These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Risk vs. Reward
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#21 - 2012-12-25 22:21:10 UTC
Here we go, how many have alts in null supplying mains in hi, you need to add this into your mathematics

Besides nowhere in hi sec can you find bpc's worth billions check prices on that sansha's turd super carrier or those nice frigs worth minimum of 50 bill, then talk about RvR.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#22 - 2012-12-25 22:25:28 UTC
Thanks for the attempt, Bump Truck. A few criticisms, if I may. Your formula seems flawed to me in 3 respects.

1. The reward itself is an arbitrarily assigned number
2. Reward isn't really defined by risk
3. You have risk counting twice, and both times it's just wild guess at a P-value

So, basically, it seems to me to be contrived to make a point about null sec pretty much sucking. I have a difficult time accepting that as a neutral formula that many people would agree on.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#23 - 2012-12-25 22:28:49 UTC
Glathull wrote:
Thanks for the attempt, Bump Truck. A few criticisms, if I may. Your formula seems flawed to me in 3 respects.

1. The reward itself is an arbitrarily assigned number
2. Reward isn't really defined by risk
3. You have risk counting twice, and both times it's just wild guess at a P-value

So, basically, it seems to me to be contrived to make a point about null sec pretty much sucking. I have a difficult time accepting that as a neutral formula that many people would agree on.

Yeah, highsec needs a modifier to boost its rewards just because ~highsec, high rewards~

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Torakenat
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2012-12-25 22:35:19 UTC
RVR varies greatly based purely on you as a player and your corp/alliance if any.


It's impossible to formulate or even speculate how much generally speaking one would make without basing your thought process on the worst case scenario. And by that if you fit that bill as the worst case scenario than I can only hope you're in the corp we are wardec with instead of mine.

So to answer your question if its more lucrative to be in null instead of high sec...it depends.
Amarra Mandalin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-12-25 22:58:35 UTC
Glathull wrote:
Thanks for the attempt, Bump Truck. A few criticisms, if I may. Your formula seems flawed to me in 3 respects.

1. The reward itself is an arbitrarily assigned number
2. Reward isn't really defined by risk
3. You have risk counting twice, and both times it's just wild guess at a P-value

So, basically, it seems to me to be contrived to make a point about null sec pretty much sucking. I have a difficult time accepting that as a neutral formula that many people would agree on.


I think you need to get more fresh air.

This is a game about people.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#26 - 2012-12-25 23:07:28 UTC
Amarra Mandalin wrote:
Glathull wrote:
Thanks for the attempt, Bump Truck. A few criticisms, if I may. Your formula seems flawed to me in 3 respects.

1. The reward itself is an arbitrarily assigned number
2. Reward isn't really defined by risk
3. You have risk counting twice, and both times it's just wild guess at a P-value

So, basically, it seems to me to be contrived to make a point about null sec pretty much sucking. I have a difficult time accepting that as a neutral formula that many people would agree on.


I think you need to get more fresh air.

This is a game about people.

It's a game driven by NPCs.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#27 - 2012-12-25 23:10:42 UTC
Okay, so the sense I'm getting is that risk vs. reward is a meaningless phrase that people throw around because it sounds like an argument. But when you try to get people to quantify that argument, no one is interested.

Got it.

Thanks for the clarification and Merry Christmas.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Elrich Kouvo
Doomheim
#28 - 2012-12-25 23:15:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Elrich Kouvo
Glathull wrote:
I'm not arguing that it should be balanced. I'm asking what people think it ought to be?

Is it supposed to be something along the lines of reward = amount of ISK risked x time exposed to risk x sec modifier?


Leaving the nerf herding out of it, what do people think the formula should be?

Risk V. Reward was fancy marketing propaganda. You coldn't buy ISK then, and it tried to help players understand the reasons why bounties and ore scaled by sec status.

Since then,, CCP has added all kinds of content and changes, as well as player's actions that kinda muddle the idea.
Skylitsa
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-12-25 23:24:00 UTC
Bump Truck wrote:

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


Hope this helps.


risk in null. NULL.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#30 - 2012-12-25 23:24:18 UTC
Elrich Kouvo wrote:
Glathull wrote:
I'm not arguing that it should be balanced. I'm asking what people think it ought to be?

Is it supposed to be something along the lines of reward = amount of ISK risked x time exposed to risk x sec modifier?


Leaving the nerf herding out of it, what do people think the formula should be?

Risk V. Reward was fancy marketing propaganda. You coldn't buy ISK then, and it tried to help players understand the reasons why bounties and ore scaled by sec status.

Since then,, CCP has added all kinds of content and changes, as well as player's actions that kinda muddle the idea.

Damn players, they need to be nerfed. When they try and make use of tools available to them rather than just relying on NPCs, this breaks everything, so we need to break them.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#31 - 2012-12-25 23:35:59 UTC
Agreed, Alavaria.


Nerf ALL the players.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Bump Truck
Doomheim
#32 - 2012-12-26 00:16:40 UTC
Glathull wrote:
Thanks for the attempt, Bump Truck. A few criticisms, if I may. Your formula seems flawed to me in 3 respects.

1. The reward itself is an arbitrarily assigned number
2. Reward isn't really defined by risk
3. You have risk counting twice, and both times it's just wild guess at a P-value

So, basically, it seems to me to be contrived to make a point about null sec pretty much sucking. I have a difficult time accepting that as a neutral formula that many people would agree on.


No worries man, glad to help out.

To answer some of your points.

1. I put in that value for mining as it is about what I earn in my experience AFK mining in HighSec. It would be much more accurate to talk about missions as they have a fixed reward value (maybe with some variation if you're salvaging) where as mining is a bit more variable. It's basically how much you expect to earn from an activity assuming it goes well.

