These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Countering Risk Aversion

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#21 - 2015-04-30 15:30:06 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:

...
Your example is of lower-skilled newbies not wanting to undock without an FC in to a high-skilled fleet with a talented FC in a tightly specialised comp. It had nothing to do with SRP, they just didn't want to get mown down by a clearly superior fighting force. ...

Strange...That's not what the two Brave Newbies that were so disgusted with their brethren told us, when they joined our fleet and comms and raged about how their buds were so risk adverse and unwilling to fight until they had SRP confirmed first.... :)

Hell, one of our richer dudes even offered to do the SRP for them... lolzors.


Meh, I'd take that with a pinch of salt, there is always a couple of vocal guys in large organisations that whine about isk. I would still bet the reason you didn't get 200 braves charging you was they were there thinking "Who do we anchor on?", "Who do we shoot?", "Where do we align?", "What ship do I bring?". You have to remember their organisation is very different to yours, and even to mine (though there are likely more similarities between us and them). To them it was like a couple of hundred peasants being herded in to a pit with 5 lions. Sure, they have the numbers, but the lions know their ****, and the peasants have no idea whose running their show, so its going to get real bloody, real quick.

Me wrote:

Everyone is to blame for this. People who lose want to stop losing. So they evolve their strategy to combat that. Tighter comps, rules of engagement to cut down on pointless welps, forming larger organisations and stronger ties to allies. Each time one side gets their ass repeatedly handed to them, they either collapse and are absorbed by stronger groups, or go away, review their tactics and doctrines, and come back tougher, so the other side in turn has to do the same. I'm not sure there is a cure to it, because the guy who steps back in the arms race is the guy who gets farmed, and has no fun doing so.

To go further on this, when I first entered nullsec, my Alliance (WIdot, best dot) had two doctrines, kitchen sink Battleships, and kitchen sink long-range Battlecruisers. Yeah Big smile. A year later, flying alongside Goonswarm, I was getting gently mocked for flying my Rokh (the same one that was completely welcome in the mostly-armour kitchen sink BS fleets of a year earlier) in Alphafleets (where at least both my Rokh and the Maelstroms were long-range shield-tankers). The game had moved on, and it has kept doing so, because people found they kept losing, so did what they could to stop that.
Vipre Morte
Team JK
#22 - 2015-04-30 15:31:21 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Not clicking your blog, thanks.

As to risk aversion, I think new players should start in a Null Sec system with a SISI market for 12 hours. Then get transfered to the main server.


Would you say you were risk averse to clicking the blog link?
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#23 - 2015-04-30 15:35:06 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

I could take a gang of T1 frigates and destroyers out every night and personally SRP all of them. I could get them to undock to fight every tourist that comes our way.

I do not find that type of gang fun enough to do more than in a blue moon.

Why T1 frigates? Why not *good* ships?

What would happen though if people could consistently field good ships and dank fits, with the knowledge they had a good SRP mechanism in place...everyone, any ship -- not just big alliances or doctrines ships or sanctioned fights?

Would fights and the availability of them increase or decrease?

These are questions worth asking, and worth exploring -- especially when as described in the post other games have captured a way to make 'COME AT ME BRO!' more of a frequent reality.

F

Would you like to know more?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#24 - 2015-04-30 15:38:43 UTC
Per Red sanders: "Winning isn't everything, winning is the only thing."

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2015-04-30 15:43:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

I could take a gang of T1 frigates and destroyers out every night and personally SRP all of them. I could get them to undock to fight every tourist that comes our way.

I do not find that type of gang fun enough to do more than in a blue moon.

Why T1 frigates? Why not *good* ships?

What would happen though if people could consistently field good ships and dank fits, with the knowledge they had a good SRP mechanism in place...everyone, any ship -- not just big alliances or doctrines ships or sanctioned fights?

Would fights and the availability of them increase or decrease?

These are questions worth asking, and worth exploring -- especially when as described in the post other games have captured a way to make 'COME AT ME BRO!' more of a frequent reality.

