3. So say you are a combat pilot in a massive coalition, if you lose a ship it gets replaced. The coalition holds all of its space and pays the SRP as well as super and other funded programs by using static income (tech). This moons have no real risk as the coalition holds most of it and controls its price and it has reached a point where noone can ever take. The moons use resources and require maintenance but this is minimal in comparison to the income generated. So the pilot may buy new ships with this 'free' isk and this creates inflation. He may even be able to rat in a system + 50 jumps from any enemy mitigating nearly all risk. Other then buying stuff they dont need and plex.. what is the point however?

So were is risk and were is the activity in the above.

The way risk v reward is thrown around, it seems that everyone thinks they should be related. What is that relationship?

what i dont understand is why people expect risk vs reward balance?

/tin foil hat on

what if its meant to be unbalanced?

thats not only this game,i see it everywhere,people constantly ask for balance claiming something is OP or needs buff (LOL comes to mind with endless threads about unbalanced champions) and actually minuscule percentage of this threads make it in live game

I'm not arguing that it should be balanced. I'm asking what people think it ought to be?

Is it supposed to be something along the lines of reward = amount of ISK risked x time exposed to risk x sec modifier?


Leaving the nerf herding out of it, what do people think the formula should be?

It has to ensure that when players work together (eg: intel channels) their rewards go down, in order to punish them for putting in additional effort.

Another example: you set up and use a pos to keep yourself safe, spending the effort to maintain it. This means you die less, therefore your reward must go down.

Risk vs Reward... the theory or the reality?

The theory is pretty obvious. The reality is the greatest reward is the smallest risk: Join a nullsec Alliance and then just bot-farm your day away with their sov array generated freebie sites until you have all the ISK in the world. The smallest reward is mining, which carries the greatest risk because your constantly face being ganked by bored nullbears looking for something to throw their surplus ISK away on.

In Nullsec the rewards are basically the same (the ores are worth the same). The probability of success is lower, any neut in system can shut you down. Anyone who comes across you can kill you, neuts or awoxers, there's rats to be tanked or killed. Then you have the effort of moving the products to a refining POS which you have set up and kept running, which cuts into the rewards. Then there's the risk of an enemy fleet attacking your space and a CTA. There's also the risk you'll lose your sov and your retriever will be trapped in a station you can no longer access. Also you have to to be vigilant the whole hour with at least 2 accounts.

Thanks for the attempt, Bump Truck. A few criticisms, if I may. Your formula seems flawed to me in 3 respects.

1. The reward itself is an arbitrarily assigned number
2. Reward isn't really defined by risk
3. You have risk counting twice, and both times it's just wild guess at a P-value

So, basically, it seems to me to be contrived to make a point about null sec pretty much sucking. I have a difficult time accepting that as a neutral formula that many people would agree on.

Thanks for the attempt, Bump Truck. A few criticisms, if I may. Your formula seems flawed to me in 3 respects.

1. The reward itself is an arbitrarily assigned number
2. Reward isn't really defined by risk
3. You have risk counting twice, and both times it's just wild guess at a P-value

So, basically, it seems to me to be contrived to make a point about null sec pretty much sucking. I have a difficult time accepting that as a neutral formula that many people would agree on.

I think you need to get more fresh air.

This is a game about people.

I'm not arguing that it should be balanced. I'm asking what people think it ought to be?

Is it supposed to be something along the lines of reward = amount of ISK risked x time exposed to risk x sec modifier?


Leaving the nerf herding out of it, what do people think the formula should be?

I think this is what people are trying to get at with the Risk vs Reward argument, also there are questions of variance to be considered but that is a deeper question.I don't claim to have any expertise in this area but here is an attempt.


Hope this helps.

Risk V. Reward was fancy marketing propaganda. You coldn't buy ISK then, and it tried to help players understand the reasons why bounties and ore scaled by sec status.

Since then,, CCP has added all kinds of content and changes, as well as player's actions that kinda muddle the idea.