundtrack and Eve Pewpew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc4KljpRGI |
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
492
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 17:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Daedra Blue wrote:Corey Fumimasa wrote:Something like the ship rebalancing for skills would be perfect. they could tone down the advantages for skill levels by 50% across the board or something and remove a few areas that multiply a bit too sharply.
Yes total SP makes the disparity, increasing clone costs act as a limit on high SP characters as those characters are a little more hesitant to engage due to the consequences of losing.
Its not perfect but combined with inflationary reduction in the real cost of clones over time it does act as a sort of equalizer. Reducing impact of spending YEARS to train, will dilute the potential feel of more powerful character. ... edit for space... I think he's just trolling us. Either that or he is just that dumb and shouldn't be taken seriously. It's probably best to just ignore him either way, quoting him just gives his stupid ideas some level of validity and promotes further bad-posting.
I'm not trolling anyone Edward; I have an interest in games and game theory, and so I enjoy talking about them. And the great thing about forums is that you don't actually need to respond to me to make your position known.
As for Daedra's point of "Reducing impact of spending YEARS to train, will dilute the potential feel of more powerful character."
Grinding levels, Gold, ISK, or Skills in order to "feel" powerful is a theme park idea. It has no place in the head to head competition of Eve.
-áKick ass soundtrack and Eve Pewpew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc4KljpRGI |
|
|
Corey Fumimasa
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
492
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 18:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
Daedra Blue wrote:
Sorry to burst your bubble but eve is a sandbox, not a head to head competition. Especially not a FAIR head to head competition. Much like CCP Soundwave pointed out that although people organize tournaments, there is no real place for them in EvE, because there is no safe place in EvE to guarantee Fairness, because Fairness is not one of EvE's principles.
Eve is a sandbox in which players have many options to make themselves feel power and control. You can set your own goals to get there but other players always have the option to thwart you. That is where the feeling of power comes from in Eve, setting and achieving ones own goals in spite of others trying to stop you. The idea that just participating in the game will eventually lead to feeling powerful is more akin to entertainment and theme park "games."
One of the most common arguments that Clone costs should be removed is that they are not fair to older players. I agree with you that Eve is not designed to be fair.
Daedra Blue wrote:
If you had any notions about design principles, it is mandatory that a improvement feels like an improvement to drive progression otherwise nobody would bother training 36 days for 1% more. Better needs to feel better. Investment of time and effort has to translate into a proportionally improvement. Also last time i checked "Grinding levels, Gold, ISK, or Skills in order to "feel" powerful is a theme park idea" was the whole point of an MMO, an MMO is a theme park for entertainment.
Better needs to be better, the feelings created by Eve are about real values, both success and loss. Theme parks try to make people feel good about accomplishing something that is in actuality very simple, grinding levels or SP is a good example. Eve makes people feel good because of actual achievement; outsmarting a foe or escaping an enemy or figuring out a complicated logistics problem.
Its true someones goal might be to come to Eve and learn all the skills, that's a great goal. But there is no reason to make that goal free of all consequence, as with all achievement some doors open and others close. The neat thing about Eve is that if one door closes you can roll another char up and try again.
Daedra Blue wrote:
I'm really curios what is EvE to you? Cause EvE is many things to many people, but your view of it is pretty weird. I don;t know if you deliberately choose not to see some sides of EvE or you don;t really know EvE enough.
Eve to me is an experiment to see if an artificial world can be as rich and fulfilling as the "real" world. This is a strange idea, it is not mine, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD9b4AJn8GU 3:30. It is however why I log in and participate.
-áKick ass soundtrack and Eve Pewpew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvc4KljpRGI |
|
|
| |
|