Wraeththu
   |
Posted - 2005.08.09 22:58:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Wraeththu on 09/08/2005 23:05:06
Realistically most of the threads are arguing apples and oranges.
Everyone uses the phrase "risk vs reward", but very few actually contrasts it, and especially CCP (or at least they don't seem to make changes due to it)
CCP only values "Risk" as introduced by a PC.
CCP only creates "Reward" as introduced by an NPC/Inanimate Object.
The Risk should be traded against the reward.
If Trade is to included Trade Reward, it should also include Trade Risk. Combat is not a trade risk, it's a general risk. For there to be risk in the actual trade, there needs to be the possiblity of the market dropping out on something, and vice versa. It really shouldn't have jack to do with a system's security. (there's no 'reward' for trading PC parts. You're just shuffling ISK between players)
But it does right now, and you see them moving the more profitable stuff into low-sec, for the very reason that they only feel player-introduced combat risk is viable.
Take manufacturing. There's no change that a job will FAIL. You plug the materials into an easy-bake oven, and magically they pop out product later on. The only possible risk is, again, player introduced combat risk by forcing people to gather materials from from a PvP area. I'd like to see what would happen if one of the Nations underwent a coup and the goverment confiscated all product on sell orders currently in their soverignty 
A mission where you fly into deadspace with a battleship, to face off 5 battleships, 20 cruisers, and 50 frigates is either considered "EARTH SHATTERINGLY HARD!" or "Feh, super easy" (and of which these two options are what effect the pay of the mission) based on the sole fact of the security level of that system. And yet, the combat will be exactly the same.
When, honestly, most 0.0 residents are plenty safe in their own area, and don't even have too many issues at choke points, with the exception of the poor suckers you live next to syndicate or PB (welcome back DIE.)
The whole concept of PvE "Risk vs Rewards" is messed up in Eve. They should either completely get rid of it, or honestly sit down and actually compare apples to apples. As it stands though, the PvE side of this game is an embarasement. Yes, it's a PvP game (and, IMO, a good one at that), but that doesn't give excuse to make other aspects of it shotty.
I mean take NPCing & Missions. People use to just kite missions and NPCs perpetually. Then they whined it was too easy. So they tried to make the NPCs faster. But PC's would just increase the speed to keep up. So they put in webbing and scrambling. So PC's started figuring out damage types and hardening. So they put in tougher and more numerous ships to deal with the hardening
So now you basically NEED a T2 ship or a battleship to do some of the level 3 missions, thereby increasing risk. But the reward hasn't gone up, because the reward is based on where you are, and is based on the assumption that (X) ISK is blown up per mission.
But if the combats are the same, irrelivent of the sec level (which is true) then why is the pay less in high-sec (and by pay I don't mean just mission output, but also the modules and such that drop, which are inferior in high-sec)? Because of "risk vs reward". Which, to go full circle, just shows that it's actually a "PC Risk vs NPC Reward" equation. Which is apples & oranges.
So, realistically, the freighter is just a larger tool to exaserbate some design short-sightedness.
So, in the short term at least, maybe it would be a better idea to just remove NPC trading as a viable option. It's obviously a hold-over anyway.
|