Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Risk vs Reward in EVE Online is Unbalanced – Supposition and a Proposed Solution.

SUPPOSITION:
Risk in EVE Online is no longer accurately reflected by the System Security Status.
Per the Risk vs Reward Philosophy, Rewards gained are supposed to equate to the level of Risk a player is exposed to during an activity. This is no longer accurate based on what is actually happening in EVE today due the advent of the large Sovereign Nullsec Coalitions of Alliances. This emergent gameplay has changed the conditions, levels and areas of Risk in the game creating imbalance in Risk vs Reward.

DEFINITIONS:
Coalitions are groups of Alliances in Nullsec that have formed cooperatives in the same way that Corporations can create cooperatives in Alliances. Coalitions are not however a built in game mechanic, they are meta-agreements made outside of the game client that define ingame Rules of Conduct between the member players, corps and Alliances. There are only 7 Sov Nullsec Holding Coalitions in EVE.

Risk vs Reward Philosophy states that the higher the Risk one is exposed to in a given activity, the higher the Reward for that activity. How much Risk one is exposed to is currently based on the (arbitrary though logical at the time) System Security Status for each system in EVE. The primary divisions of Security are: High Security Space, Hisec; Low Security Space, Lowsec; and Null Security Space, Nullsec.

System Security Status, a numerical scale from 1.0 to -1.0 defining the relative security of solar systems. This defines CONCORD response to acts of aggression and defense and provides a framework for the Player Rules of Engagement and is the current basis for determining the inherent 'Risk' of a system and hence the scaling of 'Rewards'.

CONTENTION:
The Coalitions have immense resources in manpower and ISK, and this affords them with the ability to build Outposts as needed or desired, rent systems for ISK income, build and maintain Jump Bridges, provide Jump Freighter Services, build and maintain fleets of Titans and Super Capitols, huge fleets of Sub-Capitols and, via Titan and Jump Bridges giving them overwhelming Logistics and Power Projection plus they receive additional protection and allies via Treaties and Non–Aggression Pacts with other Coalitions.

All of the above gives them the ability to make their systems far safer for their members to engage in stock activities than was originally designed or intended.

Emergent Gameplay has once again changed how the game actually works, I propose that CCP needs to re-balance Risk vs Reward to more accurately reflect the actual Risk players are exposed to.

PROPOSED SOLUTION:
Add a “System Threat Level” to all systems in EVE.

The System Security Level defines the consequences to the aggressor player for non-consensual PvP.
The System Threat Level would more accurately define the threat, IE Risk, to the defender or target player for non-consensual PvP.

METHODOLOGY:
The System Threat Level should be based on the number and value of ships and pods destroyed 'over time' on a per system basis. Over time is the key, the System Threat Level would be assessed based on a combination of heavier weighted long term, 30 to 60 day kills and lesser weighted short term, 24 to 48 hr kills.

This is so that Great Battles, Burn Jita and Hulkageddon type events, IE very high kill rate/short term events, would only cause a shorter term and smaller increase in the Threat Level that would drop off more quickly. This would more accurately define the actual Risk players will be exposed to based on the historical and recent threat of non-consensual player aggression.

IMPACT:
Income/cost levels for Industry taxes, costs, etc. and Ratting Bounties, Mission Payouts & Bonuses, etc. should be based on the ‘Threat Level’, not the ‘Security Level’ of a given system. Potential Income should be based on the actual Risk from Player Interaction regardless of System Security Status.

Hence as things stand now Jita would possibly become one of the highest risk systems at Sec Stat 0.8 / Threat Lev -1.0 and areas of Null would be Sec Stat 0.0 / Threat Lev 1.0. Thus Income Potential would be reflected in the Risk a player assumes plying trades and doing activities in areas where the players themselves create greater or lesser real Risk.

Thus we would have one more way in which we actually affect the space we play in, or own. Not just by creating risk, but also by mitigating it the way the Nullsec Coalitions do today in Sov Nullsec.

Imagine Threat Maps in Dotlan… now, as Jester says... Discuss.

Not nerfing anybody bro, RvR is broken because Risk is currently equated to Sec Stat and Sec Stat has nothing whatsoever to do with the threat, the Risk, that non-consensual PvP poses... Sec Stat is all about CONCORD, IE the Risk to the non-consensual PvPer... Not nerfing anything here, and if you think on it a bit, you'll see... this could be very interesting, for the bear and griefer alike...

And I full well expect that one thing, "non-consensual", to raise the hackles of the nullbears and grieferbears... I figger if I'm pissin them off, I'm doing something right. =]

And yup, sandbox it is, but that dunt mean we all gotta just accept it when the sand has had rocks thrown in it by some of the other kids...

An yup, I DO from time to time do just that, and got an offer to do so last might even, was just really into the post at the time so meh... I don't mean null has no risk, but it sure ain't working as intended.

And nope again...my idea would have the highest rewards in whatever spaces were the most dangerous... CCP wuold,of course, have to factor FacWar in Plexes as a lower risk as that is consensual PvP on the basis that if ya dunt want PvP, dunt join the Navy fool... and of course, intercorp PvP would be factored out as well, it's intercorp... and yes, that means CCP would have to look at Awoxing to see if it is statistically significant over all... but I personally doubt it.

This is the seed of an idea, not a polished, ready to roll out patch... sheesh.

the down side is that this system would be abused to hell and back and only make the null sec alliances richer

MY thoughts exactly, what would stop a group from wholesale killing sheep to up the reward of a system?

Maybe base it on Isk value lost?

After reading this post I can only assume you hired someone else to write the OP.

If we talking risk reward I think ice fields should only spawn in low sec as that may even out the risk centers.