| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
Phoenix Rising Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:26:00 -
[1]
I keep seeing the expression "Risk Vs. Reward" pop up in these forums like its some type of mantra, some self evident truth.
But thinking about it, I can' think of a lot of aspects where "Risk Vs. Reward" just doesn't hold up. Here's two:
1. Low sec is far more dangerous than no sec (0.0), and clearly no sec has far better rewards than low sec.
2. Astrometric complex's in no sec (0.0) are by far the most risky, and although officer drops happen their (occasionally) the difficultly level associated with first finding a 0.0 astrometrics complex and then running it (some of them are impossibly hard) only to get a drop that may or may not be worth while means that often level IV missions in empire are far less risky and reward far better than 0.0 complexs.
Can anyone else cite examples in game of where the Risk Vs Reward just doesn't seem to hold up?
Does anyone else agree that the "Risk Vs. Reward" mantra gets used far too often as an altruism?
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction
Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:29:00 -
[2]
highsec
where the initial investment is a npc corp raven + missile skills + time = 20million isk per hour (figure snagged from the mission forums)
come on flame me I dare you
|
SoftRevolution
Complicity.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:30:00 -
[3]
Risk vs reward is pretty much a fiction from what I can see.
I'm not sure that's a bad thing from the point of view of getting and keeping customers either.
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
Abrazzar
Equilibrium Inc.
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:32:00 -
[4]
Maybe people should start adding Requirements vs Reward and Effort vs Reward into the batch and then it might make some more sense....
--------
Ideas for:
Mining
Clouds
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 15:33:00 -
[5]
There are plenty of instances where the Risk vs. Reward theory doesn't really hold up that well. Obviously it was CCP's intention to make it so but in some cases - low sec space being an excellent example.
The problems is that CCP can't easily predict player behavior, so even if they create a mechanic that on the surface seems relatively straightforward, emergent behavior can often dictate otherwise.
----------------
Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
Nuyan Zahedi
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:53:00 -
[6]
Risk versus reward is currently rather flawed in EVE with the high-sec mission-runners and I see it as one of the bigger problems within EVE at the moment. I think CCP is going to use Factional Warfare to balance it out much better, something they already tried to do with lvl5 missions and boosters etc.
--
My blog
|
Firkragg
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:58:00 -
[7]
As ive said before in other threads. To balance risk vs reward we should move all lvl 4 missions to low sec. There you go happy now?
|
Nuyan Zahedi
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:02:00 -
[8]
 Originally by: Firkragg
As ive said before in other threads. To balance risk vs reward we should move all lvl 4 missions to low sec. There you go happy now?
I'd like it personally, but I'm afraid CCP won't be doing such game-breaking move, which is rather understandable.
--
My blog
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction
Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:04:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Firkragg
As ive said before in other threads. To balance risk vs reward we should move all lvl 4 missions to low sec. There you go happy now?
then they run lvl 3's
don't you read general discussion
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:04:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Firkragg
As ive said before in other threads. To balance risk vs reward we should move all lvl 4 missions to low sec. There you go happy now?
A better option would be to make level 5 missions much more rewarding in my opinion. Currently the ISK per hour ration is actually less than level 4 missions unless you do them in a carrier.
----------------
Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
Ashina Sito
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:17:00 -
[11]
1. Mission invasions. Scanning out a mission runner and going in to salvage wreaks. Completely legal, no risk to the salvager.
2. High-sec suicide ganks. If you bother to pick your targets there is no risk envolved. Sec hit and ship loss are part of the process not risks. When you know your ship is going to blow up when you undock your not risking anything.
3. Covert Ops BS hauling. Covert ops cynos allow for undecticable movement of high value, low m3, gear through hostile space.
4. Cloaks. A player can sit forever in a system with a cloak up. There is nothing that can be done about it. Some system that ether makes them scanable, 2 hours or so of effort would be about right, or a cap/fuel usage to limit the time a ship can stay cloaked.
|
Arctur Ceti
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:29:00 -
[12]
ive come to the conclusion that this risk vs reward only applies to carebears and pirates think they're exempt to it. perfect example is the cries from pirates to bring level 4 missions to low sec to expose carebears to more risk. but what risks are there to pirates fitted with pvp setups preying on the weak miners and missioners? they choose their targets and even have the choice not to engage. or even if they engage, most likely miner or missioner won't have a scrambler anyway. all other risks are the same for everyone (gate camps, pvp, blobs). but pvp pirates have a better chance in surviving these. now, if i'm supposed to pvp when i go to low sec and i don't go to low sec to mainly pvp, then what the hell am i doing there in the first place? 
|
Arctur Ceti
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:35:00 -
[13]
in other words if im expected to npc, mine, mission and do indy stuff on pvp setups instead of the right tools to maximize efficiency then whats the point in using the right tools in low sec? risk vs reward is just something used to force players to become easier targets for others.
|
Redglare's Demise
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:29:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Arctur Ceti
ive come to the conclusion that this risk vs reward only applies to carebears and pirates think they're exempt to it. perfect example is the cries from pirates to bring level 4 missions to low sec to expose carebears to more risk. but what risks are there to pirates fitted with pvp setups preying on the weak miners and missioners? they choose their targets and even have the choice not to engage. or even if they engage, most likely miner or missioner won't have a scrambler anyway. all other risks are the same for everyone (gate camps, pvp, blobs). but pvp pirates have a better chance in surviving these. now, if i'm supposed to pvp when i go to low sec and i don't go to low sec to mainly pvp, then what the hell am i doing there in the first place?