F


What if he is "blueballing" because he has no idea what he's doing? What if he's just really confident he can't win and as such, it's not even worth the effort to try? What if it's just a boneheaded move to go in for various reasons?

People get called risk averse in this game because they don't aimlessly throw their **** into firefights or other harm's way.

Add to that, even if the insurance was higher, those T2 ships and various mods still have to be sourced somehow. Losing a ship because I wanted to go "COME AT ME BRO" and help my friends on a roam won't give me back that damn ship. I still have to have it shipped from a hub somehow so I am -1 ship in case I am needed for something actually important alter. Unless I somehow can ride in a pile of ISK and shoot/rep people with it...
Otso Bakarti
Doomheim
#26 - 2015-04-30 15:47:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Otso Bakarti
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Otso Bakarti wrote:
The way to counter risk aversion is to make everyone as stupid as the people who have convinced themselves they are not risk averse. In a way, this vapid culture of ours is doing it incrementally over time. However, another way of saying "risk averse" is "dumb as a rock."

I love how these mental giants come along and rewrite the history of humankind to suit their rather discombobulated
ego trips.

"Countering Risk Aversion" - at first that seems so knowledgeable. Then, just looking at the National Enquirer you get the same sort of confident proclamations: I Married An Alien, How To Lose 500 Pounds In One Day (yeah, divorce your wife.)

Keep 'em comin' though. We love to hear from the peanut gallery.

npc forum alts dont get to use plural.

post with your main if your going to put words in anyone's mouth
Oh dear, if it isn't mister blindingly repetitive with no content. I'm still waiting for you to explain the paramount wisdom of being like YOU. Is that one too hard for you to explain WE'RE just DYING to hear that one.

By the way, mister tremulous insight, this is my main whether YOU like it, or not....and the horse you rode in on.

There just isn't anything that can be said!
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#27 - 2015-04-30 15:48:58 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Why T1 frigates? Why not *good* ships?

What would happen though if people could consistently field good ships and dank fits, with the knowledge they had a good SRP mechanism in place...everyone, any ship -- not just big alliances or doctrines ships or sanctioned fights?

Would fights and the availability of them increase or decrease?
Fights might increase but the meaning behind them and the entire game economy would significantly decrease. At the end of the day, if you're replacing 95% of the value of the ship it may as well be an arena game, since clearly the focus would be on shooting each other over all other mechanics. But that's not all EVE is about.

Elite is a little different because the scale of the game and difficulty in locating specific groups of players makes it far less likely to have specific encounters, where in EVE people would be constantly having non-stop battles. The main difference is that in EVE you are a capsuleer, and you are expected to do enormous things, whereas in Elite you are an insignificant spec in the vastness of space.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#28 - 2015-04-30 15:56:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Frostys Virpio wrote:
[
..
What if he is "blueballing" because he has no idea what he's doing? What if he's just really confident he can't win and as such, it's not even worth the effort to try? What if it's just a boneheaded move to go in for various reasons?

People get called risk averse in this game because they don't aimlessly throw their **** into firefights or other harm's way.

Without going to the extreme of assuming acts of seppuku in a no-win scenario, what if we could influence however the median of most fight-or-flight analysis in a combat pilots head, which happens constantly outside your scenario....

What if the average PVP pilot had dank insurance behind him so that when he wasn't sure of victory or loss, and debating whether to fight or not, he was empowered to say 'I'm going in, because I can get a refit without a lot of ISK pain if I do lose..'.

Further, what if they were empowered to also say "I am bringing a GOOD ship as well and enjoying the fight more, rather than bring just a cheap risk-averting T1"...

Ponder the beautiful carnage of often-never-undocked T2's or Faction Battleships jumping into glorious space battles more often, flown by pilots that aren't ISK-rich yet now feeling empowered to take and give a good fight (because they aren't flying crap), and the light-bulb should go on.

