These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Basil Pupkin
Strategic Incompetence
#101 - 2015-05-02 01:10:24 UTC
The chicken of chickens, the guys who docked on us in Amarr and refused to come out despite outnumbering us at about 5:3 ratio, speaks of risk aversion.

Then again, that behavior probably makes him an expert on the topic.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#102 - 2015-05-02 01:22:27 UTC
Those topics are funny... especially when they come from groups that often blob to death targets.

Usually scenario of a roaming gang of 5-6 people with tackle, find 1 guy minding his own business and that guy hides/run/cloak/dock... and you want to counter risk aversion?

How about this... group of 500 show up, local of 30 dock up... lets force them out of POS/station, it's only fair... **** their risk aversion!

Been around since the beginning.

Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#103 - 2015-05-02 01:36:41 UTC
Coming from CFC pilot lol. You forgot to post on alt m8?

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE

Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#104 - 2015-05-02 01:46:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Akirei Scytale
Teckos Pech wrote:

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


Weak example, because there's a correct choice. the gamble.

A risk averse person would take the $40, assuming the probability of the gamble wasn't given. They'd be an idiot to take the $40 otherwise.

A cautious person would devise that the odds were in fact 50/50, and work in an edge if possible to tweak that to something like 55-45 or 60-40, then take the gamble.

An impulsive person would go into the gamble blind.
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#105 - 2015-05-02 01:49:00 UTC
Entering CFC space in a Heron fitted with a MWD and cloak. Risk adverse?
Fleeing to high through bubbles from a Wolf in the Heron. Risk adverse?
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2015-05-02 02:21:27 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

I'm sorry (not really), but I refuse to read your blog based on the word 'dank' being part of the link which I assume is also in the title. If you are going to bother writing something and want people to read it, at least pretend to be an adult when writing it. Ugh
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#107 - 2015-05-02 02:48:03 UTC
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
Coming from CFC pilot lol. You forgot to post on alt m8?


I am posting on an alt.
CFC doesn't exist.
We always pewpew when its time to pewpew.

Next noob please Lol

Been around since the beginning.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#108 - 2015-05-02 03:09:03 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
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

I'm sorry (not really), but I refuse to read your blog based on [you guys eating our lunch]


Fixed the spelling for you.

F
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#109 - 2015-05-02 04:00:57 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Kashadin wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
in short, KBs don't tell you squat except "hes blown **** up before" or "he's died before".
Nope.

Kill count can be misleading, but losses are straightforward: if you lose just 2 ships/month, you're rarely putting your ship in real danger. Doesn't get any clearer than that.

If you're not putting your ship in danger, you're personal contribution to internet space explosions is poor. Unless, of course, you're one of those heroic space truckers that spend their time buying/hauling/fitting ships for others to have fun with!




Unless that person is just not losing fights...i mean, like I said to get kills you have to put your ships in danger of being blown up.
Sure.

To be clear: I have nothing against cautious, careful PVP-ing and trying to maximise kills per loss.

It's a valid playstyle as any other. But it is, in fact a playstyle. A player's choice. Game mechanics (including insurance) won't change that!


To your point: if you're always winning fights, you're not really risking. There's no way around it. Because in EVE you can choose your fights.

Say you're a really really good PVPer. You know your sh*t, you're always on the ball, you put countless hours into perfecting your game.

So do you always win fights?

Well, it depends. Yes you're better than most other players. You'd beat them all in a 1v1 with same ships/fits. But EVE isn't about 1v1 battles. If you want a challenge, you can still go pick 1v10s, with competent players. Have fun, keep the adrenaline pumping, and yes - most probably lose several ships.

On the other hand, even if you're bad at PVP, you can always limit yourself to 10v1 ganks and win.


TL;DR: taking risks or not is a personal choice, more insurance won't change that much, and my hunch is that the OP's choice is - and always will be - risk-averse PVP.



This is the crux of the matter. This is a video game. You aren't going to suffer cataclysmic real life consequences or death for losing.

It is human nature to prefer winning over losing. But if no one will undock without being convinced of near certain victory, that is going to cause stagnation. I'm not sure any amount of mechanics tinkering by CCP can force content into an arena where people won't engage without a 90%+ chance of victory.

It just seems that the players themselves choose this path. So many want steady, risk free content (read kills). I have roamed pretty far and wide in New Eden and it amazes me how much of the player base just huddles in their little corner with a huge pile of ships and ISK, constantly accumulating more. They undock to curbstomp anything weaker or less numerous that wanders into their cave and they hide any time a superior force moves through the area. They don't go actively looking for content. They want it brought to them, either at the local hub undock or their nearest low/nullsec chokepoint stargate.

Right now, the "bittervets" and the people that actually understand how the game works, are relying on dwindling number of casual or just plain dumb players for content. People that don't watch dscan, people that fly their PLEX-bought faction BS into hubs during a wardec or use it to solo rat in low, that don't fit tank to their mining barges or use scouts/webbers to move their freighter.

