Its arguable that PvE, in and of itself, constitutes any risk whatsoever.
I agree with JS.
Its the risk that other players pose, that is primary.
Even in Incursions, its not the NPCs that pose a risk, its having someone fail to do their job in the fleet.
Only if you donāt understand what risk means.
But that is not a factor in the risk v reward way the game is balanced. Reward is balanced around the risk the PVE poses.
Are you seriously trying to argue I dont know what risk means, as your rebuttal?
No, its largely determined by how much dps/EHP you need to complete the site.
You need, typically, to fly more expensive ships to complete the higher end sites.
That doesnt make the PvE any riskier, it just makes you more vulnerable to PvP.
I didnāt argue anything. I made a statement, not directed at you in particular, just in general.
However if you think PVE poses no risk, then yes, you donāt have a grasp on the meaning of risk.
You directly stated, or, as you now insinuate, that we dont know what risk means.
PvE itself poses no risk, unless you attempt to run it with an unsuitable fit.
Thats not risk. Thats being stupid/uninformed.
As is true of all of EVE, the real risk, is other players. Always.
The whole concept of the game is predicated on that.
No, you just demonstrated that you donāt understand the term. Itās nothing to be aggressive about Salvos and Iām not going to get into an argument with you, because itās a fools game and Iām not going to play it.
However, the more you state that PVE poses no risk, the more you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding.
Technically, thatās a difficulty vs reward factor, not risk (though the two are not completely divorced, Iāll grant that - often greater risk involves greater difficulty, and vice versa)
EDIT: Additional, however, the two are not completely tied together, as the difficulty AND risk is negated by bringing bigger toys: running a level 3 mission in a T1 (non-faction) cruiser is quite risky (and difficult), say, but bring a BC and itās suddenly a cakewalk - the same mission. The difference when it comes to Null-sec is that the risk comes from other players, NOT the PvE content.
The difficulty is part of the risk, yes,
I know what risk means.
You claiming otherwise is not an argument.
I could just as well direct the same lame rebuttal at you.
YOU dont know what risk means.
Tell us how PvE poses a risk, without involving any PvP element.
You claiming this is not a proof that you do, but you are posting evidence that shows you donāt. My last post on this, because rabbit holes are pointless and that is what happens with most of the discussions you get involved in.
So have at it Salvos. Itāll be a one man argument, but Iām sure it will continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding.
As a failed law student, thereās even an international standard on risk management. Go read it. It might help you.
No PvE site is anymore difficult than any other.
They just need different fits to complete efficiently.
Blahblah ad hominem blah blah.
Answer the question:
please, what are the risk in nullsec data/relic sites? What risk from pve perspective they pose? or farming anoms in expendable drone hulls? Players manage to minimise risk because they can build their sov empire there and shift the chances to their side (upgrades). Now they get best rewards and because this is the only space players can hold sov and change some pve aspects in their favour where is the risk vs rewards in that? You taking the risk from equation. Itās like we lure them to the nullsec becasue there are best rewards but then we also make them possiblity to create empire which significaly increase said reward. Ability to create an empire is an reward, no other space provide that.
Risk that pve poses end long time ago, every site was solved, nothing can suprise us anymore there.
I donāt think the rewards for data/relic sites are necessarily any better than anywhere else are they? The potential rewards are the same arenāt they?
Iāve made plenty from highsec relic sites and little from nullsec ones. Doesnāt seem to be any difference in my experience (the RNG is the same, no matter where you are).
Of all PVE, exploration seems to be one of the great examples of risk v reward based on PVE, since the risk form the site is the same everywhere, as is the potential reward.
Sure. Manage the risk is exactly what they do. Anyone can.
This also confuses risk with risk control. You can control the risks that are present and reduce the likelihood of loss or failure, but that is risk management. Itās what everyone does, control the risks present so they are as small as possible.
Itās smart play, but it doesnāt mean there is no risk. If there was no risk, there would be no need to control it.
That involves PvP.
You claimed PvE poses risk, in and of itself.
Tell us, oh wise risk master with the correct understanding of risk, how does PvE pose a risk without any element of PvP involved?
Itās not what PVE is balanced around. Risk v Reward is a balanced around the PVE.
Of course there is risk of PVP, but that is not how PVE is balanced. Itās a separate risk that does not determine the reward of a site.
In the middle of a war, the anomolies in systems provide exactly the same level of reward that sites in the middle of fortress Delve provide. The risk associated with PVP is separate to the risk the sites themselves pose (and which everyone controls effectively to min-max them).
Again, you avoid the question:
In case you have trouble with that, let me elaborate:
If Iām the only player left in EVE and I am running PvE sites, what risk is posed to me by that PvE content?
Youāre kidding, right? Try some null/WH exploration and then some HS exploration and you will see that the rewards differ by orders of magnitude. Yes, it is possible to get a ābiggishā haul in HS (Iām talking about ~40M ISK - peanuts compared to what you can pull in NS/WH) but it happens so rarely as to not be viable to factor in. Iāve done considerable (read: āunhealthy amount ofā 
heheh) data/relic site clearing in HS, and eventually realised that itās simply not worth the trouble, even counting the very rare sleeper sites. Now yes, RNG is RNG, and itās not unconceivable that our experiences are so different, butā¦ shrug
The thing is, PvE is inherently highly predictable - letās say weāre talking missions and combat sites - you know pretty much what youāll be up against every time. Foreknowledge negates risk, and thatās by definition. The word āriskā, what does it carry with it? Connotations of āchanceā, of āoddsā, of āprobabilitiesā - when these are non-factors, there is NO RISK. Taking the right hull with the right fit for the job is NOT ārisk managementā if it totally obviates the chances of failure. It it reduces them, then yes, and then in fact the risk is not necessarily lowered - the odds may be reduced but the value increased - as a coefficient, that may break even. However, PvE being as predictable as it is, there is no risk - unless you factor in the human element, PvP. Then equipping oneself appropriately for a particular engagement by bringing a bigger hull and blinging up, actually INCREASES risk in Null, and even more so in the lawless no-manās-land known as ālowā sec.
This is a very simplistic view on this matter and omits the mechanics that introduce risk to the equation. In fact CCP knows it and balances the site distribution and anomalies the way they balance it. If they would take into account only what you wrote, we would still have lvl 5 missions in high sec.
I used to run dozens of HS DED sites per day.
I incurred absolutely zero risk from the PvE content.
I could have walked away from my PC from up till downtime, and still tank the entire site.