F

Would you like to know more?
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#29 - 2015-04-30 15:56:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
And I definitely want to hammer the "No FC" part. Sure, a thousand angry unco-ordinated bees can leave a dent, but it can't be underestimated the value of a good FC. A good FC against a bad can alone turn an otherwise insurmountable fight, and the difference between a bad FC and no FC at all is likewise a cliff of difference, especially if you are dealing with a group that doesn't emphasise individual talent and initiative. Feyd, you have to realise you have done a ton of solo and 2-3man pvp for years, so even without an FC on hand, you'd still be pretty clued in on what you need to do, these guys you were trying to fight have likely never manually piloted, or got a solo kill that wasn't a cyno ship. Thats a gulf of difference.

As an example, I was in a fleet last week that interdicted a capital move op. There was 40 of us in Tornadoes and Taloses, yet we were able to gut a dozen Carriers and Dreads (and even had one of the enemy eject, lawl) before we were all killed or driven off (and we hit them in lowsec, so no bubbles). The battle report showed they had twice as many capitals as we had ships, and that doesn't include the ones that fled when we jumped them. And this wasn't a carebear or renter group, it was a well-known, pvp organisation that are known for engaging in capital combat, so it wasn't like they were out of their comfort zone. We shouldn't have been able to get a single kill, let alone as many as we did, but caught with their pants down, and an FC who was either phoning it in, or just straight not in system, they were butchered in the confusion.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#30 - 2015-04-30 16:11:20 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
And I definitely want to hammer the "No FC" part. Sure, a thousand angry unco-ordinated bees can leave a dent, but it can't be underestimated the value of a good FC. A good FC against a bad can alone turn an otherwise insurmountable fight, and the difference between a bad FC and no FC at all is likewise a cliff of difference, especially if you are dealing with a group that doesn't emphasise individual talent and initiative. Feyd, you have to realise you have done a ton of solo and 2-3man pvp for years, so even without an FC on hand, you'd still be pretty clued in on what you need to do, these guys you were trying to fight have likely never manually piloted, or got a solo kill that wasn't a cyno ship. Thats a gulf of difference.

As an example, I was in a fleet last week that interdicted a capital move op. There was 40 of us in Tornadoes and Taloses, yet we were able to gut a dozen Carriers and Dreads (and even had one of the enemy eject, lawl) before we were all killed or driven off (and we hit them in lowsec, so no bubbles). The battle report showed they had twice as many capitals as we had ships, and that doesn't include the ones that fled when we jumped them. And this wasn't a carebear or renter group, it was a well-known, pvp organisation that are known for engaging in capital combat, so it wasn't like they were out of their comfort zone. We shouldn't have been able to get a single kill, let alone as many as we did, but caught with their pants down, and an FC who was either phoning it in, or just straight not in system, they were butchered in the confusion.


Remmeber when BL. got "revenant"? What was the reason Grath was so damn mad? Oh yeah, nobody spoke up...

But having an FC is not critically important according to some people...
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#31 - 2015-04-30 16:12:24 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Fights might increase but the meaning behind them and the entire game economy would significantly decrease. At the end of the day, if you're replacing 95% of the value of the ship it may as well be an arena game, since clearly the focus would be on shooting each other over all other mechanics. But that's not all EVE is about.

Does the rate need to be 95%? Would killmails and bragging rights go away? Would "I won, you lost" go away? Also, do we not already have insurance today?

We rebalance many things in EvE, why are we resistant to rebalancing existing insurance, if it would encourage more pew in better ships?

These are important questions worth consideration.

F

Would you like to know more?
Mario Putzo
#32 - 2015-04-30 16:24:23 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

These are important questions worth consideration.
F


Not really.

Here are some Important questions.

Why do organized "leet PVP" groups, look to farm unorganized "Guess Ill PVP" groups. Then complain when they don't want to PVP them?

I can see Braves reservations for undocking. They just left an engagement in which every single time they would get the upper hand PL would drop caps/supers on them. What fun is there in that? What fun is there in engaging a hostile fleet only for them to push IWIN every time. Same applies to what NC. is doing in Provi. What actual enjoyment is there in engaging a group of people only to have your work count for nothing when the IWIN button is pushed. BL. and NC. went to Fountain and kicked the hornets nest, then spent the next 2 weeks hanging out in stations because "Surprise" the CFC pushed their IWIN Button.

