These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#301 - 2013-08-21 20:08:44 UTC
A probability can still be a probability even if it's 1.0 or 0.0

"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
#302 - 2013-08-21 20:08:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.



Nice dodge, but you're circumventing the question by substituting variables. Please answer the question in the form it was answered. Or rather, if you insist on a special case, how many neutral freighters have you shot in highsec and haven't lost the ship in which you used to shoot?

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
#303 - 2013-08-21 20:09:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.



It also doesn't change the fact that 100% chance of your ship blowing up is better defined as cost and 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#304 - 2013-08-21 20:11:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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.



That becomes a semantic argument going beyond "technical" and into "obtuse". Which I might add, is being sloppy. You're pulling at straws now.

Cost is not a risk. It is a cost.

You mentioned that iso 3000 earlier, please reread it.

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
#305 - 2013-08-21 20:11:52 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
A probability can still be a probability even if it's 1.0 or 0.0


That falls under dyslexia.

Definition of goon - a stupid person Those who can do, those who can't spew
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#306 - 2013-08-21 20:12:20 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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.



Yes, the part of it is the "cost". It's the part we've been talking about (not just me) for quite a few pages now.

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
#307 - 2013-08-21 20:14:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.


I can think of quite a few reasons that is not true, as I'm sure you could if I were to say those words to you sir.

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
#308 - 2013-08-21 20:16:22 UTC
Sara Sirlanka wrote:


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.


Which is now fixed of course.... interesting. Why was it fixed?

And does any of that exist now? Why or why 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.
Spurty
#309 - 2013-08-21 20:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Spurty
Murk Paradox wrote:
You mentioned that iso 3000 earlier, please reread it.


LMFAO

Did you mean ISO 31000:2009 though? (if talking Risk Management)

Good read (if you're into collecting Fungus, Spores and Mucus samples or can't sleep at night).

Carry on though .. had to say something because of profession and found your comment genuinely funny :O

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#310 - 2013-08-21 20:22:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
A probability can still be a probability even if it's 1.0 or 0.0



Only in the written word, not in application.

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
#311 - 2013-08-21 20:23:07 UTC
Spurty wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You mentioned that iso 3000 earlier, please reread it.


LMFAO

Did you mean ISO 31000:2009 though? (if talking Risk Management)

Good read (if you're into collecting Fungus, Spores and Mucus samples or can't sleep at night).

Carry on though .. had to say something because of profession and found your comment genuinely funny :O



Yea there was a quote that specifically referenced "chance" and "uncertainty", which a constant is 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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#312 - 2013-08-21 20:24:13 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


I can think of quite a few reasons that is not true, as I'm sure you could if I were to say those words to you sir.


No, It's a very easy to see fact. Outside of burn jita ganking is done for profit.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#313 - 2013-08-21 20:25:03 UTC
Spurty wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You mentioned that iso 3000 earlier, please reread it.


LMFAO

Did you mean ISO 31000:2009 though? (if talking Risk Management)

Good read (if you're into collecting Fungus, Spores and Mucus samples or can't sleep at night).

Carry on though .. had to say something because of profession and found your comment genuinely funny :O

ISO3103:1980 is quite interesting as well, although there's very little risk management in it.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#314 - 2013-08-21 20:25:56 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



It also doesn't change the fact that 100% chance of your ship blowing up is better defined as cost and not risk.


So we all agree there is risk in ganking then.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#315 - 2013-08-21 20:36:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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.



It doesn't cost you anything if you don't die. That's why risk is not defined by cost. When you get to keep that mission ship if it survives, you can approach it as a bonus if you were intending to lose, but since you were intending to survive and continue the same sequences, it's a repeating risk to continue missioning.

When you start a mission that requires a down payment, you can argue both it being a risk and a cost, but that's because you get a fluid resource as a reward that cannot be earmarked.

For instance...

Take a quarter, stick it in a slot machine. That's cost. Not risk. Even if you win, unless it's that SAME quarter, it's still a cost.

Now, if you do win, it's a cost because the reward COVERS the risk. Meaning the reward is the amount minus the cost.

