Risk Aversion


Aversion to risk. A strong dislike of, and/or disinclination to take, risk.


Near as I can tell, rationally trying to avoid a sufficiently negative outcome, i.e. jumping one’s capship from tether to tether to avoid a gank, not traveling with too much bling and too little tank in a freighter, not flying what you can’t afford to lose, insuring ships you expect to lose, etc.


Near as I can tell, most rational people who play Eve. In fact, if one isn’t playing ‘risk averse’ by the definitions above, one is chastised by players on the forums for being stupid, i.e. “haha, you shoudn’t fly your freighter with that much stuff in it” or “first rule of Eve - never fly what you can’t afford to lose” etc.


Yes. In fact, they are probably the most risk averse.


If it’s bad, then most people playing the game are bad. People playing according to rules like ‘never fly what you can’t afford to lose’ would most certainly be bad. People in nullsec cartels availing themselves of large intelligence networks, protective fleets, etc. would most certainly be bad. Nullsec carrier pilots doing ratting while being aligned, having dscan open, intelligence coms up, a protective fleet nearby on standby, etc. would most certainly be bad.


I dunno.


There’s a difference between risk mitigation, and risk aversion.

Most people in eve will take actions to lower the risk they run, but they will engage in risky actions if they think the rewards are worth it. Losing a ship in this case is simply operational loss, and factored into their profits.

Some people in eve do not know how to effectively mitigate their risks, and instead choose to try and avoid all risks alltogether. Of course, this being eve, they fail… as no activity is risk free.


I’m so risk averse i hardly ever leave my basement, cough cough I mean lvl 4 mission complexes/station.

1 Like

Sorry, but you are completely wrong:

Is risk mitigation. The pilot uses the tools available in the game to reach his goals.

A risk avers person would not use the tools available but demand from CCP on the forums that they make the his JF save.

Is risk mitigation. The pilot takes the risk to lose his ship by undocking it but mitigates it by trying to stay under the radar.

A risk averse pilot would expect CCP to secure his Freighter and demand that risk factors like ganking gets nerfed or eradicated from the game

Is risk mitigation. You play a game and you can chose what assets you put on the table when you undock. Putting a reasonable amount on the table is not risk averse but common sense.

A risk avers player would expect to always be save no matter what he undocks with.

Is risk mitigation. It allows you to reclaim part of the value you put on the table when you undocked.

A risk averse player would not insure his ship because he does not expect to lose it and then complains on the forums about it.

In other words:

Risk mitigation: You play the game despite the risk that you may lose and you acknowledge that it is your responsibility to use the tools available to manage and reduce that risk.

Risk averse: You do not accept the risk and don’t feel responsible to take on any risk. You try to make others responsible to manage your risk and try to get rid of it by trying to eradicate it from the game.

That does not mean that risk averse people don’t take on any risk. Often they take on too many exactly because they think it is not their responsibility to manage and reduce their own risk and then they come here and cry about how mean the game is.


Even remaining in station and not undocking has its risks (ship spinning can lead to carpal tunnel).

1 Like

I think most players will try to minimize risk where they can and accept the parts they can’t change. I know I can get ganked anywhere so I don’t put stupid amounts of bling on my ships. Along with that there are a handful of other things players do, things like keep local open, keep dscan up, watch intel channels. I’m fine with that, you know what can happen and are still willing to participate, as @Trevor_Dalech said, it’s an operational loss you’ve already factored loss into the equation. for sure some things I’d like to see changed coughecmcough

The issue is when people don’t understand the risks and play the game anyways. I think the most risk averse are the ones that don’t even try to understand the mechanics, and then get upset when they do lose a ship. How many massive whine threads have you seen on the forums? For me it’s a lot, many over a lost mining ship, some over lost freighters, many over wardecs.

great question, really got to question the nullbears that make fun of people that stay in highsec while encouraging every newb to come to null to afk vni rat in “even safer” space, and then massively blob anyone that tries to attack.

that and have you ever seen what happens when most groups lose a battle, or lose a few systems. failcascade. I saw it first hand in IDLE, we grabbed a few worthless systems in geminate, CCP introduced anoms and suddenly the space was useful, got evicted pretty quickly and most of the people that were invested couldn’t stomach the loss. I tried to keep people level headed about it, but they went ahead and built their sandcastles anyways.

Saw lazerpigs go to geminate last night, took a 1v10 fight and they still brought ECM to kill him. https://zkillboard.com/kill/69464320/ Sure you go somewhere to mess with ratters don’t be surprised when you get shut down, but I thought horde was supposed to give good fights?

And that’s small scale, now look at the million dollar battle, can’t even have a fight where a few of the big parties are actually involved as the node dies during the fight before all the pieces are even in play.


Mitigation or aversion?

From what I can see the end result is the same so it’s a game of forum semantics. By far the most risk averse in the game are high sec gankers based on their forum tears to gameplay ratio. They’re followed closely by null bears and their constant whining to “fix” the mechanics to suit their gameplay.

Hiding behind words to try and keep your “elite PVP” status is not only typical of EVE players, but just lame.

Mr Epeen :sunglasses:


In this game, as in life, amateurs tend to either play it super safe because they don’t understand the environment or they get their kicks from high risk behavior and rolling the dice. Professionals get their kicks from managing risk and carefully playing the odds. Don’t confuse the risk aversion of amateurs (driven by ignorance) with the risk management of professionals (driven by knowledge). Your post suggest you don’t really understand the difference.

Not to mention, true care bears are rarely offended by being called a care bear. They know who and what they are and usually own it. It’s only the amateur risk takers who tend to find it offensive. Professional risk managers who employ the term are simply trolling the insecure because they’ve been around long enough to understand what I wrote above.


Either extreme is just bad management of risk, but it’ll get better over time nothing wrong with getting your ass handed to you a few time’s :]

Anyone who’s ever been involved in actual high risk activities knows very well that it’s not semantics. I don’t disagree with your other observations but don’t make the mistake of dismissing the concept of risk management as “lame” excuses.

Like ganking with alpha gangs? Ratting in safe null in a Carrier?

I could go on, but why bother.

Mr Epeen :sunglasses:

1 Like

I’m going to have to disagree with this in a technical sense (though I agree with your points).

Risk averse means simply disinclined or reluctant to take risks. That’s without the negative connotation.

In your freighter example, the risk adverse pilot would just… not do it. They might find another way, like shipping goods rather than moving them herself.

We need a new adjective to describe someone who would rather change the existing rules rather than adapt. A person who does this might be risk averse, but not all risk averse people would go to this extreme. Most would simply adapt or leave - change implies risk.

–Gadget thinks chicken-■■■■ might be a bit strong :slight_smile:


I was speaking of real life risk. It’s the classic example of “there are no old, bold pilots.”

Well this is basically the definition of a carebear

Hahahahahahahhaha!!!1111eleven “high risk” hahahahahahhahahaha!!!

First mistake.

There is no rational choice involved. It is a rationalized reaction to some variant of fear. They rationalize their behaviour after the feeling dictates their reaction.

What you seem to be missing, is that you imply that it is normal to be afraid of losing stuff you do not own in the first place. The reason for their fears are rooted in them being either unable, or unwilling to not attach themselves to whatever it is they are afraid of losing.

Also is not always just about stuff, but also about others “harming” their self perception. They see themselves as some sort of desired ideal they want to represent ( though they mostly are not roleplayers) and when someone comes in and harms that bubble, they explode in anger and hate.

But of course are there also those who would be afraid of losing time (work involved grinding isk) or money (work involved grinding real dollars).

Anyhow… your base is wrong, therefore I save myself from reading the rest.

Please try again, though.

1 Like

The most risk-averse player I’ve encountered yet was an elite ganker. He ganked my frigate in highsec. I decided to take revenge so I went to a level 4 agent to track him down, then I got a ship, fitted it, etc. In my research of killboards and what not I saw just how many billions he was making by ganks - it was actually shocking.

Anyway, long story short, if the guy wasn’t in a ship gate camping and actively ganking, he would switch clones to one with no implants and would go literally EVERYWHERE in just a pod. Oh, I podded him, but he lost nothing.

1 Like

OP seems a bit extreme in those statements and conclusions. as far as EVE society goes:

Risk Averse -> people that run/hide the moment they see any sign of danger, not because they cant fight back or replace what they could possibly loose, but because they dont want to face those obstacles.

for example: FW plexers with stabbed punishers and Null sec ratters/miners.

