These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

Risk Aversion...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Borun Tal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2012-01-31 17:57:39 UTC
tl;dr

It's not that people are risk-averse, it's that they're loss-averse. Hence blob-warfare mentality.
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2012-01-31 17:58:54 UTC
Olleybear wrote:
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:

So, in my mind, the question becomes this. Is soulless blobbing of the enemy Risk Aversion or Risk Mitigation?

Is fun the purpose?

Is the flaw with PVP the fundemental lack of something to fight for beyond blowing up some other guys boat for most players not in a major sov holding alliance? If so. What can be done?



Souless blobbing is usually about keeping your guys from being bored to tears between wars so they dont up and leave your corp/alliance.

Speaking from a solo pilots point of view: Yes, Fun is the purpose of my pvp as well as the challenge of solo flying. I like winning fights I should not have won because its, you know, FUN!

As for the flaw of pvp, I believe someone else has said it before in this thread and it bears repeating. The flaw is in the player behind the keyboard and nothing can be done to change people. The only flaw with pvp itself is ships need to be balanced a bit more. By balance I mean more nerfs and less buffs.

On a side note, many people in thread have said they hate 'grinding isk' and 'doing things they dont want to' in order to have fun. These same people should play on the test server where everything costs 100 isk. You can PVP all day everyday for 1 milion isk there. I'd be willing to bet within a day or two you will be back on Tranquility because the kills on the test server have zero meaning and are boring as hell.


all very valid points. the loss is actually an important feature. Can't argue about skill level of pilots.The "if I can't one shot everything then 'X' is OP" reaction is commont to every game though. I have 3 teenagers and an XBox 360 in the room next to what I use as an office. I get to hear it all day long.
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2012-01-31 18:28:06 UTC
There are quite a few reasons why people don't fight
1. they only have fun when they win so they only fight when winning is more likely to happen
2. they don't make much isk so they are hesitant to put their good ships up
3. they get beat pretty bad all the time so they quit fighting the corps that always beat them
Connaght Badasaz
Lewis and Clark Inc.
#84 - 2012-01-31 18:43:54 UTC
The Rush, once you get used to the shakes afterward, you can use the hell out it to focus on the task at hand during. Adrenaline has the good effect of making one hyper-aware. All of your practiced habits become machine precise and take no thought. It is the zone, and I like the initial rush, my pvp is not polished enough yet to take advantage of it, but it still feels good.

Take arrows in the forehead, never the back
Name Family Name
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#85 - 2012-01-31 21:54:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Name Family Name
I admit I don't really PvP anymore - there were times when I was addicted to Killmails though.

I have the skills I need and have no problem sitting in an implant-less clone for PvP - hell - I even think about stopping skill training on my pvp character altogether before my SP exceed Tau-clone requirements because there's no additional benefit to be gained after that...

Why did I stop? I wasn't risk averse before (7 bill lost in PvP, last death in 2009, so that was before everyone was a billionaire) and I certainly didn't suddenly become scared of losing ships.

The point was there's no single reason to do it other than the adrenaline rush (which grew less and less) and KBs (which are oog).
It's kind of hilarious that a game claiming to be a a PvP focused game doesn't offer any viable ingame reason to do PvP other than suicide-ganking defenseless freighters and carebear-pimpboats for profit or blobbing your soul out for a nullsec RMT overlord.

Losing ships as a means to accomplish something is fine, but spending loads of isk just to show my epeen is bigger than the next guys is a bit stale.
Kessiaan
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#86 - 2012-01-31 22:00:28 UTC
met worst wrote:
Let's see.

I am averse to FC's screaming 'STFU" in my ear while I'm trying to tell 'em the cyno is NOT blue.

I am averse to getting jumped at a gate in my solo Loki by 200 canes.

I am averse to having everybody post "failfit" on Eve_Kill after my PvE boat was killed in lowsec by an '03 leet.

I am averse to some prick saying the J word and then getting primaried by the FC while the J-Worder has a laugh with his mates.

I am averse to finding and killing some random dude 40 jumps away because he told our alliance leader he was an idiot one day.

I am averse to shooting the POS of some random dude 50 jumps away and it's not even a C moon let alone a T.

I am averse to being told to jump when intel says there's 100 snipes on the other side and the FC can't read.

I am averse to having my FC bawled out by the alliance leader in the middle of an Op.

I am averse to listening to an alliance cheif telling us (on and on) about the "state" in the middle of an Op.


TL;DR >> If I'm going to die, it's on MY terms and NO-ONE has met my terms.


Why don't you just pod your FC and install one that's more agreeable?

KB Link
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
#87 - 2012-01-31 22:05:32 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
Dont want to lose learning implants and dont want to lose training time by jumping to implantless clone.

Carebear logic from me.


I am down for this reason. There is nothing like losing irreplaceable time to keep me from risking it all on a fight that means little in the end. And the 500mil in implant replacement costs is no small sum either...
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#88 - 2012-01-31 22:24:03 UTC
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
I hear alot of people cite this as why PVP is sometimes a challenge to come by. So after much consideration I was wondering. What risk are we exactly averse to?

Being totally honest making ISK in EVE is not abnormally hard even for semi casual players and besides anyone doing L3-L4 can pretty much inifi-fit t1 frigs for PVP. Its not ISK I think. I think its more image then anything else.

Here is an example from my own failbook. I was doing L4 missions solo, and screwed up aggro on a Mission *worlds collide* and lost a t2 fit Navy Geddon. I was more upset about what my Corp Members would say then I was about the 350 million ISK hit I took.

Is it Kill Mail that makes us so Risk Averse? Is that why a guy would SD a Titan instead of letting someone kill it. Is the shame of someone have KB on us making us too afraid to take chances with our boats? If so, why?



Yeah in spite of all the hurf and blurf about PVP,. being "leet" and the whole "carebear" debate, I still lose more ISK to PVe-related content than anything else, and we could include the faction fit BC shot out from under me during a live Sansha event.

I have had ships go through wormholes, deep into null, and come back, only to get destroyed in a measly level 4 mission.

"Risk averse" is a term often used by people who are trying to take some game play activity and elevate their own status by claiming that anybody not doing their way, which is risky (they say) must therefore be risk averse, a carebear, should go back to WOW, or sign onto Hello Kitty Online.

The truth of risk averse is really based in economics. It's not risk averse to avoid stupid ship loss. I hear it all of the time from the "PVP crowd" and the arguments towards incursion ISK faucets (it's needed, you see, or else they cannot afford PVP).

If the PVP is, and it's much seen as, "throwing ships repeatedly into a blob/camp/gank grinder", most people don't care for that. Even if they could be goaded into it, out of the fear of being called risk averse for example, they could not keep doing it because the ISK runs out eventually.

Unless they do RMT. Which makes them even dumber.

So we see here a problem in mechanics too: in order not to be Risk Averse and instead be an uber leet PVPer that women will see and throw their underwear at on the streets, you have to camp blob and gank or get ganked and that means stupid ship loss.

I can use WHs to go to deep null, where I have been hunted before, to take on sites that are level 4 grade in an exploration fit (let me tell you what that's like if you feel like being depressed) yet I manage not to get trapped and killed because I avoid the bubbles and camps most of the time. Does this make me risk averse or do I need to have KMs and/or a high ship loss count to prove my manliness?

The way people play this game puzzles me sometimes when I bother to think about it.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Ehn Roh
#89 - 2012-01-31 23:16:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ehn Roh
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
I hear alot of people cite this as why PVP is sometimes a challenge to come by. So after much consideration I was wondering. What risk are we exactly averse to?

Being totally honest making ISK in EVE is not abnormally hard even for semi casual players and besides anyone doing L3-L4 can pretty much inifi-fit t1 frigs for PVP. Its not ISK I think. I think its more image then anything else.

H If so, why?


They're lazy and fly around with insanely expensive implants. That's the start and end of it.

Those who avoid PvP like the plague generally are never going to be competent fleet members anyways, so i don't see why anyone cares. These are the people that show up for fleets fit with WCS and ignore orders because they think they're special snowflakes.