EVE General Discussion

TIL Black Legion is running out of iskies, or more specifically Feyd *is* out of isk.

Copy pasted from your other thread (that got locked... why did you reopen it?)



Also, people generally only fight when they can win, dont roam in huge ass groups and complain when a single pilot docked up to not get ganked. Thats not risk aversion, thats just "i wont suicide to pad their killboard".

I thought one of the key sellin points in EvE was having complete freedom to do what you want.

Now we want to punish people who choose the least risky option?

I mean, I know thats not what you are literally saying (anyone), but isnt that what this amounts to?

Definitely a lot more than 30, going by the size and activity of the jabber channel back when I was scouting ice belts for y'all. Maybe 30 or so were more active than the others, but you're exaggerating.

A free insurance would probably inject too much money into the economy, so as much as I like the idea, it's still bad for EVE.

Now, giving better insurance on T2 ships to stimulate their usage, that would be something I could get behind.

95% insurance for everyone and everything however, that's far too much.

And the only people who would argue that there is a difference, are risk-averse - I mean, cautious - dudes secretely ashamed of their cowardly ways.

C'mon, Akirei, let's all be honest about it! You can do it!

I'll start: hi GD, I'm Gully Alex Foyle and I'm risk averse. True, I get myself into a lot of fights, even with impossible odds, but I mostly fly frigates and destroyers so I'm pretty much a carebear after all.

Your turn, Akirei.

I agree it is a big problem in the game. I was going to write a thread on the dreadful state of solo, duo and small gang pvp but realised I couldn't be bothered. If you're not interested in faction warfare it is terrible. Most of the player base doesn't care, which means CCP don't care so it seemed pointless.

There is too few players willing to engage in fights where they have a reasonable chance of losing. You can quite literally roam for hours without finding someone willing to engage you even with if you give them a decent advantage. Instead players are grouped up tightly, and usually only fight if they have friends and have 1 or more of links, logi, ewar or a cyno.

Far too often players want to drop a hammer on someone or just not fight. Which makes a pretty boring game in my opinion.

It's an escalating problem too, the worse it gets the less people will do it and the worse it it gets again.

The point is, it's become far too much effort to find a decent fight in non faction warfare like ships. I've found myself wanting to play other games instead because you don't have to go through such an incredible effort just to make some content for yourself.

Errr...no. Risk aversion does have a pretty clear definition. However, not everyone is risk averse. Some are loss averse. And risk aversion actually has three broad categories: risk averse, risk neutral, risk loving. Loss aversion is where a player wants to avoid losses at almost all costs and will go primarily for gains. Keep in mind that is a simplified definition. A loss averse player might pass up a gamble with a positive expected payout, but where there is also a small chance of a loss and will instead go for the considerably lower activity that carries no loss. It could be reasonable to conclude that a fair percentage of HS players are loss averse. Most NS players probably range between risk averse to risk loving.

As for dealing with risk/loss aversion, there isn't much you can do, IMO. A player who is loss averse is probably never going to see the fun in jumping through a gate not knowing what is on the other side and having fun in whatever follows. A player who is risk loving is going to see such activity as his primary reason for logging in. Its a psychological thing that probably will not change all that often.

And being risk averse is not bad even in this game. A player can be risk averse and still move to null, take part in PvP and so forth. However, such a player may not be the kind of player to jump solo through a gate looking for fun. He maybe more likely to use a scout, use a travel fit ceptor whenever feasible, etc. He is not averse to undocking, he just wont do it when he sees the payoff for doing so as not worth it.

No. A risk averse player is one who will take a lesser payoff than a gamble with a higher expected payoff...up to a point.

For example, if a person is faced with the following choice:

A: You get $40, for certain.
B: You take a gamble, and you get $100 or $0 with probabilities 0.5/0.5.

If you choose A you are risk averse. You prefer the $40 over the gamble. Now, if we change the certain payout to say $30 some players might switch to B. Risk aversion does not mean you always avoid risk. It means you have a certainty equivalent of $40 and when the sure thing dips below that you'll take the risk.

Now, if you never take the gamble, and always go for the sure thing you are loss averse....very different than risk averse. Risk averse means you will look at the odds and make a decision and sometimes take the risks. Loss averse means you'll try to avoid all situations that carry with it the chance of a loss...even if there is a substantial expected gain to be had.

In the context of the game its a bit harder as PvP doesn't usually come with much of a monetary reward. The payoff is did you have fun, and for most people winning is more fun that losing. And in some circumstances winning is a very small probability. And even when the odds are roughly 50-50 it is not uncommon for many players to do things to tip the odds in their favor of winning and also not losing.

For example, if you decide to camp a gate by yourself we could say (a priori) you have a 50-50 chance of beating whatever comes through the gate. It could be a lone dude in a ship you can defeat...or it could be 5 guys that will wipe the system with you. But, you decide to put a scout on the other side of the gate 185 KM off said gate and cloaked....congratulations you just became risk averse, IMO. You just reduced your odds of losing and moved away from the 50-50 odds which is where the risk neutral player would be perfectly happy to sit.

My guess, the vast amount of players are risk averse. Even that "solo PvP" expert...who has a booster off grid...or neutral logi alts...or even just a scout. All those things mark you are risk averse.

Nope ... nonsense. And I really can not be bothered to debate it because it will basically be just a waste of time.