The players who are just plain clueless, and the ones who have the stones to go run around solo in hostile space with expensive ships, are providing content for everyone else who just want to engage in a succession of risk free ganks. The players who take risks, for whatever reason, are providing content for people who don't. And if we just keep getting hopelessly stomped every time we're going to stop taking risks. The idiots will eventually learn or quit. When you get to the point where no one will undock without victory being almost certain, you will have a problem.

You can spout off about how "this is EVE" and "there's not supposed to be any fair fights." That's lovely and entirely unhelpful. Once you reach a critical mass of players who can accurately assess the risks and will not undock unless that risk is extremely low, you are going to have a very boring game. I have felt myself getting to the point where I don't want to take fights at all in anything bigger than a T1 cruiser because I have to assume I'm going to be baited and blobbed, or he's got an OGB or logi alt on the adjacent stargate. I can fly with a blob myself, but that's just hitting F1 and jumping when the FC says jump. It's boring.

Short version, if you want to break this risk averse stagnation, you can make choices about how you play. You can dock up the instaloki, undock a HAC, leave behind the warm embrace of the 4-4 undock and go hunt targets in distant space. You can leave the logi alts and blob behind and just wander through a few dozen systems looking for mischief. Get off the stargate, leave the sebo'd Gnosis in the hangar, and figure out a way to gank those other assholes gatecamping at the other end of the pipe. Challenge yourself like you didn't train skills and grind ISK for years just to sit in one place every day hitting F1.

There is no law that says you have to play like a risk averse hermit. There's no law that says you can't pvp without 3 scouts, 2 logi and a pet falcon, or 20 corpmates waiting on the adjacent gate.

Go play like you want to have fun instead of worshipping little green numbers on zkillboard.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2015-05-02 05:51:08 UTC
Ok guys, at this point we need a real solution.

Here it is, brace yourselves:


MAKE ALL SHIPS SELF-DESTRUCT AFTER A FIXED TIME LIMIT.


Ships aren't meant to gather rust in hangars (except maybe Minmatar). Either they die gloriously, or they seppuku in shame.

Make ships un-repackagable. Once assembled, the countdown starts ticking.

Say 1 month for a frigate, up to 1 year for a capital. Also solves the problem of supercap proliferation.


Makes economical sense too: in RL, all assets need maintenance and sooner or later they decay. In EVE, if you don't put a ship at risk it will last until the servers go offline. That's just too good, makes people afraid to lose stuff and unbalances the economy.


Yes it seems crazy, but the more you think about it the more it makes sense.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#111 - 2015-05-02 05:56:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Right until you consider people that actually don't play every day. Who then would never be able to afford anything because their ships would blow up before they made the isk back.

The way to actually counter risk aversion is limitation of information. If all you know is that your opponent is in a cruiser.... then you have to guess more about engaging than if you know he is in a Thorax, or a Tengu.
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
Pen Is Out
#112 - 2015-05-02 06:05:29 UTC
Or people could just play in a manner that makes the game interesting rather than pretending they will die in RL if their efficiency drops below 90%.

Start playing EVE like a honey badger. Problem solved.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2015-05-02 06:21:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tipa Riot
Indeed, no hunt without prey, reads less experienced, careless or bored players. The essence of EvE combat is to trick people into a fight they will lose.

Regarding information to foster fights, less information is bad because it increases caution, false or misleading information is good because it creates (over-)confidence.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#114 - 2015-05-02 06:55:06 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

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


Weak example, because there's a correct choice. the gamble.

A risk averse person would take the $40, assuming the probability of the gamble wasn't given. They'd be an idiot to take the $40 otherwise.

A cautious person would devise that the odds were in fact 50/50, and work in an edge if possible to tweak that to something like 55-45 or 60-40, then take the gamble.

An impulsive person would go into the gamble blind.


Wrong. You are quite simply wrong. If you are risk neutral you take the gamble. If you are risk loving/seeking you take the gamble. If you are risk averse and the sure thing is above your certainty equivalent you take the sure thing. Yes, the bet's expected payoff is greater than the sure thing, but the risk averse person doesn't like the uncertainty of the gamble.


"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#115 - 2015-05-02 06:57:26 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:


There is no law that says you have to play like a risk averse hermit. There's no law that says you can't pvp without 3 scouts, 2 logi and a pet falcon, or 20 corpmates waiting on the adjacent gate.

Go play like you want to have fun instead of worshipping little green numbers on zkillboard.


No, the problem is this thread starts off with the presumption that there is one correct way to play...the OPs way.

That and a continuing conflation of risk averse with loss averse.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2015-05-02 07:06:18 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:


There is no law that says you have to play like a risk averse hermit. There's no law that says you can't pvp without 3 scouts, 2 logi and a pet falcon, or 20 corpmates waiting on the adjacent gate.

Go play like you want to have fun instead of worshipping little green numbers on zkillboard.


No, the problem is this thread starts off with the presumption that there is one correct way to play...the OPs way.

That and a continuing conflation of risk averse with loss averse.

To be fair, the OP's article was about risk- (or loss-) averse PVPers, not about PVEers not wanting to PVP. Several replies misunderstood that because reading is hard.
Feyd wrote:
EvE's PVP community is often mired in a risk-averse culture where many don't engage unless victory is assured.

