These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#441 - 2013-08-23 11:31:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
You separated the variables, indicating that you were not making such an assumption.
I separated the variables for the same reason you write it as P(A)P(B|A), and you even got the mentioned that assumption yourself, but then failed to actually include it in your thinking.

That's why I was so confused by your first claiming that they couldn't be multiplied together and then demonstrating that that's how you do it (and why), which is why I'd like to you actually demonstrate some personal ability in the matter.

So how would you write the two in order to control for the dependence of p(stolen)?

Quote:
They qualify that the event must be uncertain
[citation needed]

Quote:
Quote:
Dodging questions proves nothing except that you're unwilling to answer, which raises all kinds of questions about your motivation for not answering something you claim to know and understand well. It tends to imply inability rather than mere unwillingness, for instance.

Yes.

So which one is it? Unwillingness or inability?
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#442 - 2013-08-23 11:52:32 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
You separated the variables, indicating that you were not making such an assumption.
I separated the variables for the same reason you write it as P(A)P(B|A), and you even got the mentioned that assumption yourself, but then failed to actually include it in your thinking.


I'm not much of a griefer, but I have to admit it's fun watching you backpeddle after spending so many posts trying and failing to set up a gotcha.

Tippia wrote:
[citation needed]


Citation already given.

S Byerley wrote:
Quote:
Dodging questions proves nothing except that you're unwilling to answer
Yes.


FTFY, please don't misquote me.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#443 - 2013-08-23 12:18:27 UTC
If suicide ganking is riskless that would mean it is impossible to fail.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#444 - 2013-08-23 12:22:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
I'm not much of a griefer, but I have to admit it's fun watching you backpeddle after spending so many posts trying and failing to set up a gotcha.
...if by back-pedaling you mean driving the point forward until you finally manage to spit out a proper answer, and if by setting up a gotcha you mean making you realise where you went off the tracks. I'm sorry if you feel like you're being hounded, but if you tried being a bit more forthcoming, these methods of extracting answers would not be necessary and the feeling would probably go away.

Quote:
Citation already given.
No. You've provided a quote that defines risk; not one that defines uncertainty or puts any obligation on it being P<1, and in fact no citation whatsoever of the numerical methods involved. So [citation still needed]

Quote:
Quote:
Dodging questions proves nothing except that you're unwilling to answer, which raises all kinds of questions about your motivation for not answering something you claim to know and understand well. It tends to imply inability rather than mere unwillingness, for instance.

Yes.

So which one is it? Unwillingness or inability?

If you're going to QQ about people changing your quotes, start by not doing it yourself. Then answer the question. I have come to realise that answering question makes you break out in hives and causes severe nausea in you, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.
Lady Areola Fappington
#445 - 2013-08-23 12:23:56 UTC
Watching Tippia and S Byerley argue is like watching two octopi have sex.

You sure as hell can't figure out what's going on, but you know someone is getting screwed.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#446 - 2013-08-23 12:45:07 UTC
methods of extracting answers
Paul Chung
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#447 - 2013-08-23 12:53:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Paul Chung
Oh look, a thread that's 23 pages. Guess I check out the last page and see what's going on. Oh look, it's Tippia engaging in yet another pointless, off topic argument. Maybe if she makes the argument convoluted enough, the other guy will run out of patience and she can declare victory. We all know how she loves to declare victory.

edit: fixed mah italics
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#448 - 2013-08-23 12:56:15 UTC
Paul Chung wrote:
Oh look, a thread that's 23 pages. Guess I check out the last page and see what's going on. Oh look, it's Tippia engaging in yet another pointless, off topic argument. Maybe if she makes the argument convoluted enough, the other guy will run out of patience and she can declare victory. We all know how she loves to declare victory.

edit: fixed mah italics



Well, they can't ever be accused of being hollow victories Big smile

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#449 - 2013-08-23 13:05:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
If suicide ganking is riskless that would mean it is impossible to fail.


This. Being smart about how you gank can help mitigate the risk and the loss involved, but it is not riskless.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#450 - 2013-08-23 13:56:59 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tippia wrote:
...if by back-pedaling you mean driving the point forward until you finally manage to spit out a proper answer


By backpeddling I mean trying to go back and change the explicit assumptions under which we were working. You buried them like you always do, and no one cares enough to look, but you know and I know. It can be our little secret.