What incentive is there to actually engaging people when you know they have their IWIN button ready to go? Because its fun? Is it fun putting in a bunch of effort to maybe win a fight only to have that effort go to waste because the otherside just goes over the top and says "not today".

You will have to find answers to these questions before anyone seriously believes risk aversion is the issue.

The issue is more so to do with, everyone wanting to win, and some groups just having more assets to do so. There is a reason PL fought Brave, in the end they could never really fight back, and that is why BL is there now, that is why NC. is in Provi, and that is why CFC loves to shoot structures.
Mario Putzo
#33 - 2015-04-30 16:42:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
You want to talk risk aversion, why is it that CFC, NC., PL, never truly engage each other? B-R happened because of a sov oops, Asakai happened because of a jump oops.

Why do these entities never truly engage each other...because they do not want to put their assets on the line when push comes to shove. PL never commits to attacking CFC because they fear for losing their assets, NC. and PL blue each other so they don't have to worry about the other poaching their assets. Heck even BL. and PL do not openly engage each other, and resort to sniping/ganking out of place Supers.

That is true risk aversion, when organizations that can stand toe to toe against each other refuse to engage each other, and instead resort to rolling over lesser groups.

Had PL and NC. truly committed to engaging CFC in Fountain TEST may still be there.
Had BL. and NC. truly committed to engaging CFC in Tribute NC. may still be there.

Instead risk aversion crept in. Case in point, N3 largely abandoning their sov against CFC instead of engaging them...the cost just isn't worth it.

Complaining about not being able to get your easy kills to pad your KB is not risk aversion. If BL. wants fights, go to Wicked Creek and fight the locals there, it is a hotbed of folks desiring to PVP with entities capable of dunking on BL...then again, perhaps that is why BL is not in Wicked Creek...to many folks capable of fighting back?

*Note these assets I speak of, of course, are not insurable assets.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#34 - 2015-04-30 16:43:25 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:


We rebalance many things in EvE, why are we resistant to rebalancing existing insurance, if it would encourage more pew in better ships?


Damn it Feyd, you're really going to make me agree with Lucas Kell. That's not just Heresy, it's unconstitutional Twisted

It would turn the game into a weak version of a MOBA. MOBAs are fun, but not in EVE. The ability to lose stuff does cause risk averse behavior in people prone to that (ie most people), but it also gives what we are doing a kind of emotional "meaning".

Anyone who knows me knows I'm not afraid of risking things in a video game. Last week I took alt alt in a Machariel to low sec to do anoms (it was an experiment to see how well I could live off on escalation income in low sec using a cheap fit tech2 pirate BS, the result was "well enough but too much hassle, juice ain't worth the squeeze). i didn't die, and the lose would not have broken me, but there was still tension when there was a new guy come into local. It's because even cheap fit that mach was 600 mil of MY money (lol) and losing sucks.

But it's the feeling of danger that keeps me coming back for more. Take that away with a 95% insurance pay out and i won't pew pew more, I'll RAT more and count the 'losses' as simple marks on a spread sheet.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2015-04-30 16:48:02 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
I would like to have a constructive dialog around what can be done to combat risk-aversion in our pvp pilots in New Eden. What I observe is that we regularly decry risk-aversion and others unwillingness to undock and bring a fight, while on the other hand refusing to confront the elephant in the room when it comes to root cause...

Ship replacement insurance.

Please consider this, and provide constructive feedback.

F


Risk aversion.

Because the PvE in Eve Online is so grindingly awful that I would rather smash my own bollocks with a lump hammer than have to grind standings to run missions to replace losses,

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Skalie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2015-04-30 16:56:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Skalie
I do not know why some do not PVP, all I can tell you is why I do not PVP very often as a fairly new player.

Simple answer is Attribute Implants. Trying to get the skill to do anything useful in a few months needs as much attribute help as possible. The whole attribute system looks like it was designed by monkeys, but that is another story.