Exacly, there is alot of risk, and hardly any reward for being in lowsec.
The result: don't go there.
Giant meatpie foundation |
Esmenet
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:16:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Nuyan Zahedi
Risk versus reward is currently rather flawed in EVE with the high-sec mission-runners and I see it as one of the bigger problems within EVE at the moment. I think CCP is going to use Factional Warfare to balance it out much better, something they already tried to do with lvl5 missions and boosters etc.
The issue is not highsec mission running but the problems of defending yourself in lowsec.
Highsec has concord and 0.0 has player"police". Lowsec has nothing. Sure there are ways to stay safe but it will often dramatically lower your earning potential. So its not the middle ground between highsec and 0.0 like it is commonly seen as.
So you can move lvl 4's and lvl 3's for that matter to low sec and it wont change a thing. To make low sec attractive the rewards should be substantially higher than 0.0
|
Esmenet
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:26:00 -
[16]
One possible solution to lowsec is to make lvl 5's into difficult and very rewarding missions requiring teamwork. And to make high level exploration sites in low sec. That way low sec will be interesting for small gangs that to some extent can protect themselves more from pirates while still making isk.
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:31:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Esmenet
Edited by: Esmenet on 19/03/2008 19:28:48
One possible solution to lowsec is to make lvl 5's into difficult and very rewarding missions requiring teamwork(only available in lowsec). And to make high level exploration sites in low sec. That way low sec will be interesting for small gangs that to some extent can protect themselves more from pirates while still making isk.
I think that having NPCs re-target whenever additional people warp into the mission are would make them more interesting. It would also make the pirates work harder to bust said mission-running gangs.
----------------
Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
Phoenix Rising Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:45:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Eventy One on 19/03/2008 19:46:25
Edited by: Eventy One on 19/03/2008 19:45:52
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Nuyan Zahedi
Risk versus reward is currently rather flawed in EVE with the high-sec mission-runners and I see it as one of the bigger problems within EVE at the moment. I think CCP is going to use Factional Warfare to balance it out much better, something they already tried to do with lvl5 missions and boosters etc.
The issue is not highsec mission running but the problems of defending yourself in lowsec.
Highsec has concord and 0.0 has player"police". Lowsec has nothing. Sure there are ways to stay safe but it will often dramatically lower your earning potential. So its not the middle ground between highsec and 0.0 like it is commonly seen as.
So you can move lvl 4's and lvl 3's for that matter to low sec and it wont change a thing. To make low sec attractive the rewards should be substantially higher than 0.0
I hadn't looked at this way before. What if ... while you in the process of engaging in mission running in low sec for a legitimate empire faction .. concord provide protection you alone in low sec ..
.. like a security detail of sorts?
I wonder if that would make life more interesting.
For the potential outlaw .. they can't tell if you are on legitimate Empire business or not, so the risk is not the same for all 'victims' when attacked.
|
Buyerr
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:25:00 -
[19]
it ain't there....
since pvp only brings a reward in the form of the rush you get, or if you super gank some poor soul that have no chance of defending himself..
lets just say you take on 1V10 and actually takes out 6 of them before their reenforcements come and you have to flee, you get 0 ingame reward for doing this.
while should you be 5 vs 1 and win you get the minimal reward of his loot.
fact is that the only way of getting a great reward is by ganking the right guy who have worked for hours upon hours to gain the faction mods and then steal em from him, this still bringing no risk to you, bringing no reward to him (which is the one taking the risk) and making you rich (if you are lucky).
risk vs. reward is something that doesn't stick anywhere anymore, and properly never have done in eve pvp.
how to fix it.. well i got a bunch of suggetions but non which would properly seem fit to the awesomeness of the creators eyes, since they clearly wants this "non gaining" pvp they have made, and thereby removing the essens of risk reward in the pvp area (in the pve it is actually there)
I declare war on stupidity |
Buyerr
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:29:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Buyerr on 19/03/2008 20:30:55
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Firkragg
As ive said before in other threads. To balance risk vs reward we should move all lvl 4 missions to low sec. There you go happy now?
A better option would be to make level 5 missions much more rewarding in my opinion. Currently the ISK per hour ration is actually less than level 4 missions unless you do them in a carrier.
lvl 5 is supposed to be done in carriers...
just like lvl 4's in battleships, not like a hac or commandship will do anywhere near the isk per hour on lvl 4 missions as a golem will (max skilled and fitted
I declare war on stupidity |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |