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.

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.

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?

the real secret to RvR, what they really mean when they say it
-->
Industrialist or Mission Runner takes ALL the risks
PvP'er reaps ALL the rewards

Besides nowhere in hi sec can you find bpc's worth billions check prices on that sansha's turd super carrier or those nice frigs worth minimum of 50 bill, then talk about RvR

Some would argue the most common metric is player actions. The best example of this is null-sec players creating highsec alts because the ISK in highsec is equivalent but easier and consistent. Also industry in null is lol and needs fixing.

OP the only quantifiable metric I've seen for reward is isk/hr for an action. For risk yeah that's a gigantic formula that most of the forum won't get and will mindlessly post why its wrong, so I'll save that for later.

I read somewhere that we built the only one known to exist- and then sold it to some scrub c/d?

EDIT: Because its useless

Yes, ask all the people who lost their tech moons. It clearly was riskless for them Also, it needs to be nerfed more.

Erm kinda obvious none of them were lost, you effectively made them all part of your extended coalition?

Yes it needs to be nerfed so that all income is activity based from the players and is completely risk vs reward, highest of both being 0.0, which to be honest has never been so safe as it is now.

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.

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.

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.

But will consumers buy the healthier meals they claim to want? There is the cautionary tale of the McLean Deluxe, a less fatty burger that tested well in the 1990s but failed miserably in the market. GÇ£They said they wanted it, we gave it to them and they didnGÇÖt eat it,GÇ¥ says Greg Watson, McDonaldGÇÖs vice-president for menu innovation. Consumers still love the core McDonaldGÇÖs menu. When executives went on a listening tour earlier this year to hear consumersGÇÖ thoughts, many mothers asked McDonaldGÇÖs to improve nutrition but also told the company not to change the recipes for favourite foods such as Big Macs or French fries. GÇ£Some items just need to be left alone,GÇ¥ says Mr Watson.

Today McDonaldGÇÖs introduces new items cautiously, trying them in just a few restaurants or markets for a limited period. An experiment to add blueberries to its oatmeal will not be repeated next year. Dan Coudreaut, the head chef, is more optimistic about an egg-white sandwich on a wholegrain bun. One benefit of healthier items, explains Mr Watson, is that they make customers feel better about the McDonaldGÇÖs brand. Some of them will order the healthier food and some will still order their favourite burger but be happier about it, in the knowledge that the company also does salads.

[quote=Amarra Mandalin]

Listen but don't believe everything your consumer tells you. Sometimes they are telling what they really believe but others they are simply paying lip service.

Your survey won't collect any meaningful data.

False.

Surveys involving "experiments" and clinical research both often show major discrepancies with a product that has gone to market. This, for the most part, is an apples/oranges comparison with evaluating current customer satisfaction.

Market research is not a perfect science but is a viable tool used by most all successful companies.

There are many ways to implement control questions, minimize bias and misconception about the game, as well as eliminate fringe categories.

If you dislike the idea, that's fine. But in my opinion it would serve better than run-of-the mill forum rants and might be revealing as to how the silent majority / forum defectors feel about the game.

[quote=Amarra Mandalin]

How question is phase affect the answers, for a demo watch the first 10 mins of this video. Like it or not we are all bias in our own way, whoever design the survey can affect the out come of the survey!

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.

Sorry. I'm not all that interested in an elementary education, if it is even that. With over 20 years in the journalism field, and several in marketing, I forget what is included in a Bias 101 education these days.

And I have a rule I live by: I don't debate people who presumptively -- and often, passive-aggressively - link to wiki articles -- except on the Paradox forums where you're a scrub if you don't know important historical facts such as the color of Napoleon's favorite underwear.

But your point is noted: Survey data in meaningless. See: Faulty Generalization

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.