In poker, you RISK the chips you play with, because you get the same chips back if you win the pot. Even blinds are not a cost because of the fact you bluff and there is no 100% certainty, you can still win the blinds with a non winning hand because you risk your remaining chips by going all in betting on the fact that noone else is as confident regardless if they have a better hand or not (without even seeing the flop, using texas hold'em as an example).

Gambling, can be considered risk, and most usually is. Slot machines are always cost, because the money involved is money, regards if your 1980 quarter comes out of the winnings or not.

Much the same with ganking. Regardless if you make enough profit from the kill (even 0) to recoup the cost of the gankship, you still spent that isk on the gankship, which never comes back. Only can be replaced.

But then you're looking at profit minus cost. Since that gankship WAS destroyed, it's gone. Spent. Done. Byebye. You don't get your catalyst back magically just because you killed the target, but you do lose the gankship just because you tried.

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
#316 - 2013-08-21 20:37:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



It also doesn't change the fact that 100% chance of your ship blowing up is better defined as cost and not risk.


So we all agree there is risk in ganking then.



No, but we can agree that there is most definitely cost.

It would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

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
#317 - 2013-08-21 20:39:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


I can think of quite a few reasons that is not true, as I'm sure you could if I were to say those words to you sir.


No, It's a very easy to see fact. Outside of burn jita ganking is done for profit.



There is no profit in ganking scouts in noobships, although that can be argued, the prime reason for killing one is not for profit.

Or atleast, a LOT of noobships killed are never looted that I see when roaming across null. They are popped because they are alts, or because they do not belong in the same space I occupy, regardless if their hold is empty or full.

Now, YOU might only gank for profit, but meh, profit is definitely A reason to gank, but not the only reason.

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
#318 - 2013-08-21 20:41:44 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


I can think of quite a few reasons that is not true, as I'm sure you could if I were to say those words to you sir.


No, It's a very easy to see fact. Outside of burn jita ganking is done for profit.



There is no profit in ganking scouts in noobships, although that can be argued, the prime reason for killing one is not for profit.

Or atleast, a LOT of noobships killed are never looted that I see when roaming across null. They are popped because they are alts, or because they do not belong in the same space I occupy, regardless if their hold is empty or full.

Now, YOU might only gank for profit, but meh, profit is definitely A reason to gank, but not the only reason.


You cant suicide gank in null.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#319 - 2013-08-21 20:47:30 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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".


You still have risks. You could still mess up the gank. You only know the results when it's all over. Before that there is risk of it failing because all the possible outcome are not in your favor.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#320 - 2013-08-21 20:48:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


I can think of quite a few reasons that is not true, as I'm sure you could if I were to say those words to you sir.


No, It's a very easy to see fact. Outside of burn jita ganking is done for profit.



There is no profit in ganking scouts in noobships, although that can be argued, the prime reason for killing one is not for profit.

Or atleast, a LOT of noobships killed are never looted that I see when roaming across null. They are popped because they are alts, or because they do not belong in the same space I occupy, regardless if their hold is empty or full.

Now, YOU might only gank for profit, but meh, profit is definitely A reason to gank, but not the only reason.


You cant suicide gank in null.



But you can gank.

Your words sir. Be succinct or don't.

Ok look, that was an obvious troll but still proves the point. Suicide ganking is most usually done for profit, but the only way to assign it as being risky, is if you don't consider doing it at all.

If you buy a ship for the sole purpose of knowing it's going to get blown up at a chance for profit (profit has risk!) then it leaves the realm of risk and enters the realm of cost.

If you buy a ship on the pretense you do not WANT it to get blown up, then it is indeed a risk, and not only a cost.

To even consider suicide ganking in regards to risk assessment, you would have to entertain the idea you maybe will not want to use that ship to gank with. THAT is risk assessment.

The fact you consider that ship blown up before you even consider undocking in it (such as made up your mind on the outcome regardless of profitability) eliminates any risk taking as you are already decidedly chose to consider it a cost.

The difference, is outcome based on intent.

Ergo, flying a machariel in a mission can be risky, using that machariel in a suicide gank is costly. And stupid.

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.