These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Great Ice Mining Interdiction: Not so Great

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scarlett LaBlanc
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#261 - 2013-08-21 16:48:48 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Since we're agreed that the loss of the gankers ship to CONCORD is not a risk and serves no purpose in deterring ganking, shall I go ahead and ask CCP to remove this useless mechanic? It's rather demanding of system resources, and takes up development and code maintenance resources that could be applied on more useful mechanics



As one of the people manufacturing and profiting on the sale of these ships, I for one am a big fan of this mechanic.

The gankers can keep treating the ships as disposable (providing me a market) while they have a good time, the AFK miners can keep whining on the forums (I assume having a good time?) and Tippa and "friends" can debate the nature of "RISK" (clearly having a "very good time").
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#262 - 2013-08-21 17:19:41 UTC
Andski wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
That's untrue. Miners RISK losing their ships. They MIGHT get blown up.

With suicide gankers there is no "might" unless there is no target. IF they do their job poorly, or well, they will still get blown up.

Concord can no longer be tanked or avoided unfortunately.


There's also the risk of nothing of value being dropped in a hauler gank. You also risk your looting ship being blown up, even moreso now that you have suspect flags for looting wrecks. There's also the risk of getting your hauler alt suicide ganked on the way to Jita while moving the loot.

Anybody who says this is "risk-free" is just posting fanfic. In the case of miner ganking, how can one argue that it's "risk-free" when you inherently operate at a loss when doing this? Even if it's sponsored by somebody else, somebody is taking a loss unless the secondary effects (i.e. the supply constraint and speculators driving the price of ice and isotopes up) outweigh that loss.



Yep, but that suicide cat is going to die the second it engages an aggression act 100% of the time.

Anything else is only postering to pretend some sort of dominant presence to argue the semantic of a few letters strung together in a certain order.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#263 - 2013-08-21 17:20:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Andski wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
That's untrue. Miners RISK losing their ships. They MIGHT get blown up.

With suicide gankers there is no "might" unless there is no target. IF they do their job poorly, or well, they will still get blown up.

Concord can no longer be tanked or avoided unfortunately.


There's also the risk of nothing of value being dropped in a hauler gank. You also risk your looting ship being blown up, even moreso now that you have suspect flags for looting wrecks. There's also the risk of getting your hauler alt suicide ganked on the way to Jita while moving the loot.

Anybody who says this is "risk-free" is just posting fanfic. In the case of miner ganking, how can one argue that it's "risk-free" when you inherently operate at a loss when doing this? Even if it's sponsored by somebody else, somebody is taking a loss unless the secondary effects (i.e. the supply constraint and speculators driving the price of ice and isotopes up) outweigh that loss.


Its not really risk. Its the "cost of doing business".


So is losing a mining ship in highsec.



If you were guaranteed 100% to lose that miner everytime you undocked, then yes. Since that's not always the case, we introduce the meaning of the word "risk".

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#264 - 2013-08-21 17:20:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Malcanis wrote:
Since we're agreed that the loss of the gankers ship to CONCORD is not a risk and serves no purpose in deterring ganking, shall I go ahead and ask CCP to remove this useless mechanic? It's rather demanding of system resources, and takes up development and code maintenance resources that could be applied on more useful mechanics


Its silly comments like this that makes me want to run for CSM so can see me face palm.

Although I agree there is little or no risk in ganking, I would point out that that CONCORD is a financial deterrent to people who do gank.

There is an upfront known cost to ganking which most people can guestimate farily easily. The truth is that anyone can gank any ship in hi-sec if they want to with enough resources. The reason this doens't happen everyday is because people don't want to pay the resources to do it. But when they do there is nothing that concord can do to stop it.

And I don't know why you people are so caught up on the word risk anyways and seem to be on a rampage with using it in a way that it is not meant to be used in the English language. Its like you have to be holier than thou because you want to imply you are risking your ships to gank someone.

You know what. I gank people too but I don't feel the need to improperly butcher the English language and logic to say I am risking something when I intend to destroy it.

It is like saying "Someone who commits suicide risks death."

See how stupid that sounds.

Anyways if you say CONCORD is useless and you want to get rid of it like you suggest, you would have to replace it with something worse like making it impossible to engage targets at all in hisec because of "SPACE MAGIC".

PS

Let me clarify it for you that you can't wezel word your way out of it...

1 Cata with T1 may risk not killing a Mack if it has a tank which the Cata could have checked.
15 Catas with T2 blasters have about 0% risk of not blowing up a Mack.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#265 - 2013-08-21 17:34:38 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:


1 Cata with T1 may risk not killing a Mack if it has a tank which the Cata could have checked.
15 Catas with T2 blasters have about 0% risk of not blowing up a Mack.


You could still get no loot. The risk in EVE is not only linked to losing ships.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#266 - 2013-08-21 17:35:03 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:

It is like saying "Someone who commits suicide risks death."

See how stupid that sounds...


The majority of suicide attempts fail.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#267 - 2013-08-21 17:37:24 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Dictionary.com defines risk as "exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance"

I bolded the word "chance" so you know that risk requires a chance which assumes possible survivability. When death or destructionis 100% guaranteed, then there is no risk, because it is outcome that has no chance of survivability.


As has been explained, ship loss isn't the only factor that we have to take in to account for suicide ganking. There are plenty of things left to chance. You're trying to pidgeon-hole the definition of risk in to 'ship loss only'.



Let's break it down. When you fire your gun, you don't risk losing a bullet. You know it's going to fire, you know it's going to leave, you know you're going to lose it.

Not really much pidgeon holing there. No need to over complicate things. You take a ship out with full intention of not coming back in it.

Now, you DO risk coming back poorer, because you might not make a profit. But that doesn't equate to the act of suicide ganking and that would be pidgeon holing the situation.

So yea, let's not pidgeon hole the fact you know it's going to be loss, not risk.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#268 - 2013-08-21 17:41:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Let's break it down. When you fire your gun, you don't risk losing a bullet. You know it's going to fire, you know it's going to leave, you know you're going to lose it.
…and presumed certainty does not preclude it from being a risk.

Quote:
Yep, but that suicide cat is going to die the second it engages an aggression act 100% of the time.
…but committing a ship to a suicide gank does not mean it faces a 100% chance of destruction, and even if it did, it would still be a risk. If you want to argue that it's not a risk, but a cost of doing business, then there are no risks anywhere in EVE: they're all costs of doing business.

Captain Tardbar wrote:
Let me clarify it for you that you can't wezel word your way out of it...

1 Cata with T1 may risk not killing a Mack if it has a tank which the Cata could have checked.
15 Catas with T2 blasters have about 0% risk of not blowing up a Mack.
That doesn't really clarify anything since you keep using the wrong word. What you mean to say is that:

1 Cata with T1 has a chance of not killing a Mack if it has a tank which the Cata could have checked.
15 Catas with T2 blasters have about 0% chance of not blowing up a Mack (which may be true for that particular probability and is about the correct level for that kind of application of force, but doesn't remove the risk involved — if anything, it makes it even bigger).
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#269 - 2013-08-21 17:43:09 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:

15 Catas with T2 blasters have about 0% risk of not blowing up a Mack.


What should should "15 Catas with T2 blasters" not have about a 0% risk of not blowing up. I can't think of many subcaps here.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#270 - 2013-08-21 17:47:21 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:

It is like saying "Someone who commits suicide risks death."

See how stupid that sounds...


The majority of suicide attempts fail.


And?

It still doesn't make sense when you say my previous statement.

The failure of commiting suicide is continued life. Risking death doesn't make sense because it was the intended outcome.

Its as if I said:

"Eating a nice steak runs the risk of being satisfied."

or

"Smoking crack runs the risk of getting high."

It does sound humorous when I say it like that but if its funny doesn't make it serious like you intend to make it.

Look. I'm not arguing that ganking should be curtailed or even removed from the game or that it doesn't have a cost, but it irks me when people try to call it something its not.

15 cata fleets are always 100% sucessful in killing a Mack. Unless the fleet does something dumb there is no risk of failure and the ships were always assumed to be a cost, not a risk.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#271 - 2013-08-21 17:52:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:

15 Catas with T2 blasters have about 0% risk of not blowing up a Mack.


What should should "15 Catas with T2 blasters" not have about a 0% risk of not blowing up. I can't think of many subcaps here.


Well. I'm qualifying it for you so you can see the situations in where ganking has no risk of failure.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#272 - 2013-08-21 17:52:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Captain Tardbar wrote:
And?
…and it doesn't sound very stupid to say that you risk dying from a suicide.

Quote:
Risking death doesn't make sense because it was the intended outcome.
Intent only really determines what sign you put on the value of the outcome. If the projected outcome goes counter to the intent, you put a minus in front of it; if not, you put a plus.

Quote:
Look. I'm not arguing that ganking should be curtailed or even removed from the game or that it doesn't have a cost, but it irks me when people try to call it something its not.
You mean when people call it “risk free” even though it entails significant risks?

Quote:
Well. I'm qualifying it for you so you can see the situations in where ganking has no risk of failure.
You mean it has no chance of failure. Having no chance of failure (a level no gank can ever achieve anyway) doesn't remove the risk.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#273 - 2013-08-21 17:56:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
What are you on about? Adding a variable into any sort of optimization is extremely expensive.
I'm on about how the whole purpose of risk is that it lets us trivially include all kinds of costs (and gains) in a single formula at pretty much no additional cost, because all the “added variables” are already there. You add pretty much nothing, computation-wise, but gain tons of robustness by not accidentally leaving out second- or third-order effects that you might not have foreseen.

Quote:
Pretty sure you're just spitting out all the fancy statisticy sounding words you know at this point
Being sure is not the same thing as being right.

My argument that if you want to talk about risk, talk about all the risk — don't exclude certain parts you don't like just to make a rhetoric (and incorrect) point, because that paints you as dishonest, ignorant, or both.

Quote:
The whole point is that something with 100% probability isn't a risk
The point is incorrect. Anything that is a cost is also a risk (and vice versa). Exactly how high that risk is compared to the cost depends on the probability. Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean the risk goes away, and treating a cost as a risk adds no computational difficulty or complexity while still maintaining a high degree of robustness.

Either way, if you want to talk about risks, talk about all of them and don't arbitrarily leave some out.



I think you're confusing "risk" with "assessment".

You can assess if it's worth doing something, and that assessment will take risk, probability, chance of success, cost, etc into effect.

Taking a risk, is betting against your chances. Assessing, is considering if it's worth trying in the first place.

You know a suicide gank is an absolute the second you fire your gun or take any other aggressive act Concord will blow you up. That's a cost. If you want it to be a risk, it has to be less than 100%.

Mallak said you risk not hitting all your shots, and that is indeed true. You do RISK missing your bullets and failing to blow the target up before you blow up. But you don't risk getting blown up by Concord; it's a certainty. It's an absolute.

I don't know why you keep spinning this round and round, you do it so much. Do you get lost in your integers or something?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2013-08-21 18:00:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
S Byerley wrote:


Those points being?

So far there's been a lot of semantic silliness (which you can't logically poke holes with), a supposed counter-example which was easily dismissed, and a bunch of vague statistical buzzwords that the author clearly doesn't understand (also impossible to poke holes with).


Using your logic there is no risk at all in EVE.



That is not an untrue statement.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#275 - 2013-08-21 18:06:59 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Those points being?
The point being that all costs are risks and vice versa — that's the whole point of the risk concept.

So instead of going arbitrarily labelling something as “not a risk, but a cost” (which leads to there being no risks at all since you can put forth the same argument for all risks), we should just include all the costs and their corresponding probabilities, even if those probabilities happen to be 1.

That way, we can actually start with the proper discussion of whether the projected costs and the projected gains are out of whack, rather than this obfuscating and pointless “your gameplay is simplistic” line of argumentation mud slinging.



When your formula produces the same answer regardless of application, it becomes a constant, not a variable.

Constant is not risk, but cost.

You click F1, and get flagged in highsec. Concord shoots you. 100% death. = cost.

You click F1, and get flagged in highsec. Concord shoots you. 100% death. Target X (X = variable; survives, dies). = risk of no profit.

But you don't risk losing your ship. You risk not getting a profit.

Remove the constant. There's the risk. You don't "risk" dying. Concord is a constant. An absolute. 100%. Cost.

You risk losing your costs to have 0 gains, but you know the ship is going to get blown up regardless.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#276 - 2013-08-21 18:09:58 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I think you're confusing "risk" with "assessment".
No. I'm not actually confusing risk with anything. I'm using risk to denote risk, unlike many others who confuse it with “things I feel are heroic and which I will not grant my opposition”.

Quote:
You can assess if it's worth doing something, and that assessment will take risk, probability, chance of success, cost, etc into effect.
That is called a risk assessment. it takes probability (going from 0 all the way up to 1) and costs (both negative and positive) and pair them up into risks. Add all the risks together and you get a projected outcome. So no, the assessment only takes risk into effect. Risk, in turn, takes cost and probability into account. Chance of success is the same as probability — you only take it into account once.

Quote:
Taking a risk, is betting against your chances.
Only in casual speech. I'm not using casual speech; I'm using the analytical term, at which point risks are not taken — they are just projections of outcomes. Once you take action, you should, on average, end up with the outcome the risk has described. If that average isn't what you were going for, you shouldn't have taken that action.

Quote:
You know a suicide gank is an absolute the second you fire your gun or take any other aggressive act Concord will blow you up. That's a cost.
…in other words, it's a risk.

Quote:
But you don't risk getting blown up by Concord; it's a certainty. It's an absolute.
…and it's still a risk, since risks don't go away just because the probability in your cost × probability equation reaches 1. Even if it did, blowing up is still not a certainty, and it's a risk regardless.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#277 - 2013-08-21 18:12:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
When your formula produces the same answer regardless of application, it becomes a constant, not a variable.

Constant is not risk, but cost.
…and all costs are risks.
Also, risks can most certainly be constants, and what you meant to say is that certainties are not risks. But of course, that's not actually how risk works since it's still a risk even at that high probability.

Quote:
You click F1, and get flagged in highsec. Concord shoots you. 100% death.
…in other words, a (cost × probaility =) risk.
But more than that, you click F1, and before the server has had a chance to process your request, the target dies. You don't get flagged. Concord doesn't shoot you. 0% death.

…and that's before we get to the risk that deal with payout.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#278 - 2013-08-21 18:15:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
The victims (and everyone else) are correct assuming sensible definitions. However, you'd be ill-advised to pursue an activity based on risk without considering cost and profit.
So a risk of 200k ISK is greater than a risk of 2bn ISK according to this “sensible definition”? Yeah, no. That's why that particular definition is rejected as nonsensical and replaced with the actual definition of risk.



The 200k versus 2billion is nothing but a smokescreen in regards to the discussion. Your argument was it doesn't matter the number.

Or are you trying to imply you will have a chance to get away after you fired that shot?

To answer your question (which is curvy intentionally) with as straight as an answer that can be mustered in the way you're asking....


You RISK losing that 2b mach to a mission (albeit low), you know it will COST you your mach if you shoot a freighter with it in highsec (without using supplemental mechanics of wardecs etc).

So yes, you risk more in a mission than a gank. You have a fair idea you can survive a mission. You know for a certainty you will not survive a gank. So you get together with friends and get a bunch of much more affordable ships to offset COST, but the "risk" isn't there since it's a certainty of cost.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#279 - 2013-08-21 18:20:13 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
The 200k versus 2billion is nothing but a smokescreen in regards to the discussion. Your argument was it doesn't matter the number.
No, my argument was that it's still a risk even when p=1.

Quote:
You RISK losing that 2b mach to a mission (albeit low), you know it will COST you your mach if you shoot a freighter with it in highsec (without using supplemental mechanics of wardecs etc).
…and since costs are risks, it means your risk in the mission is much much lower.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#280 - 2013-08-21 18:20:36 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Tippia wrote:
As always, risk = cost × probability.
Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean it's not a risk — it just means that the risk is so hight that it has the same value as the cost.


Too lazy to read the entirety; are you still arguing that suicide cats (which work out to about the isk/hour of BS ammo) are inherently risky?

Like most people, I tend not to factor ammo costs into my risk assessment.

You are correct. When suicide ganking the ship is the expendable ammo. A risk is not a risk if the outcome is certain. A risk requires an element of chance.

So there is no risk in ganking. Just expenditure.


The outcome isn't certain. One thing that does happen is the target goes to ground when you are setting up, even if its not because they saw the impending gank. Mack filling is a trigger for people to make decisions like log off after all. In which case you risk time passing without fun and without making isk (either from bits of dead exhumer or by opportunity cost of not doing other activities).



How many suicide ganks have you fired at your target in highsec and were able to fly that ship back home?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.