I don't have a problem losing ships, modules, cargo or even implants that make me go, faster, stronger , shoot further etc.
What I cannot stand or understand is why anyone would think, that the pain in the backside of having to mess around replacing and earning the cash to replace a commodity item i.e attribute implants in any way resembles fun. They are a commodity because they are pretty much required by a new player to obtain skills before we die of old age.

So, either I put off being able to do anything interesting for more weeks and months ,by having no attribute implants,
or
spend half my life earning cash to replace them every few hours and travelling to JIta, if i am not war dec to replace them
or
Only using them every other day, because I have to clone in and out of them every time i want to swap between improving skills and PVP.


So..., I just don't bother PVPing any more, unless something very interesting is going down.

This is how it is for me, and will be that way until such time the extra attributes do not matter for having good PVP skills,
or I have so much cash I can replace them 4 times a day and keep stock piles
or
CCP, actually wake up to that facts it is not meaningful; it is not fun; it adds nothing to the game, and get rid of Attribute implants.

You may disagree with my way of playing, you may say I am unique in this way of playing and you maybe right, but I doubt it. I suspect many other new players have reached the same conclusions.

So for me at least, It is not the loss of money or ships or stuff, it is the loss of training time that makes me PVP averse.

o7 LLAP
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#37 - 2015-04-30 17:10:26 UTC
I'll throw in another point that often contributes to "this fight is pointless" - logistics.

Fights are pretty damn close to being binary; either you win and win well, or you lose and lose bad. No one wants to lose bad. I place nearly all the blame for this phenomena on remote repairs (kiting and bubble immune coward comps have their parts, but its mainly remote repair). We've collectively got too good at fleet warfare. In any given fight, there is a threshold, where if you can't bring enough to bear, remote repair can safely tank every scrap of damage you throw at an enemy fleet, and once you can bring enough to bear, ships die. We've learnt this, and if you cant bring that threshold dps, there is no point walking in to a fight where the killboard will read a wall of red on one side, for nothing the other (barring the one guy who doesn't broadcast, and an occasional disconnect who couldn't). The most fun fights are those grinding battles where both sides lose ships, and its a race to one side hitting the logistics wall. But it still ends when that side hits the logistics wall.

Basically, my point is, there is often nothing for the loser, no consolation kills to show them "you did your best, maybe next time", just demorolising, humiliating annialation. Again, that just aint fun. Give the losers something to take away from a loss, and they'll take the defeat less hard, and maybe come out next time for more of the same, but feed them nothing and theres no point coming back to the table (I have a feeling I've mixed my metaphors through here!).
Ma'Baker McCandless
The McCandless Clan
#38 - 2015-04-30 17:12:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ma'Baker McCandless
Skalie wrote:

Simple answer is Attribute Implants. Trying to get the skill to do anything useful in a few months needs as much attribute help as possible. The whole attribute system looks like it was designed by monkeys, but that is another story.

I don't have a problem losing ships, modules, cargo or even implants that make me go, faster, stronger , shoot further etc.
What I cannot stand or understand is why anyone would think, that the pain in the backside of having to mess around replacing and earning the cash to replace a commodity item i.e attribute implants in any way resembles fun. They are a commodity because they are pretty much required by a new player to obtain skills before we die of old age.


1) Ive never flown with anything but free Att Implants for nigh on 6 years now.

2) If you feel you need to heavily train lots of skills to do anything, then you are overskilling or not thinking laterally enough.

3) Jump Clones. They are Man's best friend.
Daerrol
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2015-04-30 17:42:16 UTC
Skalie wrote:
I do not know why some do not PVP, all I can tell you is why I do not PVP very often as a fairly new player.

Simple answer is Attribute Implants. Trying to get the skill to do anything useful in a few months needs as much attribute help as possible. The whole attribute system looks like it was designed by monkeys, but that is another story.

