EVE General Discussion

Risking 'spending a huge amount of time, money and ISK to get the standings'

Sorry I thought you were joking when you said you stopped reading right there.

With any luck, Standings will still be required to get jump clones, diminish taxes, access higher/better paying missions, etc.

Otherwise, there's not much point in having Standings, period.

Sure, in order to see Industry flourish in Empire, that particular Standings mechanism is going to be put against the wall.

Have to admit though, if standings were taken away entirely from "Mission Agent" mechanism -- it would be freaking funny reading Forums for a few months as all the newbs ***** to High Hell that the missions were "too hard", because you just know that would create a situation of being tempted to run Level 4 missions on "Day 1" of their noobliness.

DILLIGAF ? Not really.

I just can't wait for the "Greed is Good" to fully screw alot of players who can't be arsed to be patient and work their way up as many of us have over the First Decade.

We shall see.

Expenditure is the same as Investment, Investing in a venture that may or may not create a profit is absolutely the definition of Risk. Undocking and taking on another players ship in a virtual fight is a chance based projection, and therefore not a Risk just a Gamble.

So the only true Risk vs. Reward in the game is Investment, Time, ISK, Money = Actual Risk.

The future of EVE? Cue theme music:

http://youtu.be/8qrriKcwvlY

Yet they still perpetuate it with pirate and faction ships and modules. I think you've made a mistake in determining what was learned. Cost balancing was not an issue, we still see it in the balancing of higher tech level and faction ships. It's the assumption of long term scarcity. That was the issue behind capital and supercap problems.

So yes, eve IS balanced around expenditure providing reward.

It is, though I can see selective reading contributing to your conclusion. Even if you limit the range to T1 v T2 that specialization is a performance improvement in the area which a particular ship is specialized, which again is a reward, for isk expenditure.

Cost is a balancing factor.

Here's your problem.

A Cynabal or a Vagabond or an SFI are all more powerful then a Stabber. They are also all more expensive. Does it therefore follow that cost is a a balancing factor?

No. Why? Because the Cynabal being more powerful than the Stabber does not mean it is unbalanced. The stabber can be weaker than the Cynabal without either of them being unbalanced. The Cynabal could also be weaker than the stabber, and there would still be no balance problems. There would be a risk v reward problem, but that isn't a a balance problem.


If you take a Cynabal into PvP, you may kill more than a Stabber. But that is a reward for risking the Cynabal, not buying the Cynabal.

I can buy a Cynabal (spending isk) and keep it in my hangar. I will never be rewarded for that expenditure. I can fly my cynabal into nullsec, and I might be rewarded for taking that risk. That is the difference.

This is contradictory. You've now stated an expenditure can be counted as risk, which directly contradicts the idea that expenditure shouldn't contribute to reward. You also thated that there is a risk reward problem, and prior stated that balance on reward is based upon risk, yet somehow this doesn't create an imbalance.

Wat?
Obviously an unused advantage doesn't reap reward, but then, I'm not seeing anyone saying high standings alone should cause isk to fall into ones wallet. The use of those standings, much like your example, is what provided reward.

Good luck reselling a single glass of coke, if that's the train of thought you need to follow, then my point is made for me.

So basically your issue is your lack of creativity and resourcefulness. Gotcha. Nothing i can do about that really.