FW system as it is makes it up to be easily farmed without any kind of risk whic takes out the point of what Faction War is supposed to be. people should be blowing up enemy vessels either NPC or other players, not circling a beacon in a Capture the Flag minigame.

as for Null Sec ratting/mining, its sadly a necessity if you want to live under the fold of an alliance. the risk aversion comes due to the whole intel infrastructure which means people is already setting course to station the moment they hear about a neutral moving around.

most people will say otherwise but a good portion of those dont want to fight back their would be gankers, they just change to Netflix or something else in the meantime until the place is deserted again without ever showing up.

Non Risk Averse -> people that know the risks of what they want to do and find a way to mitigate that risk without leaving what they do, in most cases there’s a backup plan if heavy losses are expected.

for example: solo WH/Low sec dwellers, low/null explorers, most PvPeers in general and NPC null sec dwellers.

pretty sure i dont have to explain this part, PvP means loosing your ship, no matter how good you are at it or how well fitted/broken is the ship, it will explode sooner or later. despite this, explorers keep delving into the unknown gambling for riches on their paper thin scanning hulls. wormholers, specially those that dont have access to a POS/Upwell have to traverse blindly looking for content and make sure they set different routes in case of ganks from other players.

without the backup of an intel or a corp/alliance with infrastructure, there’s no place to be risk averse, you have to as the old saying, HTFU.

Naw OP had it right, rest are semantics. +1

Aversion and mitigation are the flip sides of the same coin. You mitigate because you are averse to it.

Mitigation : not going skydiving without a parachute

Aversion: death

Vultures: youre risk averse

parachute company: your mitigating and smart.


Going to disagree here Ima.

Risk mitigation is what those who are risk averse do when faced with “too much risk”.

Risk aversion is a relative concept. We are all risk averse to varying degrees. And being risk averse does not mean not taking risks, but taking risks that one finds acceptable. For example, driving to work is a risk. Yet it is a small risk so most people are willing to take that risk, even when they are risk averse. They can still mitigate risk by doing things like wearing a seat belt, making sure your tires properly inflated, etc.

Here is the wikipedia definition. It is pretty good, but I’d quibble with the word uncertainty, but it isn’t that big a deal.

In economics and finance, risk aversion is the behavior of humans (especially consumers and investors), when exposed to uncertainty, in attempting to lower that uncertainty. It is the hesitation of a person to agree to a situation with an unknown payoff rather than another situation with a more predictable payoff but possibly lower expected payoff. For example, a risk-averse investor might choose to put his or her money into a bank account with a low but guaranteed interest rate, rather than into a stock that may have high expected returns, but also involves a chance of losing value.

So, a player who can jump to a beacon blind or jump to another beacon where he can get intel (either a scout or an alt) and both suit his needs (say a midpoint) by picking the scouted system that player is risk averse. There is no disputing this given the definition above. When given a choice between a high risk and a low risk actions, by picking the low risk option signals risk aversion.

As to actual players, I think it is more helpful to look at the sequence of actions. Players do not usually show up demanding less risk…until they have suffered a loss (in fact their behavior is more consistent with risk seeking). And usually what has happened is that the player unknowingly took on too much risk. My guess is these people made mistake, a bad one, and are angry and think it is unfair. Which is likely due in part to these players not fully apprehending the nature of the game. So they come and rage post about how unfair everything is.

We shouldn’t consider these players simply as risk averse and thus risk aversion is bad. We should just consider them bad. Risk aversion is fine and even desirable. Knowledgeable and risk averse players make the game challenging. They will also likely take a loss well. They’ll take the loss well because they’ll understand the risk they took and not be upset when it doesn’t “pay off”.

Indeed. I consider myself risk averse. I am certainly not risk seeking. When faced with risk I look to see what options there are to reduce the risk…which can be considered risk mitigation or risk management.

People who did something dumb. Go into a rage about it, ask for ridiculous changes on the forum and such…they might be risk averse, but there is something else there. Refusing to take responsibility for their own actions. Refusing to admit they made a mistake. Blaming someone else for their mistake and inability to take responsibility.

There we go. :sunglasses: