Maybe just trying to explain it so people like you can understand, No backpeddling necessary.
You arent explaining anything.
You are circling around your core mistake without recognizing it.
You refuse to answer direct questions on that.
What risk does PvE pose, at the exclusion of PvP?
1 Like
and this implies that risk vs rewards doesnât exist? Sorry itâs second language and Iâm not sure Iâm precise in it. What I meant was: if you put best sites into what you think is most dangerous space it doesnât mean that sentence ârisk vs rewardâ is accurate, because said space can be changed to be safer, which strike off word âriskâ from said sentence.
1 Like
Which is why the reward is based around the risks that a site presents, because the risk of PVP is variable. It canât (or isnât) used to determine the reward because CCP canât know it in advance.
Even in highsec, different systems (eg. mission hubs, Uedama, Jita, etc.) have a higher risk of PVP than other systems in highsec, yet the rewards for similar sites is the same. PVP risk doesnât determine the reward. The site itself determines the reward and those that pose more risks (eg. burner missions) provide more potential reward.
And HOW exactly, is that a factor of risk?
Youvâe been told over again that that reward is determined by a comparison of time to complete vs dps/ehp required to complete the site.
Where is the RISK in PvE sites, that you claim somehow figures into that reward?
Furthermore, at the exclusion of PvP, how is running low-end sites with cheap ships LESS risky than running high-end sites with expensive ships?
WHERE/WHAT IS THE RISK IN PVE YOU CLAIM?
Salvos, I have no interest in discussing anything with you. Youâve proven time and time again, right from expressing a view that you would laugh seeing another player kicked in the face IRL, not worthy of any time.
You can ask your questions all you like, but I will continue to ignore you, because the time will be wasted and the responses twisted to play some stupid game you enjoy.
Not with me. Ever. Weâve been through this several times. Iâm not engaging in discussion with you.
Everyone else is fine. You, I have little respect for.
1 Like
Yes, I understand that, because I have a proven history of shoving your own words down your throat.
Your crap doesnt fly with me, and I will call you on it everytime.
Actually, not quite accurate, either. The rewards scale with system security level, so a mission, for example, in 0.5 space is significantly more lucrative than one in 1.0 - the security status directly determines the suitability and appeal of that system to certain types of PvP - so indirectly and tacitly here CCP do in fact concede that the risk factor is influenced by PvP. Just as the various rules for the different security levels are entirely to do with PvP - so again, initial PvP considerations are taken into account. But the EMERGENT dynamics are not being taken into account - how, for example, Low is effectively much safer than most Null (at least, for that Null that players live in/are members of.) (Hey, if you can simply keep repeating your so-called âargumentsâ, then why shouldnât I, right? 
)
The problem here is that their methodology is not merely fundamentally flawed, but it is even internally inconsistent - they DO factor in PvP in the broad strokes of security level, but utterly fail to take into account changing, emergent realities. And yet their whole pitch revolves around emergent player-driven content creation - again, inconsistency - or does that qualify as full-blown hypocrisy, perhaps? (on the part of CCP, I mean)
1 Like
Let me go and test that, because itâs not my experience directly (though I canât remember ever being send to a 1.0 system for a mission).
Happy to acknowledge if I can find an agent that will send me to a 1.0 system (or 0.9, 0.8) for one mission and then to a 0.5, 0.6 system for another of the same level and the rewards are different.
Off the top of your head, do you know of any missions where the same mission agent sends people to 1.0 and 0.5 that I can quickly go to, or even if it is missions of the same level in 1.0 and 0.5 but from different agents. The agent shouldnât matter, just the level of the site?
Be sure to take into account LP rewards - I canât right now remember whether both LP and ISK are affected, but at least one is, and perhaps both.
