Oh, right, because characters for suicide for ganking have mountains and mountains of SP…
This would do more to punish everyone ELSE, all to ‘fix’ something that isn’t broken.
It would kill the battlefield/counterstrike mentality of game play where players just rush in and not think of possible negative impact.
This has been an issue ever since the skill point loose on death was removed.
You’d see a change in game play. Logi in fleets would become very important. And Skillpoint farming and cerebral accelerates would be in more demand.
Only thing I hear from those two replies is “I’m too lazy to isk my skill point insurance” and “it’ll make ganking more expensive”.
The point is to add consequences for your actions, you gank and get killed, then make sure the gang covers your expenses, yes loosing skillpoints will really hurt if not insured, but it’ll hurt the gank also.
You need to think of it as health or life insurance. If you done want it you suffer when it when it, if you have it you’re covered and continue on.
We never had issues within until someone removed it in the first place, some care bear I’m guessing.
1 Like
More involved story/lore and player/environment interaction, make NPCs do more.
2 Likes
Are you claiming that suicide ganking had more consequences when SP loss caused by having an insufficient level clone existed?
Your rose tinted glasses need a cleaning. Objectively speaking, the current setup is vastly superior for every conceivable gameplay purpose. As CCP Terminus noted when the clone and SP loss change was announced as part of Rhea, the death mechanics were an illusion of choice - it was an all around negative scenario of ‘you lose ISK or you lose SP’ that was purely an ISK sink. A lot of the value in this sink came from the vastly more robust clone suicide travel methods that were in place until the Phoebe release - a situation no longer applicable to modern gameplay, where you cannot freely reassign your medical clone’s location remotely. It also punished players trying to have varied implant sets, as every jump clone required the full clone upgrade cost all over again. Immediately following removal of the remote medical clone assignment and associated significant reduction in clone deaths, CCP wisely got rid of the no-longer-logical clone grade mechanics.
This model made sense in early EVE. It doesn’t in modern EVE - there are already plenty of ISK sinks in PvP, and enough challenge getting new players engaged in PvP without adding an extra ISK sink to the mix. Reverting would not only fail to stop suicide gankers (a 5 million SP clone cost a whopping 175000 isk), given the growing number of NPCs that can podkill players, you would likely see a lot more losses among new players who actually are struggling with their initial income stream and game mechanics.
1 Like
A additional markeptlace/contract system for equipment that has been multiplasmed, becuase the current system of searching kind of sucks.
2 Likes
If you get ganked in highsec, your account should be permanently deleted with loss of all assets and skill points.
1 Like
If you fail a gank in highsec, your acct should be permanently deleted with loss of all assets and SP.
Because, let’s face it. If you manage to fail a gank in this game, you are too stupid to be playing it.
5 Likes
I’m talking about character, not actual individual clones.
So you’d still be able to clone jump.
Basically the same as how cerebral accelerators work, but the only difference would if you get pod’d you loose points or insurance covers you.
Is its and is sink, but if its done like the original it only costs once or if you upgrade the amount of SP covered.
Not a every 3month payment.
And skillpoints not covered has a randomizer to the amount lost.
Ideally the rates of isk paid for insurance should be based on amount groups of skillpoints.
1-5mil
5-15mil
15-45mil
45-95mil
Etc...```
Starting very low and each amount increase is increases.Destruction of CODE.
4 Likes
Make lobbying for reduction of risk on the forums into a high risk activity.
1 Like
Except this is, again, a false choice - it’s a lose/lose situation, which is against intelligent game design mechanics. There is no benefit to NOT upgrading a clone, so it becomes a mandatory upgrade, which is just a barrier to entry for higher SP characters. There is ZERO BENEFIT to this suggestion in regards to actual gameplay.
1 Like
In ONE sentence, what change would u like to see in eveonline?
Remove the loss of a random Sub-system Skill level when your Tech 3 Cruiser is destroyed.
2 Likes
You used to lose skill points whenever you got podded from a random skill.
1 Like
I would like to see new emergent game play involving Old Earth finally location New Eden after thousands of years of searching.
I can just imagine one long line of Jump Gates from Earth to the location where the wormhole collapsed. Astrophysicists would have definitely have plotted their location relative to the entry point and exit point of the wormhole.
1 Like
Have the game balanced around BATTLESHIPS and not cruisers. World of Cruisers is boring.
Also, ■■■■ capital ships.
3 Likes
donating 10% of all earnings to the great @tutucox_Khamsi becomes law
i mean its about time, I’m moar than 10% of the fun
no bs , ask around
Only time to upgrade would be if your skillpoints goes over your current insurance lvl.
So if insured is done when in the lower end of the lvl of sp group then it could be ages or months depending on how the groups are pooled.
The old system was based on current amount of skill points, what I suggest is lvl of cover based on a pool of skill points as noted above.
It has the same effect as the old redundant system. It is as @Mkikaden_Tiragen says: there is no reason to not upgrade your clone. Also not in your system.
One sentence per post please, or this thread will lose its best feature.
2 Likes