EVE General Discussion

Everyone talks about RvR and about how it's out of whack. It's messed up in high sec, it's messed up null sec. Pretty much everywhere you go on the forums these days, some is whispering the magic words and clicking their heels together.

What is the metric this is based on? How does anyone know? What's the correct formula? Blanket statements don't really do it for me. Even if you think there's literally zero risk for doing x in hi/lo/null sec.

Should people lose, on average, 100 million ISK for every 500 million they earn? Every billion?

What's the magical secret formula that everyone but me seems to know?

well... it was a xmas post

CCP should start banning people creating this endless plethora of photocopy threads. The tears blot the sun!

Yes, ask all the people who lost their tech moons. It clearly was riskless for them Also, it needs to be nerfed more.

They're clearly blue to each other, forming the "HTFU and GTFO Coalition"

Exactly. That's why we must never nerf highsec. EVE is harsh, cold and really unbalanced, HTFU

It has to ensure that when players work together (eg: intel channels) their rewards go down, in order to punish them for putting in additional effort.

Another example: you set up and use a pos to keep yourself safe, spending the effort to maintain it. This means you die less, therefore your reward must go down.

Risk vs Reward... the theory or the reality?

The theory is pretty obvious. The reality is the greatest reward is the smallest risk: Join a nullsec Alliance and then just bot-farm your day away with their sov array generated freebie sites until you have all the ISK in the world. The smallest reward is mining, which carries the greatest risk because your constantly face being ganked by bored nullbears looking for something to throw their surplus ISK away on.

risk v reward is teh dumb.

I don't claim to have any expertise in this area but here is an attempt.

Basic formula, Value = (Reward*(Probability of Success) - (Assets Risked)*(Probability of Catastrophe)) / Effort

So an example, mining;

In HighSec you mine for an hour in a retriever and refine and sell the minerals, Reward ~ 10 million, Probability of Success ~ 0.95 (basically the only thing that can stop you is getting ganked, maybe you have wardecs, maybe you get suicide ganked), therefore the assets risked are 30 mill (ship + fit), P(Catastrophe) is about 0.05, effort is 0.5 (1 hour, pretty much AFK so I'm calling that 0.5).

Value = (0.95*10 - 30*0.05) / 0.5 = 16 million ISK per effort hour

Note this is more than you actually receive in an hour but I'm assuming ever hour of real time you really do half an hour of effort.

So that's pretty good.

In Nullsec the rewards are basically the same (the ores are worth the same). The probability of success is lower, any neut in system can shut you down. Anyone who comes across you can kill you, neuts or awoxers, there's rats to be tanked or killed. Then you have the effort of moving the products to a refining POS which you have set up and kept running, which cuts into the rewards. Then there's the risk of an enemy fleet attacking your space and a CTA. There's also the risk you'll lose your sov and your retriever will be trapped in a station you can no longer access. Also you have to to be vigilant the whole hour with at least 2 accounts.

It works out something like

Value = (0.7*10 - 30*0.1) / 2.5 = 1.6 Million ISK per effort hour.

Now maybe my calculations are harsh, we'd need some stats on numbers of ships ganked, chances of mining mission success (maybe what quantity of ore a miner mines based on number of hours flying the mining barge) etc.

This analysis can be done with any activity but you get the point, increasing the amount of effort and risk even a bit makes the activity radically less appealing.

I think this is what people are trying to get at with the Risk vs Reward argument, also there are questions of variance to be considered but that is a deeper question.

Hope this helps.