|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Glathull
Suicidal Panda Tears of Love and Death
2
   |
Posted - 2012.12.25 20:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
Everyone talks about RvR and about how it's out of whack. It's messed up in high sec, it's messed up null sec. Pretty much everywhere you go on the forums these days, some is whispering the magic words and clicking their heels together.
What is the metric this is based on? How does anyone know? What's the correct formula? Blanket statements don't really do it for me. Even if you think there's literally zero risk for doing x in hi/lo/null sec.
Should people lose, on average, 100 million ISK for every 500 million they earn? Every billion?
What's the magical secret formula that everyone but me seems to know? |
Glathull
Suicidal Panda Tears of Love and Death
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.25 21:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
I don't think you can create a metric out of something that isn't measurable (by us, anyway.) Player actions are anecdotal. I'm not saying things aren't off. Clearly, they are. I'm asking what "on" looks like.
The way risk v reward is thrown around, it seems that everyone thinks they should be related. What is that relationship? |
Glathull
Suicidal Panda Tears of Love and Death
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.25 21:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
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? |
Glathull
Suicidal Panda Tears of Love and Death
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.25 21:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Glathull wrote: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.
Okay, so
R = r * I * e * s.
The r factor gets smaller the larger the number of people involved or the more ISK you spend to reduce r of dying horribly in a gankfire. |
Glathull
Suicidal Panda Tears of Love and Death
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.25 21:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
The theory. What should it be in theory without muddling things up with what different people think constitutes risk or reward. There's obviously a huge difference of opinion there. Taking the opinions out, what do you think the formula for risk and reward should be? |
Glathull
Suicidal Panda Tears of Love and Death
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.25 22:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
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. |
Glathull
Suicidal Panda Tears of Love and Death
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.25 23:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
Okay, so the sense I'm getting is that risk vs. reward is a meaningless phrase that people throw around because it sounds like an argument. But when you try to get people to quantify that argument, no one is interested.
Got it.
Thanks for the clarification and Merry Christmas. |
Glathull
Suicidal Panda Tears of Love and Death
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.25 23:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Agreed, Alavaria.
Nerf ALL the players. |
Glathull
Suicidal Panda Tears of Love and Death
14
|
Posted - 2012.12.27 09:02:00 -
[9] - Quote
Amarra Mandalin wrote:P.S. I'm not saying formulas are useless but rather that they are limited. I think CCP would do well to run well-designed surveys that answer this (risk vs. reward) and other questions. And then take this feedback into consideration for future game development. This rather then relying on the squeakiest wheels for feedback.
I'd kind of given up on this for the moment, but you are bringing some good thoughts to the table so I'll try some more.
I agree that a well-designed survey would be good for CCP to do. In fact, Market Research is my job and creating models like the one I'm talking about in this thread is something I do on a daily basis.
I don't think that there is a single model that can work, and I certainly wouldn't try this out on a message board. A survey or poll here would be as pointless as was suggested above. But message boards are valuable as qualitative research that can direct the development of a good quant study.
My point with this thread was to find out if there is any agreement within the community on even an extremely low level.
Again, the reason for my original post was that I've read a ton of people saying that EVE is all about risk vs. reward and that that relationship is off re: high sec/null sec.
My assumption is that if people think that relationship is off, there must somewhere be at least a vague notion of what the right relationship is.
There are all kinds of problems with a simple equation, and the problems only grow when you try to complicate the formula to account for those problems.
Bump Truck's attempt was a good example of that. Already, in his approach, he is trying to account for the fact that Reward doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. So he's trying to quantify value. In an exhaustive attempt to reduce the EVE experience to a formula, those kinds of permutations would be necessary.
But this is not an attempt to exhaustively quantify EVE. It's an attempt to find out if there is any fundamental starting place that a large number of people agree is correct, even if severely lacking in granular, descriptive detail.
Perhaps I should've tried this as a True/False exercise:
Reward = Time * Activity * Risk
For now, let alone the fact that everyone has their own definition of Reward, Activity, and Risk. Is that statement in general True or is it False? The point of a thought experiment like this is to take subjective stuff out of the argument and find out what people really disagree about. Because right now, everyone seems to disagree about everything. And I just don't think that's the case.
For example, I think we can agree that Time is not really all that subjective and that how much of it you put into the game should play a factor in how much Reward you get out of it. But I could be wrong about that. There could be strong disagreement there. One could argue that Time is really relative to the amount of Real Life time that you have to spend on the game, and therefore absolute numbers of hours shouldn't have anything to do with reward.
There are lots of interpretations of even this very simple relationship, which is why I'm not trying to come up with one ring of numbers to rule them all. Just a general rule of thumb that |
|
|
| |
|