These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#281 - 2013-08-21 18:22:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
So I guess we shouldn't point out the risks of the gank failing or the loot fairy giving the middle finger.



Would it change whether Concord blew up your ship or not?

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
#282 - 2013-08-21 18:25:12 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
How many suicide ganks have you fired at your target in highsec and were able to fly that ship back home?

The Jita blockade when CONCORD started shooting the wrong targets probably made that happen more than anyone is willing to admit… Twisted

Quote:
Would it change whether Concord blew up your ship or not?
It wouldn't change whether it's a risk or not.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#283 - 2013-08-21 18:27:14 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Murk Paradox wrote:


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



A few.

My favorate is the ones who jetcan mine and try to protect the can. Saves me a cat.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#284 - 2013-08-21 18:28:02 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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.


I'm separating cost vs. risk and you're not; when you correctly factor that difference in: 200k < 0 + 2b, or 200k > 2b -2b

Whichever you prefer, it's all perfectly consistent.


You're using the collquial or informal meaning of "risk" whilst Tippia is using the actuarial version. The effect is much the same as Creationists saying Evolution isn't proved because it is "just a theory".

Nevertheless it is obviously ludicrous to say that a 99% chance of losing a ship to CONCORD is more of a deterrent or a cost than a 100% chance of losing one.

tl;dr: there is a such thing as a "100% risk" and it's you who are being obtuse in arguing that there isn't.



Saying 100% risk is being obtuse. 100% risk is cost. Arguing the fact they are both words in the written language is semantics.

The meaning is of course way different.

0% chance is another fine example.

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#285 - 2013-08-21 18:29:27 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
So I guess we shouldn't point out the risks of the gank failing or the loot fairy giving the middle finger.



Would it change whether Concord blew up your ship or not?


Well if there was a 50/50 chance then sure.

Still doesn't make the other risks with ganking go away though.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#286 - 2013-08-21 18:30:32 UTC
Lucas Kell 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 risk in ganking is that the target lives. We minimise that risk by knowing what we are doing, but it doesn't mean the risk isn't there. Just yesterday someone jumped the gun and nearly got us all rapidly killed before out target dropped. We literally got it just as the last ship popped. I've seen many less experienced gank squads fail to execute a gank, or get blapped off the field too quickly to finish it. I've also seen ECM ships suppress a gank enough to save the target ship.
If you fail a gank, you are stuck with a blown up ship and a GCC with a failed objective. That's the risk.

And it's no different from the mining risk. I've NEVER had a miner ganked in high sec, even though I've run many a mining operation. Careful choices of location and a keep eye out for gankers and scouts can minimise the risk there too.

So the long and short of it is, don't mistake well performed actions with risk purposely minimised as being inherently risk free activities.



Which gank ship survived Concord?

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
#287 - 2013-08-21 18:33:53 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Saying 100% risk is being obtuse.
No, it's being sloppy. Risks are not measured in percent; risks are measured in the same unit as the cost.

What you meant to say is that “saying that 100% probability is a risk is being obtuse”, which of course is wrong. Risks don't stop being risks just because p=1. Costs with a 100% probability are still risks.

Quote:
0% chance is another fine example.
0% probability of incurring a cost is also still a risk — the value of that risk is zero.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#288 - 2013-08-21 18:39:27 UTC
clearly CCP needs to give you the tiniest chance of surviving CONCORD by design so that suicide ganking will be a "high-risk activity"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Toshiro Ozuwara
Perkone
#289 - 2013-08-21 18:51:14 UTC
Andski wrote:
"Guys suicide ganking is super easy" - people who have never suicide ganked

I always find it interesting that someone who PvPs as little as you do has so much to say about it.

It didn't take long to locate the tracking beacon, deep inside the quarters for sleepin' They thought they could get away Not today, it's not the way that this kid plays
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#290 - 2013-08-21 18:56:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



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



Your ship going boom is only part of the outcome. Other parts such as "did the target also goo boom" and "did the loot fairy say yes" are also part of the outcome and not a fixed result every time. As such, there is always some risk involved in ganking becase the TOTAL outcome is uncertain until it's all done. If it was really 0 risk at all, you would know the complete outcome even before pressing F1.

Part of the result of flying a plane is that it will come down at some point. That does not mean it's riskless. It will come down at some point just like the gankship will go boom but the rest of the results such as, will it lose it's engine while in mid air, while not changing the fact that the plane will come down at some point are still undetermined until you did the flight.

