EVE General Discussion

"Ship replacement costs are too damned high!"
No, they are not. They give meaning to the loss of a ship.

If you don't want to lose that blinged out T3 use a cheaper ship. It's a choice you have to make.
Without that choice there would be no reason to ever fly the cheaper ships and everyone would just fly the blinged out stuff. Then everyone starts crying for more powerful ships because they feel weak against all those other blinged ships and you get the perfect example for power creep.


Elite is a very bad comparison. It has no player driven economy and the actions you take against other players have no impact on the "sandbox".
It's essentially a single player game that has a small penalty for reloading.

My point is that you will be minding your own business and someone comes along, solo to bother everyone.
I would rather dock up and do something else than chase them around the system.
Less fun for him and less annoyance for me that way.

Didn't this "risk aversion" meme start way long ago? About the time as the "bot aspirant" disinformation propaganda shite? A little too stale by now, mate.

I actually clicked the link and read the blog ... well kind of, since I've stopped reading at "boost insurance to 95%".

Whut? Need a Women of Walmart link?

At the end of the day no matter what type of system you set up you can never give back someones time. And time is the reason some people are "risk averse", and that is across all MMOs and all types of PVP. Hell even market PVP in a game like EVE, some people will do the .01 ISK wars all day with someone, or they will just let stuff sit on market and hope because they don't feel like spending the time needed to keep up with that. The same can be said for combat PVP, sometimes the time that you will need to either replace a ship, or get back to system, or the 100 other things that you have to do when you lose a ship are just not worth the time it takes to fight someone, especially if you know that the chances of you losing are high. As it stands the possibility of time loss are the biggest factors for someone deciding to not fight or to be "risk adverse" in my opinion.

I don't want to detract from your point. But this is not the case. Because kills are counted more than once. So if you mostly fly in fleets where every kill ends up on 20+ peoples killboards, then well that is "40-60" killboard "stats" per month per 2-3 actual ships lost.

To get a real accurate view of "kills" each kill should be counted only once. Either final blow or top damage.

The ugly truth for PvP-ers is they comprise a small minority in the gaming world, and their numbers aren't that much more impressive here. CCP has estimated this to be 25 (or so) per cent of the player base plays PvP. But, ask a PvP-er, and they're the only gamers in existence, and anyone who disputes their decisions about the nature a game should have can be called "Carebear" and dismissed without mention. (Post with your main! Post with your main!)

EVERY game has a crowd of PvP-ers who "know how to make this game perfect" and they share the same advice to developers (only they do it as though it's a God given fact carved in silicone chips and devs are stupid if they can't read it). "Make the game so nobody can PvE. Make everyone my target. (Oh yes and...) Give me all the good gear so everyone else sucks. I feel the need to GANK!" (The WOW refugees know the true meaning of "gank". The term was invented there. They won't share that with us, I'm bettin'.)

SO this minority here at EVE Online has coined the term "risk averse". It's a form of social engineering as they like to say. Use a psychological term to convince people if they don't PvP they have a personality disorder - risk aversion. If it wasn't such a patently ridiculous choice of terms it would almost appear serious. I'm sure the chuckle heads who had a light bulb go off over their heads had to have thought it was a brilliant choice (pardon the pun.)

The fulcrum of transportation development which allowed mankind to successfully move from wooden wheel carts to landing on the moon was "risk aversion". If it was risky, it was sh!t canned and a new line of attack was chosen. It could be ironic the desperate minority uses this term (but that would infer an intelligence of which there is no supporting evidence) in a game that uses spaceships, as NASA invented the triple redundancy to try to squelch RISK - something they founded their professional integrity to being AVERSE TO. ROFL! So much for seeming intelligent, you
minions of the minority.

SO bluster away. Scream and shout. Deny the reality. Shout down the truth - in the name of fairness! It's so COOL!

As mentioned, that's the nature of fleet warfare. Hell, even when fleets decisively lose battles, a lot of people usually make it home. Also, there's risk aversion and then there's picking fights carefully - not quite the same thing. Consider the character of Gus Fring in Breaking Bad. Would you call him risk averse? He's extremely cautious, but takes big risks after carefully weighing the situation.

Also, the idea of treating kills once wouldn't work - it negates everyone else's contribution. However, it wouldn't be difficult to build a killboard that attached "1 kill" to every kill and split out credit. In which case you'd glean a little extra info, but it would lead to silly things like "0.5% of an Ishtar killmail".

And of course that system **still** wouldn't credit the people most important for getting those kills - FCs, scouts, combat probers, boosters, logi, etc. A pure logi pilot could be insanely prolific and extremely competent, but that system or the current one still leaves his KBs red.

in short, KBs don't tell you squat except "hes blown **** up before" or "he's died before".

You're drastically oversimplifying things to try to make them fit your preference. That's like sorting the most aggressive footballers by goals missed. Some are just more accurate than others.