It may just be a result of the over all direction of communications I have had or read of late that Risk Averse has been a popular term.
When people call me risk averse in my PvP, they have validity in their statements because they are speaking of PvP to PvP. I may not agree with them. The chances are high that I do not. Often, people live in their pillars of PvP defined as they want. Calling someone risk averse is similar to cursing at them. Often, a sexual or gender based slur can be added for extra emphasis.
For something that so many people spend their time at, PvP is incredibly personal. The reasons behind it. The wants of it. The desires. PvP is Eve's Pepsi challenge. If both Pepsi and Coca-Cola are flavors of PvP. If someone likes Pepsi more than Coca-Cola in the taste test they still like Coc a-Cola. People who get along and have the same basic values will still diverge in various areas. Each persons PvP is an individual flavors.
I try not to scorn those who do not fish as I do. I don't always achieve that saintlike goal. I’d love to sit and absolve myself from any narrow minded view but it would be a lie. It is hard for me to wrap my mind around those that find all of their interest in 100% high sec PvP such as duels. Those who would prefer to sit on a station day in and day out so that they can dock because losing their ship is the worst part of PvP for them are people that I do not understand.
Yet, I struggle between my personal scorn at their behavior based off of what I consider 'more better fun' of roaming. And even as I declare roaming more better than station camping another flies solo with a triple inks moving in front of them and scoffs at my risk aversion and blobbing. Another sneers at all as they stand upon their defense of their own, earned, bleed for Sov Space.
There is a common ground there. Player vs Player:Spaceship Destruction.
When people call PvErs Risk Averse, I wonder if the correct term is being used.
I have this little opinion that I am often told is wrong but still tend to stick with that Eve doesn't have to be about PvP in the terms of spaceship violence. It will always be about players interacting with players. That is the core of the game. But spaceship violence is what many, if not most, define PvP as. You can stick, "the best part of the game" there as well. There are endless testimonials about PvP improving Eve for someone and PvP being the reason people continue to play a game that they also seem to hate.
We were shaking heads in chat over a groups rules of Wardec where #13 was to dock up if a war target is in system with the goal being to deny the war targets kills during the war dec. Of course, our nature says that one fights such a thing. One does not let another force one to dock up for a week. To just dock up and not deal with it is risk aversion.
While the definition of risk aversion applies to so much, what I wondered after I stopped shaking my head, was are we using it correctly in regards to these situations. Words and terms develop new definitions and nuances over time or per situation. If a player who plays only 'safe' PvP where they have reduced their risk of loss to almost nothing is risk averse is a player who does not play PvP at all as a part of their game and avoids PvP as a PvPr might avoid PvE risk averse in the way the PvP player is using it.
I can say, "Yes. They do not wish to lose their ship. Losing ships happens. They are risk averse." But at the same time, if many are honest, the average war deced high sec corp is terribly ignorant and rather scared of the war dec. Of PvP. Is the PvPr calling them Risk Averse or accusing them of playing Eve wrong by not doing PvP? Is the PvPr calling them out simply because they want spaceship violence and risk averse becomes another type of smack talk?
What is risk aversion in PvP anyway? It seems so malleable. I've been told I'm risk averse because I refused to start my PvP career by shipping into frigates I had no idea how to fit and attacking everything I saw until several hundred loses later I got a clue. I've been called risk averse for not flying my Cynabal into fights when I had no experience in the ship. I've been called risk averse by gangs baiting with a small gang with two times the numbers and logi waiting to join in when the bait was not taken. I've been called risk averse for fleeting. I've been called risk averse for flying tackle. Its a long list. Its endless.
But each time it was a different situation by a different person for a different reason. Almost each time the reason broke down to my not doing what someone else wanted me to do. I personally consider people who hug the station in battleships and uber-tanked (not Ueberlisk tanked) T3s with undocked carriers smacking at 100 smacks a minute in local risk averse. They consider themselves intelligent and me an idiot for fighting without the battleship hugging the station or the uber-tanked T3 with a carrier repping.
It is not as if the average PvE focused person is going to undock and do much more then die against someone with PvP background. Is that risk aversion or just being sensible? While yes, they are averse to the risk of dying is it a risk or almost a positive. I tell people to fight back, somehow. Fight, hire, out think, do something. Don't just sit but that risk aversion is often a, "Undock and face the music" type of comment. It has hints of, "I want to shoot at you give me your spaceship to shoot at!" vs the average arguments between groups and their various levels of risk aversion in PvP PewPew.
Are mission runners who do not engage ninja salvagers risk averse or sensible considering the average ninja is waiting to prey on them?
It is commonly known that it would be stupid for incursion runners to bring bling fleets to low sec to run incursions. Are they risk averse or just being sensible because they understand the (pirate) conditions that they face?
There is a good chance I'm just over thinking a bit.