So if reward is balanced around PVP risk, are you saying that the rewards change on a system by system basis, based on how much PVP occurs, or that during a war, the rewards in PVE sites in the war zones increases because the risk of PVP increases?
I’ll call BS on that. The rewards are kept the same, irrepective of the risk of PVP.
The rats in null are bigger, have more DPS, have more tank, there are more of them, etc. This increases the risk of loss or failure for a PVE player and the reward is increased accordingly.
However, some guy running a site in a busy system full of neutrals gains no greater reward than another guy running a similar site in an empty system.
The rewards of a level 5 mission reflect what level 5 missions are. They are restricted to lowsec because CCP wanted to provide something unique in lowsec, so people would have a reason to go there.
But level 4s in lowsec provide no better reward than level 4s in highsec. That’s also a good example of the reward being based around the PVE.
CCP takes into account both the system security status and mechanics tied to it, specific set of rules, as they also make sites have PvE rules, so they balance it across the board, not specifically to PvE or PvP set of rules. Just both.
OK, I usually shy away from absolute statements, but here I have to ABSOLUTELY disagree. You cannot simply divorce two types of risk for the sake of convenience - the risk inherent in an occupation/activity is a amalgam of ALL the hazards associated with it. To claim otherwise is either a logical fallacy, or an intentional distortion/misdirection in an attempt to prove a chosen standpoint.
To pretend that “risk” is defined by the underlying PvE is… actually, I better not say what I think it is. Sadly, CCP do to a large extent define it thusly, which is why we have mostly tumbleweeds in low-sec - the nominally higher rewards there are simply not worth the vastly higher RISK created by the lack of either NPC or player-based territorial law-enforcement.
EDIT:
It certainly ought to
The fact that CCP define risk along similar lines to how you see it, doesn’t make it correct.
I’m not divorcing them for convenience. They can’t be divorced by players. However, that doesn’t define how rewards are determined. This began as a dismisal of risk v reward being in the game.
Of course PVP risk is different in different spaces as well. However it’s the risks posed by the PVE that determine the potential rewards that a PVE site provides.
Well this is what you called risk vs reward or how it should be but not from the pve threat that it poses but players. Best rewards null worst hisec in terms of ISK. Now to the risk. In theory the risk is same at every security status. Just because you in hisec doesn’t mean you can’t get shoot but the riskiest sec is lowsec.
Very true but this doesn’t scale with reward. PvE is no threat here, other players are as Salvos wrote.
No it’s not. It’s scale with how hard it is not how risky it is. I can do every site in this game with choosen equipment. For example there is no site in lowsec that I can’t do. Why I don’t do them? because I’ll be jumped by other players.
I quoted you as having simplistic view. You think CCP holds this view, I dont.
Just by running the sites in low and high, I know that the risk caused by PVE is nonexistent. You just need the right tool and tactic for any site, they always look the same, each of its kind. They are utterly devoid of risk.
Yes - how they are determined by CCP. This doesn’t mean that the determination methodology is sound - it certainly is not, in my opinion.
And that’s precisely why the methodology is fallacious: one cannot dismiss the VERY REAL risk of PvP in a PvE site that is located within a PvP-intensive location! Just because the site is intended as a PvE activity doesn’t stop predators/gankers/what-not from targeting players engaging in that site - in fact, it draws them there - ergo, increased risk, end of story. The only way to mitigate that (not eliminate it) is to make, say, deadspace zone instanced and thus inaccessible from without (however, players could still be intercepted on the way in and out, so the risk would still be elevated, but simply not by as much.)
I agree that, by and large, CCP do define risk by the simplistic, narrow evaluation of the content item itself and its placement within HS/LS/NS/WH, but my contention is that this determination is reductive and deeply flawed.
Then choose a frigate and go run a level 4 mission in it. Or a level 5. Or an incursion site. Or a 10/10 DED site in null. If there is no risk from the site, then there is no need to manage it. Go try it. We’ll keep an eye on your killboard.
You confused risk with ignorance. Risk is what you cant know. You can know at any moment what to do in a site, just open the site with description in internet.
[Scanning… scanning… please stand by. No valid argument detected.
Rescanning… no relevant argument detected.]
OK, that’s simply a pathetic non-addressal of valid points and attempt to deflect the argument.
I have now determined that I need to take Mark Twain’s advice regarding arguing… I have no intention to be dragged down to your level and get beaten with experience, if you intend do make non-arguments to try to deflect from lack of logic in yours, while ignoring countless unanswered points from others, I define that as a waste of time and effort.
Of course you can know what risks are present. If we couldn’t know risk, then we wouldn’t be able to control them at all.
Whole professions (eg. Engineering) are built on the foundation of knowing and controlling risk.
There may be risks that haven’t been identified, but there are a tonne of systems used to make the chance of that small to begin with, though it’s always present (and some classic cases of risks not effectively identified leading to mass loss of life).
Oh FFS! Risk involves UNCERTAINTY - the chance of failure/death/loss/whatever. When that chance can be trivially reduced to zero, it is no longer risk. Ergo, PvE after the first/second (if you’re a slow learner) attempt is risk-free.
Its not risk if you know how its working, and PvE in EVE is so simple and rules so clear that people running PvE sites rarely lose ships, and if they lose them, its because they engaged without knowledge, and that is ignorance. Risk posed by player to himself.
All true in the real world - but within the rules-based framework of a game, there ARE certainly ways to eliminate PvE (predictable) risks altogether. Hell, that’s how some players can literally AFK combat sites in certain builds, because they simply cannot be threatened by the opposition. PvE “risk” averted and eliminated. Completely. However, they still have to deal with PvP incursions into their sov space by immediately docking up (lol) - which is where the intel channels, gate guards and bubbles, etc come in as risk management (ie. reduction) but not elimination - human ingenuity can outfox even the most industrious security measures. Hence, no PvE risk, but still some (variably managed) PvP risk. Have I explained it simply enough to be understood now?
I have played a lot of games and risk posed by PvE here is so laughable that with some fits you can do site being AFK. Even chances for rep or scram are known and described for any NPC here:
Oh jeez. Risks can be realised at any time and most risk is not controlled by completely eliminating it. In terms of control (real world), the top 2 forms of risk control actually are focused on eliminating the risk completely. Those being:
avoid the activity all together
substitute for a lower (or non-hazardous) alternative.
Other then that, risk controls manage the risk but never eliminate it.
So yes, there is always some uncertainty associated with the residual risk (ask the insurance industry. It’s the major way they do business is to understand the uncertainty and how often an event is likely to occur and what damage it will do).
However, you can know the risk and whole professions are based around that exact thing. Knowing and controlling risk and knowing the chance of the hazard being realised (but chances are just stats and never absolute. There is always some uncertainty left even after the risk has been controlled).
But not knowing the risks? That’s not the way we work (any of us. We are all controlling risk based on our understanding of what they are, constantly).
