Scipio is trying to conflate securing PvE running against PvP, as somekind of internal risk of PvE itself.
Its false.
A) The reward of the site does not care one whit whether another player attacks you.
B) PvE content itself poses no risk, whatsoever, unless you attempt it with less dps/ehp than is required for its completion.
C) The reward of the site does not care what dps/ehp you are flying to complete it, or how long it takes you.
PvE sites, themselves, do not involve risk, nor is their reward scaled by it.
As is true of ALL of EVE, risk is introduced by OTHER PLAYERS, hence, PvP.
PvE is just a context in which PvP can occur, and hence, introduces risk.
PvE itself, involves no risk, whasoever.
Youâre assuming that risk is an absolute, static value, when in fact it is relative and context-sensitive. Risk-control, as you call it, is an attempt to reduce (or, as you claim, eliminate - though elimination is an absolute) the risk - that in itself demonstrates that the risk is not fixed, itâs not a static absolute quantification. If the risk has been eliminated via ârisk controlâ, then it is no longer there, it is not still there but not. It is no longer a factor, it no longer has the potential to threaten.
What you refer to as risk could perhaps be more accurately (?) termed as âbase danger/hazardâ or even âbase riskâ if you will. The âbaseâ indicates that itâs the fundamental, unmodified, uncompensated for base value - but it is not and never will be the effective risk, which is the only meaningful metric, ultimately, when it comes to actual risk experienced/braved.
The problem as I (and Jeremiah) see it, is that the rewards are being calculated based on the base risk and not the effective risk - this is the sort of thing that lawyers and politicians love to do in order to further their own agendas (my country, for example, has a long history of claiming annual inflation rates based on some theoretical base values - but the realities of escalating costs of living are VERY different!), but in mathematical and scientific and REAL terms, it holds no water.
Nope. Risk is rarely absolute. There is always a range of likelihood and consequences, which can be different for different people, even for the same activity.
If Im the last remaining player in EVE, and I run PvE content (after all, I cant run PvP, since there is no one to PvP), what risk is the PvE site posing to me?
Semantics. Whether you call it a risk or just âdifficultyâ not all PvE is equal and as a design principle requires more expensive ships or larger fleets as they reward scales upwards.
Part of that is also the risk the other players present as the more valuable rewards are located in more PvP-friendly space which can not only inflict direct loss on you, but limited how expensive a ship you can sanely bring. That last point alone means that PvE in the relatively safe highsec should pay much less as you can reasonably bring blinged out PvE fits that complete the site much faster than a cheaper PvP fit you should use elsewhere.
Everyone is right against as usual in these semantic spirals. Shall we get back to the topic at hand which is speculating on how these new star gates and new space will/should work?
He claimed PvE, in and of itself, without PvP, poses risk.
Thats the red herring he has used for years, whilst hedging that ârisk managementâ of running that PvE nonetheless requires PvP capacity to dissuade PvP introducing risk to the otherwise non-risky PvE encounter. Its irrational and self-defeating. The risk in running PvE sites, is clearly from PvP, or why consider defense PvP as a function of risk management regarding running PvE sites.
Hes also tried to conflate the value of reward from PvE, with risk.
Its false. As he himself admitted, the reward from the site doesnt care if PvP occurs in it, or not.
PvE content rewards are largely scaled on time to complete vs dps/ehp of the completer. The site itself is of no risk, whatsoever. At best, how long it takes you to complete it as a factor in whether you will be attacked by another player. Without PvP, there is no more or less risk if it takes you 1min or 100mins to clear the site.
Only when PvP is considered, does running PvE content become a risk, not due to the PvE content posing risk, but due to other players posing risk.
The simple test of this is the following:
-If there was no risk of PvP whilst running PvE content in NS with a carrier, and the site itself poses no risk to your fit, that = no risk.
I donât know, New space with new mechanics done right could add a lot to the game. Wormhole space did that, and there is no reason they couldnât add something similar.
I agree that just adding more of the same is a pointless exercise. But a new space with new mechanics and the land rush thatâs comes with that could really invigorate the game for a long time.
Letâs hope the eventually get there and have the resources to realize their vision.
I think as mentioned, the most likely is we get medium and large stargates to replace jump bridges this fall, and XL gates to open the new and different space in 2019.
Just what is it? What can be so new about them? We had something like avatar gameplay visions, WIS and that exploration module, it was even showed and it was in a phase more advanced than this:
Its less of a vision, more like muddy promises at every fanfest. There is the same graph showed to people. Mysterious and alluring.
Itâs my belief that many are likely misunderstanding what a âPlayer Built Stargateâ is likely to be.
That the are also âcoming soonâ is also very likely - for we need at least the first (Medium? 5ly range) to replace Jump Bridges. Those, along with Cyno Beacons and Cynosaural Jammers (perhaps separate small or medium structures themselves) will then allow the final remaining POS to dissapear and the associated code removed.
So - a âPlayer Built Stargateâ could well be no more than a Jump Bridge replacement connecting two already known systems. No new space.
What would be interesting, however, is whether you are allowed (no reason not to really) have more than one per system - could be new Stargate networks everywhere! But, they might well need Sovereignty to anchor.
Medium - 5ly(?) - or new medium structures to replace Jammers and Beacons?
You know, new mechanics. Like what were introduced with wormholes in the Apocrypha expansion and created a new flavor of space.
I am skeptical CCP has the resources to pull it off, but the potential is there. Letâs wait to hear what they think they can do with the new space before declaring it a failure before they even started coding it.
Strictly speaking, if they ever were introduced who would actually care?
Systems in EVE are just big empty rooms full of nothing. Player made doors to nothing are no more interesting than pre-made doors to nothing.
And yes, itâs a pipe dream. Itâs long been CCP strategy to have âthat thingâ hovering on the horizon that they just never quite manage to fully conceive but love to talk about.
EVE is like the vast Serengeti plains of Africa. Go any where you please, try it! But, every animal has to come to a watering hole and thatâs where the crocs lie in wait.
Gates and stations in low and null are like those watering holes, and PVPârs lie in wait to gank at the first moment you appear. So, stay out of null and low sec. Thatâs the message unless you want to PVP.
Oh, but blah blah blah, there is more PVP in Hi Sec than in low. Okay, so stop mining ice and ores is also the message that is going out. Oh and donât fly transport with cargo through Uedema is another. Then stop playing EVE if you donât like the PVP. Really? Thatâs the best you can respond with? Oh CCP would love you for that kind of reply, sure discourage players from playing EVE.
If CCP wants players to go out into null and lowsec they need to give a player the means to be like a space camels not needing to go where the crocs lie in wait.
But assuming you are smart enough to stay awake at the wheel, I would say ânoneâ.