Teckos, since you seem to know your sh*t, would your gambling example be different if the player had to invest his own money in the gamble? I mean, yes, not taking the 40$ is akin to risking to lose 40$, but not quite the same thing, I'd presume... What do you say?

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Alpheias
The Khaleph
#117 - 2015-05-02 07:21:59 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
TIL Black Legion is running out of iskies, or more specifically Feyd *is* out of isk.

Clearly indicated by our seppuku'ing dreads rather than endure jump fatigue AIDS to move them... ayyyyyyy.


Well, space AIDS is a no joke matter. It is serious business and has reaped untold number of lives.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2015-05-02 07:38:51 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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


When someone says there's an elephant in the room, I expect to see an elephant.

PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!


This one was about to go on a roam of many many systems jump where PvP happens at the risk of losing his ship when THIS happened. Turns out he was more interested in that than potentially losing his ship for unknown results.


That's an elephant in a zoo, not an elephant in a room. I am so disappoint right now.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#119 - 2015-05-02 07:41:51 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Right until you consider people that actually don't play every day. Who then would never be able to afford anything because their ships would blow up before they made the isk back.

The way to actually counter risk aversion is limitation of information. If all you know is that your opponent is in a cruiser.... then you have to guess more about engaging than if you know he is in a Thorax, or a Tengu.


No. Risk aversion is due to uncertainty. When people have a choice between an uncertain outcome and a certain one, they often pick the certain one even if the expected payoff of the uncertain outcome is higher. It is the uncertainty. Limiting information is a type of uncertainty.

The OP is correct in one regard...insurance is a mechanism for managing risk. Basically you pay a premium so that the outcome in the good and the bad state are pretty much the same. For example, if a person has income of 50,000 and faces a possible loss of 20,000 and there is an insurance market, and the risk of loss is 10%, that person would be willing to pay 2,000 for the insurance. If nothing bad happens the person gets 48,000. If something bad happens the person gets....48,000 (50,000 - 20,000 + 20,000 - 2,000 = 48,000). With insurance the person is indifferent between the good state and bad state (assuming all that matters is the loss of money). However, this is an ideal situation where the person is fully insured (less the premium). Given that information is often incomplete insurance is rarely complete (deductibles, and co-pays as well as limitations on coverage).

The insurance in the game is also incomplete. My guess the reason for this is so that PvP means something...you suffered somewhat of a (in-game) monetary loss.

And to add to this issue...people often behave....oddly. For example, consider these gambles:

You have an urn with 30 red balls, and 60 black and yellow balls. You don't know how many black and yellow balls, just that black and yellow balls sum to 30. Also the urns are thoroughly mixed so the underlying distribution is a uniform distribution.

Now, you can pick the following gambles:

Gamble A: You get $100 if a red ball is selected.
Gamble B: You get $100 if a black ball is drawn.

Most people will pick A even though A has a fairly low probability of winning and it could be that B has a high probability of winning.

And on the second round you are given a choice between:

Gamble C: You get $100 if you draw a red or yellow ball.
Gamble D: You get $100 if you draw a yellow or black ball.

Here, most people will go with gamble D. Problem is going with A then D is a violation of subjective expected utility theory....a paradox in essence.

A person prefers A to B iff Prob(Red) > Prob(Black) which implies there are less that 30 black balls...and more than 30 yellow balls

A person prefers C to D iff Prob(Red or Yellow) > Prob(Black or Yellow), but from choice of A over B, people are implicitly saying that the inequality is now reversed, that since Yellow > Black, then you should have picked gamble C.

Or an other very famous example, the Monty Hall problem from Let's Make a Deal. You have 3 doors to pick from, A, B, and C. Behind one door is a car. Behind the other two is a goat. Once the player makes the choice (for sake of argument lets say he picks B) Monty then opens one of the two remaining doors that does not have the car behind it--i.e. he shows you a goat, say door C. Then he asks the player, do you want to switch door A or stick with door B (the original choice). It is always strategically advantageous to switch. Switching leads to winning 2 out of 3 times. Sticking leads to a win 1 out of 3 times. You double your chances of winning by switching. But this is very, very counter intuitive.

Basically, when presented with choices under uncertainty, people behave...differently than what logic and math tell us. People tend not to like uncertainty, and they like unknown uncertainty even less.

So, if we want people to undock and fight...set insurance coverage to be full. You lost 50 million isk...no problem here is 50 million isk. But then PvP will be nothing but bragging rights and killboards. That way people will not have to deal with risk. And still, some people will still not like the uncertainty of PvP and dock up and stay docked up.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#120 - 2015-05-02 08:00:44 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
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


Then everyone would be flying the same bling, and people would still avoid fights because they might lose.

There's more than ISK at stake. There is pride, reputation, killboard ISK-efficiency, and sometimes even the logistical pain involved in replacing the lost ships.

You have the argument back to front. Ship Replacement Programs liberate people to take risks they otherwise couldn't afford to take on their own. If you remove the pain, you remove the fun.

This is the wisdom of EVE.

Amen.