EVE General Discussion

No, the solution is to nerf something that can be mindlessly farmed, whose only real difficulty is in a cost barrier to the expensive ship needed to farm the site, that gives obscene levels of income for how easy and safe it is.

More PvE should be like Blood Raiders, and much, much less PvE should be like Incursions. One of those is actually fun, while the other is just a grind festival.

nerfing it will cause nullsec players to not bother with them and the people who really want to do them will have more chance and less waiting, whats the issue?

Not even going to point out the hypocrisy of this statement when the 40 man fleet, organized and led by a competent FC to complete these "mindless farming sites" in any sort of timely fashion as to achieve said offending amounts of isk is not much dissimilar to the mindless pvp fleets of this game, where killmails are produced by careful and diligent work of a competent FC.

So the F1 key is apparently more important if you are doing it as opposed to someone else.

Well, like I said. Elimination isn't a bad idea. I can think of far better ways of having incursions rather than sites anyways. I would prefer intelligent AI that roam and disrupt player activity myself.

Just going to leave this here: Risk Vs Reward

That's an interesting article, however increased risk doesn't lead to increased loss. It leads to increased risk management so there is no loss.

That applies in Eve just as much as it does in anything people do. No one enjoys losing a ship, so people manage their risks to be as low as possible.

The basic assumption of the article's study:

'If ratting in NS is more dangerous than missioning in HS, what we should clearly see from the data is that more ratting ships are dying in NS compared with mission ships in HS.'

is a flawed assumption.

I normally hate using RL comparisons, however risk management applies equally in game as it does in RL. In RL, if a particular occupation or work task presents a lot of hazards, we don't just accept that loss will happen and people will die, we actively manage them so the risk of death is as low as possible. A lack of loss doesn't mean the work is not dangerous. It's really no different in the game.

The study that he conducted found that:

"In these high security systems, 69 PVE ships were destroyed in this month for 4.16m NPCs killed, while only 44 PVE ships were destroyed in those 8 null sec systems, and for a mere value of 23.8b isk for the same number of NPC kills. The most common PVE ships to die in HS were tengus and marauders, while in NS the most common PVE ships to die were (by far) ishtars, gilas, and VNIs."

To me, that looks like a success in terms of nullsec risk management, not an argument that nullsec is less dangerous.

It shows both that the likelihood of losing a ship in nullsec was well managed in the systems he looked at; and that the consequences of loss in those systems was reduced as well. There's nothing bad about that at all. Nor does it mean that nullsec is inherently less dangerous than highsec.

It's equally plausible (and definitely true on a daily basis) that the people in nullsec used more ways to manage the risk than the ones in the highsec systems. The 3 comments at the bottom of the article also highlight that.

In order to understand whether nullsec is more or less dangerous than other space, a study would need to look first at the hazards that exist and then look at ways the associated risks are managed, just as we do in RL risk studies.

That's kind of the whole point of many of the positions in this thread. The risk:reward balance for incursions needs adjustment, particularly in highsec where 1.5% of the game's population accumulate between them, the third largest amount of ISK flow (not even including the LP conversion). On an individual income level, that creates disincentive to take on greater risk for equal reward.

So, anyone want to point out to that blogger and the Alt that there is a significant difference in total population between high sec an null sec?

And that space with only about 1/6th the total population of the bigger space but with 2/3rds as many deaths is considerably more dangerous?

BTW according to the Alt he's some kind of accountant type that uses all kinds of math and stuff...

What are you talking about? What proof do you have of this?

That you have definitely proven.

Typo, I said would, I meant Could. Unlike some, I'm willing to admit that I don't have a crystal ball. However in my experience, fewer people using an LP store filled with items people want increases the value of LP.

Incursion runners have access to EVERY LP store at negligible cost, unlike mission runners whose access depends on standings.

It's very easy to produce something that looks convincing on the surface, but that is driven by bias to prove a point that has already been concluded.

That particular study has some pretty major shortcomings, on top of it's flawed basis to begin with.

It's unfortunate because it would be great if he'd taken a more serious and measured approach to the design of his analysis. That would have produced something of value to us all.

And before Chimpy McStrawman pops in again, I'll point out one more thing.

I am not saying that pushing F1 is any harder in nullsec than it is in highsec.

What I am saying however, is that the POTENTIAL for complexity, unforeseen events, and thereby inherent difficulty, is far higher in any PvP interaction than it is in any PvE interaction. Because you have an actual adversary to contend with, not just a computer script.

The only potential for those things in PvE comes from ignorance of the content you are doing, or from other players turning it into a PvP interaction.