Not off the top of my head - hmmm⌠I used to run a lot of Sisters missions at one point (to make me a set of SoE faction ships 
), but I also run a ton of others, across all factions, so theyâve all blurred together in my mind somewhat I know that the sec level definitely affects the rewards, though, and you neednât compare 0.5 to 1.0, it scales quite obviously, so you can use a narrower gap. However, donât take my word for it (âappeal to authorityâ is a logical fallacy, so I shanât use it), check for yourself if you can (there are also old threads and discussion on various sites that outline the progression, but thatâs just âappeal to consensusâ, and guess what? Thatâs right⌠)
Yes, for an apples-to-apples comparison, what you need to test is the same mission. But hereâs the catch, I now remember - the reward is determined not by the sec level of the destination, but by the sec level where the agent lives. So you need to test the same mission, at the same level, from two agents in different sec levels (this makes it easier in some regards, and harder in others.) And if you want to really eliminate all possibility of contamination by outside factors, the same NPC corp, in case standing affects the rewards (I donât think they do, but Iâm not 100% sure)
OK. Iâll see if I can find an agent for the same level mission in different sec status systems and compare total reward (since LP and bounties are part of the reward).
Lol so you respect the deviant abhorrents involved in the Bonus Room, whom got banned for it, rather than me that got TOd for a comment that I did my due time for.
Nice double standard, and no excuse to ignore me proving you wrong.
Your ad hominem is tiresome.
I dont need or desire your respect, only your answers to ontopic questions regarding your own claims.
Explain what is the risk in PvE, without any PvP?
No, not at all. I raised the issue of the bonus room with CODE. long before the riptard led torches.
But I donât respect you for finding amusement in the idea of another player being kicked in the face. Every bit just as bad as the bonus room. Worse in some ways.
I can find amusement in whatever I want.
I did my time without complaint for that.
Your respect is not a prerequisite for you answering direct questions on claims you, yourself, made.
I dont need or want your respect.
That is no excuse not to defend your claim from questioning.
What is the risk in PvE, at the exclusion of PvP?
rather how hard the site is not how risky it is, you keep confusing those two things. I didnât risk anything because I know what to expect and how those sites works (pvp excluded). They are premade, not generated, if they are generated then we may talk about my risk to lose ship in it because I wonât know what to expect.
obviously, but it can be mitigated by upgrading system for pve use, so players can manipulate it to some point. BTW CCP try to determine where the pvp will be by putting best rewards where they put them. Fighting over them etc.
not itâs not. Which is why ârisk vs rewardâ statement is not accurate.
1 Like
Sure and I can choose not to respect whatever I want. ÂŻ_(ă)_/ÂŻ
Just another one of your stupid tangents.
Here is some reading material on the subject matter, some of it around for long now (still valid, as far as I know, and from what Iâve observed.) Itâs all, of course, chronicles of anecdotal evidence, but itâs quite detailed.
https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/topic/83489/
https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/System_security
(see section: Game Mechanics affected by System Security - I donât know how to link to a particular place on a page. Interestingly, it indicates that difficulty also scales with security level, though itâs unclear how granular it is - ie. perhaps only the categories affect it and not the number itself, or perhaps not.)
Sure, you effectively controlled the risk.
CCP donât determine the rewards around how you control the risks. They base the rewards around the underlying risks the sites present (ie. what you have to control in the first place to reduce the risk of failure or loss).
Risk control is all great. We all do it. We would be stupid not too. But how we control risk doesnât determine the rewards either.
No, the location of the agent matters. The security status of the system the agent is located influences the payout, scaling up as the security status goes down. As does the type of anomalies that spawn.
This whole argument is largely semantics and reminds me of the favourite of bantering whether losing your ship to CONCORD is a cost or a risk. PvE sites become more challenging as the security status of the system goes down, often require more expensive ships to be fielded, and sometimes require more organization or larger number of players. On top of this, they also put those running the PvE in areas of space where they are more vulnerable to other players.
The whole game is balanced on risk vs. reward, effort vs. reward and group size/organization vs. reward as it should be. People who claim otherwise are really missing the fundamental design of the game. We can all quibble that in some cases those risks/effort/organization vs. a reward arenât balanced perfectly, but it is so basic it is almost self-evident the game has to be balanced this way.
To bring this back on topic, I am sure the new space opened up by these new star gates will be balanced along the exact same lines. Some will be safer and easier to access to solo players, while other parts will be more risky and require groups to exploit their resources/rewards. Nothing fundamental is going to change here. My only hope is that CCP can figure out more interesting ways to do so than the crude and content-killing highsec CrimeWatch mechanics.
3 Likes
Yep, Felyx clarified his earlier statement above.