I don't have a problem losing ships, modules, cargo or even implants that make me go, faster, stronger , shoot further etc.
What I cannot stand or understand is why anyone would think, that the pain in the backside of having to mess around replacing and earning the cash to replace a commodity item i.e attribute implants in any way resembles fun. They are a commodity because they are pretty much required by a new player to obtain skills before we die of old age.

So, either I put off being able to do anything interesting for more weeks and months ,by having no attribute implants,
or
spend half my life earning cash to replace them every few hours and travelling to JIta, if i am not war dec to replace them
or
Only using them every other day, because I have to clone in and out of them every time i want to swap between improving skills and PVP.


So..., I just don't bother PVPing any more, unless something very interesting is going down.

This is how it is for me, and will be that way until such time the extra attributes do not matter for having good PVP skills,
or I have so much cash I can replace them 4 times a day and keep stock piles
or
CCP, actually wake up to that facts it is not meaningful; it is not fun; it adds nothing to the game, and get rid of Attribute implants.

You may disagree with my way of playing, you may say I am unique in this way of playing and you maybe right, but I doubt it. I suspect many other new players have reached the same conclusions.

So for me at least, It is not the loss of money or ships or stuff, it is the loss of training time that makes me PVP averse.

o7 LLAP

Attribute Implants are like 10m tops. You should not have a fully head of +5's at any time, you never need mroe than 2 +5's (and +4's are just as good)

That said you can also go to lowsec where catching a pod is nigh impossible
Or you can just not use Implants like me =D
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#40 - 2015-04-30 17:43:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Jenn aSide wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:


We rebalance many things in EvE, why are we resistant to rebalancing existing insurance, if it would encourage more pew in better ships?


Damn it Feyd, you're really going to make me agree with Lucas Kell. That's not just Heresy, it's unconstitutional Twisted

It would turn the game into a weak version of a MOBA. MOBAs are fun, but not in EVE. The ability to lose stuff does cause risk averse behavior in people prone to that (ie most people), but it also gives what we are doing a kind of emotional "meaning".

Anyone who knows me knows I'm not afraid of risking things in a video game. Last week I took alt alt in a Machariel to low sec to do anoms (it was an experiment to see how well I could live off on escalation income in low sec using a cheap fit tech2 pirate BS, the result was "well enough but too much hassle, juice ain't worth the squeeze). i didn't die, and the lose would not have broken me, but there was still tension when there was a new guy come into local. It's because even cheap fit that mach was 600 mil of MY money (lol) and losing sucks.

But it's the feeling of danger that keeps me coming back for more. Take that away with a 95% insurance pay out and i won't pew pew more, I'll RAT more and count the 'losses' as simple marks on a spread sheet.

I hear you, I do; so while the 95% used in another game is a point of reference, it doesn't mean we have to go to that level. We have insurance already today though -- so I am not advocating anything new here. The sky hasn't already fallen because people can today buy hull insurance...

What I do think is worth looking at is a rebalance of those factors and payouts, the same way we rebalance ships themselves. We can discuss a better point of elasticity where the tear-collection gods are at still being paid homage, while also encouraging more fights, in nicer ships...

I understand people's reticence and the heretical nature of anything that sounds remotely like nerfing 'loss' in EvE, which is why I speak about rebalancing, not removal.

Lastly, tension and danger would remain in pvp even with higher insurance payouts, because reputation is still on the line. Killmails will still be generated. There will still be a winner, still be a loser, and smack talking to be had. I tell you this though, I would gladly drop my efficiency rating from 96.9% down to 80%, if it meant I was more empowered to take questionable-victory fights in a nicely appointed ship whenever I wanted, in fits of my choosing, outside of sanctioned fleets, because I had good insurance behind me, and other players offering those fights because of same.

More heresy? Pure PVE careers are viable in EvE, but pure-PVP careers not so much, you eventually run out of starting capital and have to run incursion/etc alts to fund your pvp, unless that is you limit yourself to flying T1 crap or (you guessed it) being risk averse and only fight when you know you will win..bah. We don't force PVE players to have PVP alts, but we kinda force PVP players to have PVE alts (or be very risk averse)...hmmm

F

Would you like to know more?