2. I'm not sure what you mean here, Risk is inherent in the formula and, when combined with reward, defines the value of an activity.

3. There's a minus sign so it doesn't count twice. Basically I divided the probability space up into three outcomes, success, no result and failure (which here means your ship being destroyed), this is a bit crude, but basically one of these three things will happen with any activity. You're right I had to guess what the numbers are, that doesn't affect the model though, that's a question of data quality.


I don't think I want it to be about null vs High per se. Consider some thought experiments;

If I offered you a coin flip for 10 million ISK or a 1 in 20 chance of winning 100 million ISK that is a tough choice right? It comes down to how much variance you want to accept but either is a good choice.

If I offered you a coin flip for 10 million ISK and a 1 in 20 chance of winning 10 million ISK you'd be mad to pick the latter.

This is, colloquially, what people mean by risk vs reward balance, it's a game theoretic idea that there are dominated strategies, ie things people will never choose as there is an alternative that is better in every way, this is what needs sorting out in the game.

So I think it's meaningful and I don't think we need a formula before it's worth debating. Some analysis would be good with data from CCP but I'm not the man to do that, I hear they have an economist.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2012-12-26 01:05:29 UTC
Glathull wrote:
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?


the real secret to RvR, what they really mean when they say it
-->
Industrialist or Mission Runner takes ALL the risks
PvP'er reaps ALL the rewards

Thats how they define RvR ..
only they gloss over it with socio-economic Bullshit in an attempt to make it sound reasonable and acceptable.



nul-sec is more risky
so nul- sec should earn more
is just more of the same lie.

Show me the Dev-Post that actually states clearly and precisely that Nul-Sec was designed from the ground up to be more profittable than highsec.
But dont just show me 1 of hundreds of "Nulsec should should have a higher income because it's Nul-Sec" self-entitled rants that we're thoroughly bored of having to ignore on a daily basis now.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#34 - 2012-12-26 01:07:34 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
the real secret to RvR, what they really mean when they say it
-->
Industrialist or Mission Runner takes ALL the risks
PvP'er reaps ALL the rewards

Buff freighters !

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Trendon Evenstar
Olympus Gods
#35 - 2012-12-26 01:15:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Trendon Evenstar
Piugattuk wrote:
Besides nowhere in hi sec can you find bpc's worth billions check prices on that sansha's turd super carrier or those nice frigs worth minimum of 50 bill, then talk about RvR


I read somewhere that we built the only one known to exist- and then sold it to some scrub c/d?

EDIT: Because its useless
Luanda Heartbreaker
#36 - 2012-12-26 01:23:08 UTC
SegaPhoenix wrote:
Some would argue the most common metric is player actions. The best example of this is null-sec players creating highsec alts because the ISK in highsec is equivalent but easier and consistent. Also industry in null is lol and needs fixing.



u do something very wrong. i went into 0.0 'cos ITS A LOT EASIER to make isk solo. its an iskprinter. i just undock, kill 2-3 heaven 100 mill... (no loot or salvage or any boring stuff, just pop in carry, launch sentries and fix eyes on intel) compare it to highsec missioning, u have to jump systems to and back, dock after every round (if u wanna make it worth, better going to salvage), adjust your ship to every mission and every mission is a risk that your ship will be killed by an unwanted spawn. tell me which anomaly can kill my carrier? NONE, if u watch intel and local, RISK=0, if its not true for u. get back in highsec.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-12-26 01:54:27 UTC
OP the only quantifiable metric I've seen for reward is isk/hr for an action. For risk yeah that's a gigantic formula that most of the forum won't get and will mindlessly post why its wrong, so I'll save that for later.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-12-26 02:19:20 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
OP the only quantifiable metric I've seen for reward is isk/hr for an action. For risk yeah that's a gigantic formula that most of the forum won't get and will mindlessly post why its wrong, so I'll save that for later.


if it's based on isk/hr then its unquantifiable ..


each unit of time that passes, is gone ... it cannot be respent anywhere else
as the time i have is finite, and WILL run out at some point how can you place an actual value on it

my time is priceless



this is why eve has no risk
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#39 - 2012-12-26 04:13:37 UTC
Trendon Evenstar wrote:
Piugattuk wrote:
Besides nowhere in hi sec can you find bpc's worth billions check prices on that sansha's turd super carrier or those nice frigs worth minimum of 50 bill, then talk about RvR


I read somewhere that we built the only one known to exist- and then sold it to some scrub c/d?

EDIT: Because its useless

As I understand, there's only one that was ever built, and I believe that's what happened.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Zen Sarum
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2012-12-26 05:01:51 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Zen Sarum wrote:
3. So say you are a combat pilot in a massive coalition, if you lose a ship it gets replaced. The coalition holds all of its space and pays the SRP as well as super and other funded programs by using static income (tech). This moons have no real risk as the coalition holds most of it and controls its price and it has reached a point where noone can ever take. The moons use resources and require maintenance but this is minimal in comparison to the income generated. So the pilot may buy new ships with this 'free' isk and this creates inflation. He may even be able to rat in a system + 50 jumps from any enemy mitigating nearly all risk. Other then buying stuff they dont need and plex.. what is the point however?

So were is risk and were is the activity in the above.

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



Erm kinda obvious none of them were lost, you effectively made them all part of your extended coalition?

Yes it needs to be nerfed so that all income is activity based from the players and is completely risk vs reward, highest of both being 0.0, which to be honest has never been so safe as it is now.
Previous page123Next page