EVE General Discussion

Acceptable risk is 1/100 getting ganked. Right now its much higher than that.

OP... questions are tl;dr but here's some info... I want to:

a. Walk in the station
b. Find the captain's quarters of the tradeing hub alts
c. Bust trough their doors
d. Shoot them in the head
e. Loot their wallets
f. read their wallet journals and find out who their mains are
g. find their main's capt quarters.
h. bust their main's capt quarters doors
i. shoot them in the head to
j. loot their wallets


Because *NOTHING* is more carebearish than the high sec trade hub market alt who never undocks.

Not necessarily you, but it's not just you that would be seeing replies.

True, but would you rather gain respect from the community by showing that you care about a balanced game rather than hope things will "fix" themselves in the end? Notice how one way you are in control and the other you simply let others do the changes for you?

As it is now, the only real motivation for this "hate against miners" is because they apparently do not care if the game is balanced. Care to prove these "accusations" wrong?

Whether you play for eye-candy or for profit, my opinion on the matter is that a balanced game is key for the ongoing success of it. Balance is what brings enjoyment in achieving something, balance is what makes replayability more fun. When making money no longer becomes balanced and the only people playing the game do so for "eye-candy", isn't that the very definition of a dead MMO?

This is per what, per undock? Per autopilot though heavily camped-by-ganker area?

Per minute of afk mining?

Units?

1 in a Hundred What?

Because I guarantee that with a little effort, your risk of being ganked will fall below 1 in a Hundred days. It's a New Deal for miners.

I think to get to the heart of the answer, I have to phrase the questions differently. I'll venture to outline new questions and rough answers.

(1) How long should recovery for a loss take?

I would say that this is a sliding scale, in that loss recovery should be quick for new players and longer for more experienced players. That said, the answer to this question also depends on loss frequency, as an activity is not profitable of losses happen more quickly than they can be recovered.

Assuming a low loss frequency, I wouldn't want recovery to make more than a work day (say 8 to 10 hours). This assumes I have enough savings to replace what I lost, and therefore do not see my earnings drop.

(2) How frequent should losses be?

For high-sec care bears, I would say not very. The problem with a higher loss frequency is that the loss frequency will vary, and you don't want a player to buckle because two or three losses can come too quickly with a relatively minor variation in loss frequency.

(3) What should the net income of the activity be, once you subtract for a typical loss rate?

This is where I really struggle to come up with an answer.

Let me take off my care bear hat for a moment and try to think like a PvP'er (which I am not). PvP tends to be an income sink, so I want there to be activities that generate net income to fund my PvP. Ideally, that net income is high enough that I can spend a signficant fraction of my time in PvP.

The question then, is how the game can let PvP players cover their losses without leaving PvE players flush with cash when both engage in the same activities.

Some other comments...



Frankly, I think this is the wrong way to ask a care bear to measure risk.

PvP is a more directly competitive endeavor. Wins and losses are typically, but not always, determined by player skill. Even in this sense, though, skill shouldn't just be about "not making mistakes". It should (typically) be about executing better, having marginally more precision, better twitch, and/or better timing, not, "Shoot, I forgot to turn on my guns!".

In the end, PvP victory should go to the player who deviates less form perfect execution. One can call deviation perfect execution "mistakes", but ideally the good matches are determined by deviations to small to warrant the term. In that sense, there should be at least some matches where the loser says, "He/she just outplayed me that round. I should practice so I can do better next time."

PvE is very different in that the player trying to defeat a more-or-less fixed obstacle. Unless you accept that the player always wins if he or she doesn't do something stupid--which would imply little or no external risk--then the thought of a losing player should not be, "I messed up," but rather, "My number came up."



Perhaps I'm too casual about the game for your taste, but my sense is that it should be awfully hard to earn a PLEX in a month, even for an experienced player, especially in high sec. There is a logical limit to how many players can fund their accounts with flex before the game becomes, in effect, free to play. At some point, no one pays for the actual game, and a subset of players buy tokens from the publisher that they (indirectly) trade to other players for high-end gear. I'm not opposed to a funding model that works for the publisher, per se, but enough free to play games look sufficiently lousy to make me wary.

I made my explanation quite clear though: I'd like to see if my understanding of a balanced game is similar to someone who has not experienced most risk/reward ratios the game offers. It is safe to assume most players experienced highsec, but not all experienced low/null or wh space.

I put accusation in brackets for a reason too, it's called reasonable doubt.

I am currently a devoted highsec carebear; this is in spite of a respectable amount (~6 months) of nullsec experience and proficiency in surviving Null and Low. No, the reason I live in highsec is that the access barrier to the fun, and profitable activities (these two categories may overlap, and may be separate) is rather high. I regard this barrier as primarily social (alliance dominated, activities restricted), and secondarily available time to invest. If I can only play for one or two hours that day, I don't want to be dragged into a CTA only to have to logoff in an expensive ship deep in enemy space halfway through the op. It just doesn't mesh up with how I am able to play.


I find this a poorly phrased question. By what standard are you measuring risk? It's unclear how to rate it. The basic answer that I can give is when I am very likely to lose more value (in isk, assets, or "fun", it doesnt matter) then I am likely -or able- to gain, it is unacceptable and I will avoid that action. This single handedly wipes out 0.0 sov play for me, on both fun and isk levels; most of the rest of 0.0 and lowsec are off limits as well because of this; without a good corp at least, which are rare. \

I do like your answer as well:



The simple answer is to accomplish my goals, whatever those are at the time. Plexing is a main, and obvious one. However, making enough to fund personal "progression" is more important. If I havn't played as much in a month or something, and need my isk liquid for my goals, then I'll just pay the subscription normall that month. Progression is ill defined; when I get bored with one thing, I'll move to another. The key is that I set goals, and expect to see progress towards them as a result of play.

Of course I'm playing for rewards.

But (honestly said) the reward I thrive for is not ISK - my rewards is standings (roleplaying perspective).

ISK is just a means to an end for me and for ISK I'm selling a couple of PLEX then and now (which is more efficient on my time).

To reemphasize:

I don't mind any level of risk, as long as it's within my venue of play - I would gladly loose a Battleship a day if that meant playing the game the way I want to,

I'm also not in need of any profit ISK-wise - but I seek out standing increase.

I'm not playing with a risk/standing ratio in mind, though you could say I'm flying the highest level of mission I can get from the corporation I'm interested in. I may fly a Level 4 for Corp A one day, and a Level 1 for new Corp B the next.