True enough, it is subjective; with my chosen playstyle I consider getting shot in the face to be a consequence of making daft choices and taking on too much risk, hence I try and minimise the chances of it happening to me.
Others consider shooting others in the face and getting shot in the face to be good fun, and will actively seek opportunities to indulge in said pursuits.
There’s room for both in Eve; however some would rather that CCP manages their risk for them, they need to be shot in the face.
An excellent TL;DR. Indeed, if you can avoid risk…avoid it. If you can’t decide if it is too much or acceptable and choose accordingly.
Risk aversion…a good thing.
Entitlement a bad thing.
You are risk averse–i.e. a smart player. Nothing wrong with this…in fact it is a feature not a bug.
True enough, but they don’t just do it blithely without considering a number of options and possibilities. They won’t go into that encounter in a ■■■■ fit ship for example.
Can’t we all agree that everyone here is a bad EVE player and call it a day? In other news, no matter how well informed you are in a sandbox game can you truly have all the information you need to make a good choice? No matter what, no matter how well you plan, there is always risk in EVE.
I get that perhaps many of you are content starved. Perhaps you should create new content that isn’t risk averse?
And ask any psychologist that what is in your mind affects your life if only that it is in your mind. What is real is often only a perceived reality yet that is enough to dictate a lot of a persons actions or inactions. In this idea “aversion” or fear could be argued to be all on our heads, both in game and in Monopoly, yet it will control and mandate how we play those games and the subsequent risks we do or dont take.
So having no feeling, like I Solstice self diagnosed, towards something just because its a video game does hedge one closer to being prone to psychopathy.
Background
Solstice btw Im not picking on you this entire topic is just a big part of why I enjoy Eve as an ‘amateur’ psychologist. One of our local professors is the writer to the Psychopathy Checklist and its a very interesting point of note how peoples perceptions are changing to this condition.
I have often pondered the question who makes a game for psychopaths and sociopaths but other psychopaths and sociopaths? Seeing as Eve is often considered a game for the more successful of these types it does seem. Now is it true or just an ideology of internet idealism/trolling.
Then I have started thinking about the carebear versus “pvper” argument given the psychopathy checklist and the results started to be… interesting.
Well one could say that operating in a more protected area and expecting to be fully protected is entitlement, but than again so can choosing to operate in a more protected area and expecting that this protection level and mechanics will never change…
I would suggest that this applies to the second type too.
Everyone defines risk at some level, it is human nature, some would say that the perfect Eve player is one who assesses the risk and then says damn it lets do it anyway, I like those moments too…
Did not notice you picking on me, though I also barely read through this thread.
We have successfull people who are successfull mostly because they’re … let us use assholes, as a generic term … and then there are the losers, like carebears, who for some interesting reason actually are even bigger assholes, yet they are losers.
Evidence, as usual, spread all over the forums. I have not yet fully settled with the idea that it isnot actually the extremst carebears (you know, those who could as well be called fascists) who are actual psychopaths and turned into this, because they were raised into power- and helplessness.
Of course, though, there are winners who are not actually assholes, but are willing to do what is necessary … and there are losers who are not crying, screaming babies who would likely harm you in real life if you ganked them and lived next door.
Or they are extremely rich. Most of the extemely wealthy have an exteme risk tolerance. Most fail, but a few get lucky. And this is also more common in men, so that is why most of the extremely rich are male.
For the risk seeker it is the risk that they after more than rewards. A compulsive gambler. For the risk seeker more money means more risks to take. It is possible to avoid ruin but it is quite unlikely as the risk seeker cannot stop.
Venture capitalists are risk averse in that they will invest in an array of new ideas. The old adage of don’t put all your eggs in one basket. But you are correct that this is where substantial profits are. And yes men take greater risks as well.
What is real is often only a perceived reality yet that is enough to dictate a lot of a persons actions or inactions. In this idea “aversion” or fear could be argued to be all on our heads, both in game and in Monopoly, yet it will control and mandate how we play those games and the subsequent risks we do or dont take.