The gank can still go both way even if the ganking ship explode. There is still a risk of it not going your way. You can minimize it but it will never really be 0 thus ganking in high sec DOES have risk in it.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#291 - 2013-08-21 19:46:21 UTC
Some people (like myself) don't gank for the loot drop.

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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#292 - 2013-08-21 19:51:11 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



So you admit defeat for Tippia then. Interesting.

Wouldn't it border on NDA information to be able to honestly answer your question? Or should I discount the word of a CSM as just trolling a discussion?

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
#293 - 2013-08-21 19:54:14 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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.



It does when you're killing to kill. Or at least for the nature of "ganking".

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
#294 - 2013-08-21 19:55:19 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.



What about the rate of suicide successes? Would they increase or decrease as the risk increases or decreases? I mean, it's only death we're talking about right?

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#295 - 2013-08-21 19:58:40 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



It does when you're killing to kill. Or at least for the nature of "ganking".


Just about every gank is about the money not the killboard.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#296 - 2013-08-21 20:00:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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).


If you want to be technical on the written word of "risk" then there is no "risk" in Eve and only costs. Except maybe where the EULA is concerned, but let's not derail shall we?

If you know something to be 100%, then there is no risk, because there is no rate or chance in the equation. If there was a chance at Concord NOT showing up, then there would be risk.

Since 100% is in fact counter intuitive to a "chance" or rate of probability, then it becomes a constant and not a risk. At that point cost merely has consequences of which to weigh reward versus cost. The variable of chance does not exist as the number would not change. If 1 is 1 and always 1, it will never be 2. You would have to alter the rule for that to happen. That "if" is where risk comes from.

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.
Rekon X
Doomheim
#297 - 2013-08-21 20:01:04 UTC
Toshiro Ozuwara wrote:
Andski wrote:
"Guys suicide ganking is super easy" - people who have never suicide ganked

I always find it interesting that someone who PvPs as little as you do has so much to say about it.


Suicide ganking. Hmm let's see.

NPC alt scans the ship down.

Goon plugs the fit into EFT to calculate defense, and how many T1 Meta 0 Catalysts it will take to pop it.

Said NPC alt sits cloaked for warpin to target and make sure no one else is around to attack them.

Goons warp in, destroy the target and run back to their station and hide before anyone else comes along.

I can see a great amount of skill in this procedure. That is if you have none.

Yea, now that's what I call PVP.

Definition of goon - a stupid person Those who can do, those who can't spew
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#298 - 2013-08-21 20:05:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:

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.




No. Not "other words". It is a constant. No variable, no "other". It's an absolute. It's either, to use your terms, a 0 or a 1.

0=false.

1=true.

When you shoot someone, Concord will blow you up. 0 or 1?

If you want to be "technical" and analytical, then please answer truthfully and honestly with a simple true or false.

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.
Sara Sirlanka
FireStar Inc
#299 - 2013-08-21 20:06:18 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lucas Kell 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 risk in ganking is that the target lives. We minimise that risk by knowing what we are doing, but it doesn't mean the risk isn't there. Just yesterday someone jumped the gun and nearly got us all rapidly killed before out target dropped. We literally got it just as the last ship popped. I've seen many less experienced gank squads fail to execute a gank, or get blapped off the field too quickly to finish it. I've also seen ECM ships suppress a gank enough to save the target ship.
If you fail a gank, you are stuck with a blown up ship and a GCC with a failed objective. That's the risk.

And it's no different from the mining risk. I've NEVER had a miner ganked in high sec, even though I've run many a mining operation. Careful choices of location and a keep eye out for gankers and scouts can minimise the risk there too.

So the long and short of it is, don't mistake well performed actions with risk purposely minimised as being inherently risk free activities.



Which gank ship survived Concord?


Several. Plenty of Black ops Battleships would live through ganks because they would jump out before concord got there. Which is now fixed of course.

You also used to be able to outrun concord. And there was the time when you could kill them outright as well. I am sure in the future something will be added to the game that some one will exploit to get out of concordian.
Rekon X
Doomheim
#300 - 2013-08-21 20:07:11 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Tippia wrote:

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.




No. Not "other words". It is a constant. No variable, no "other". It's an absolute. It's either, to use your terms, a 0 or a 1.

0=false.

1=true.

When you shoot someone, Concord will blow you up. 0 or 1?

If you want to be "technical" and analytical, then please answer truthfully and honestly with a simple true or false.


Exactly.

Definition of goon - a stupid person Those who can do, those who can't spew