Or most citadels being empty until literally hundreds were destroyed in the fortnight after the patch? And now Hard Knocks âownsâ most of the lucrative ones and you have to pay them rent.
Or maybe because you can make more ISK more consistently in 0.0 and itâs a lot safer?
Okey, so for this example risk level in 0.0 should be 5 times higher than in high-sec. But what does it actually mean? What mechanics should control this?
Ahh a good question.
Thereâs a bit of a debate about whether weâre talking about non-consensual PvE/mining risk, or are we including battles? We should probably look at both measures.
Combined is easier to measure. Risk could be measured in terms of a) poddings per flight hour b) ship losses per flight hour and c) isk lost in killmails/structure loss per flight hour.
To exclude most big battles, you could either look for 5+ ships lost in one system within 10 mins or just look at median results.
Rewards are a bit more obvious â people talk about them all the time on here.
So if we were to go by your formula, poddings should by x times higher than HS, ships lost y times higher and ISK lost z times higher, where the mean of x, y and z = 5.
Now, rewards should be linear with skill level and SP requirement too. For that reason, I donât think we should take Highsec results too seriously.
So CCP should measure all these things in 0.0, W-space and Lowsec. CCP should be able to say that median non-newbie players can make eg 50m ISK per hour per char multiplied by the risk factor (according to definition), regardless of the space theyâre in.
They also need to look for disparity between say Goons and smaller corps. They also need to look for particular ships making too much isk.
Likewise, this measure of risk should be significantly higher in 0.0 than Lowsec, not withstanding alleged effort by corporations.
This is all standard game balancing methodology. There is nothing even vaguely contentious here.
