And again you cite REAL WORLD examples which simply do not apply to the rigid PvE framework of EVE. So are the edges between real-world and reality blurring for you, or are you simply trying to prove yourself right by any means available, including logical fallacies in your āargumentsā?
And who cares? Thatās not part of the discussion. Never was. The discussion started because Jeremiah claimed there is no risk v reward at all.
What you are talking about (ie. some fits allowing you to AFK a site) is about risk control. Not the absence of risk. Itās a different issue, and its the risk that a site presents that determines the reward it provides.
Itās also irrelevant what the absolute level of risk is. Itās the relative difference between the sites that determines whether one provides more potential reward than another.
In EVE, just about all the risks are controlled to near non-existance (especially in PVE), but they still pose a risk to be controlled. That is how the rewards are determined, so risk v reward very much is part of the game.
Itās why incursion provide more reward in highsec and normal anomolies do for example.
All this is very true, but your statement that PvE is scale by risk is false, PvE in EvE is predictable there is no risk in it when there is no PvP factor in. I can decrease risk to zero by proper fit/tactic.
1 Like
Thatās not how I understood Jeremiahās contention: what I understood was that the risk vs reward is inappropriately/inaccurately applied (I could be wrong and stand to correction if so, though - but Iām not motivated enough to scroll back up and re-read just in order to prove myself right.) In other words, as one broad example, by CCPās definition out of H/L/N, NS is the āriskiestā, whereas in reality sov-holding has made it in some ways safer even than HS, while LS is the most dangerous - but the rewards do NOT reflect that, because of the inherently invalid determination criteria.
1 Like
maybe not at all but itās not scaling like some people think it is. Itās not hisec to nullsec straight line risk vs reward graph.
Absolutely you can. But that is risk control, not the absence of risk and not how CCP determine reward.
They donāt determine reward based on the fact that players will min-max everything. They base reward on the risk posed by the actual site (and difficulty being part of the likelihood of failure).
More risk from the site itself (eg. incursion) = more potential reward from the site itself.
Of course, the risk of PVP changes in each type of space as well, and in general, CCP place the more higher risk sites in the areas of space that provide more freedom to players to pvp (incursions in highsec go against this trend though), but itās the characteristics of the site that determine the reward.
Whosā claiming it is?
You claimed specifically that risk v reward doesnāt exist at all. That was the start of this whole discussion.
there you go and thatās why itās flaved. Hardest (riskiest by you) sites are in null, which can be more safe than low (safe because of lower pvp chance). Risk vs reward? You canāt separate pvp and pve in EvE.
1 Like
Its just some sites are harder and you have to fit for that, thay are harder not because there is more random based OMG OP SUPER DUPER WEAPON shooting you from nowhere, its just that NPCs have better numbers. Its hardly a risk if you know it. Else you just pose a risk to yourself by being unapropriate. Like in this picture:
About drifters, they do indeed pose significant difficulty, but then people know how to deal with them as of now and can calculate their loses too.
1 Like
I donāt care if it is flawed, nor have I offered any view on whether it is perfect, or if it could be improved.
You claimed that risk v reward doesnāt even exist in the game. It clearly does.
ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā . It is still a risk, even if you control it to a level you are comfortable with (unless you completely eliminate it all together by avoiding it all together).
Knowing the risk is a good thing. It means you can actually control it and if you didnāt control it, the risk would be much larger (and thatās the risk that CCP base reward around).
PvE rewards are largely indexed against time to complete vs dps/EHP required to complete them.
There are exceptions, but thatās the general scheme.
PvE rewards have absolutely nothing to do with risk, especially not PvP risk.
PvE involves zero risk, unless you add PvP into the equation.
1 Like
In my opinion, if they want to motivate people by risk/reward (which is already problematic, as I explained way upthread because there are also other factors at play, such as commitment availability and group-mindedness or not, for starters - and no doubt others I havenāt even thought of), they ought to be placing the juiciest plums in Low-Sec and not sovereign null. The rewards SHOULD be dynamically determined, so the better-policed (by NPC or players, matters not) a PvE content item is located in, the more its value should depreciate, because the EFFECTIVE overall risk is so much reduced (say, for instance, in sov space.) However, there is a complication here: the risk is reduced for the locals but INCREASED for intruders, so those should get then (to be fair) increased benefits. So, if someone from one alliance manages to run a few sites deep in a rival allianceās sov-null territory, they SHOULD be getting away with a shipload of booty (assuming they make it out) if we are using a true risk-vs-reward model. However, that in turn leads to another complication - said interloper is intercepted on the way out with a hold-full of shinies, it seems somehow unfair to ensure (by program algorithm) that almost none of the booty survive, but if applying risk-vs-reward fairly and even-handedly, thatās precisely what needs to happen, as stomping out an unwelcome visitor entails essentially zero risk to the full might of the local allianceās fleet (or however is deemed necessary to deal with the intrusion.) This could all, however, provide interesting incentives for risk-takers to try to raid enemy-held territory for Fabulouth Wealthth 
{EDIT: typocide. Sighā¦]
Did I? Where did I wrote āat allā?
Risk posed by 25% scram on NPC is entirely different than player posed risk because you hardly know what they fly.
That is the biggest thing for people and that is why PvE is distributed as such. CCP likes to endanger capsuleer lifes. 
Yep, right there. Risk v Reward will never be true,
Of course it is different.
We arenāt talking about the distribution of PVE. It is clear that CCP place the higher risk sites in areas that also offer more freedom to PVP (incursions aside).
But the reward of the site is determined from the site.
When level 5s were in highsec, they offered just as much reward as they do now, even though the risk of pvp is different between highsec and lowsec. Itās the characteristics of the site that determine reward and the more risk posed by a site, the greater the potential reward (irrespective of where it is),
Oh man, this backpedalling by Scipio.
Is it really that hard for you to admit you made a mistake?
1 Like
How are they āhigher riskā, at the exclusion of PvP?
There is no more risk in running high-end content in expensive ships, than running low-end content in cheap ships.
The only āriskā is whether players will show up and blow you up.
1 Like
And once again: not only site, that is why there is different PvE in high sec and low sec. You have to think globally.