If you were trying to teach me to interpret my probabilities ambiguously, I'm glad I didn't indulge your socratic line of inquiry. Also, the socratic method isn't appropriate here.

Quote:
No. You've provided a quote that defines risk; not one that defines uncertainty or puts any obligation on it being P<1, and in fact no citation whatsoever of the numerical methods involved. So [citation still needed]


Nope, that's there too; look harder. (hint: it's the second sentence)

S Byerley wrote:
Quote:
Dodging questions proves nothing except that you're unwilling to answer

Yes.


FTFY, please don't misquote me

Quote:
If you're going to QQ about people changing your quotes, start by not doing it yourself.


If I misquoted you I apologize; please direct me to the offending post so I can rectify it. However, please be aware that quoting only a portion of your post doesn't constitute a misquotation.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#451 - 2013-08-23 13:59:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Tippia wrote:
Funnily enough, I know what three of those acronyms mean. P

You're just weird Blink

Seriously though, I bet FlexRay is the one you don't know, it's no longer in use IIRC. I'm not even going to ask how you know about esoteric network protocols and topologies on wheels. (I had to look up topology, wasn't sure it was the right term)

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#452 - 2013-08-23 18:13:20 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:


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

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

You heard it here first folks! It's risk-free to rat in an officer fit carrier, because you have a 100% chance to kill the rats.

Malcanis wrote:

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.


[Ibis, Welp]
[empty low slot]
[empty low slot]

'Cetus' ECM Shockwave I
[empty med slot]

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]



If 4 gankers can bring an extra 11(!) pilots and 150 million isk of hardware where 8 mil would do the job, I don't see why a 30+ man mining operation can't spend 450 thousand isk to put three alts in these. I'm sure at least a few of them have pew pew accounts with market/cyno/hauler alts to fit the bill. At the immense extra cost of 1 mil each, they can even fit a cloak and prop mod.

Murk Paradox wrote:

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?

/facedesk

No. Concord will not blow you up resulting in a 1 or a 0.

Concord will turn your Catalyst into a Catalyst wreck containing anywhere from nothing, to half the value of a meta cat, up to 90% of a t2 cat if everything drops. You RISK the whole ship, but you will only LOSE ~75% of it if meta and ~55% if T2 fit on average. If the gank is executed properly, the loot fairy doesn't give you the middle finger, looter gets it all, gets out, and you get your pod out.

A 70 mil SP pilot is not risking a 2 mil meta cat in a gank. He's risking the ~500k expected loot drop from his own wreck and the 9 mil ISK it will cost him to upgrade the clone should he get podded.

Furthermore, you risk that should the 9 mil in mods actually drop from the cat it might be looted by the victim's friends. The T2 cat might drop better loot than the barge itself.

Even if you're a social reject with no alt account you can go to a quiet system. Bring the gank character in, log off. Bring the scanner, find a lone target in a belt, log off. Gank it, initiate pod warp to safe, close client, log scanner in, loot. You should be done and out before he can dock and reship to loot himself. Your pod may or may not get probed out and popped before you get it to safety. But the chance of you losing everything on your gank ship when you F1 is far from 100%.

P never really equals 1. It probably drifts around the 0.75 mark. With some hilarious welps that can turn an expected 5-6mil T2 cat loss into a couple guys needing to update clones and the "victim" coming out 20+ mil ahead in bonus loot. Bonus points if they had 5% small hybrid implants.


Every time you undock, you consent to people violencing your boat. This applies to the gankers every bit as much as it does to the miners. I've seen people sit on gate/station/probed safe in an interceptor with multiple points, catching outlaw cats before they even get so far as the warp-to-miner part. Faction police do the rest. Bonus tears if the rest of the cats still engage and welp on a barge with insufficient dps.



I don't understand the "no" part. Are you saying you can survive Concord if you violence an unwilling party? You do not "risk" anything if you know you are going to get blown up. There's no "chance" since you know it is a guaranteed direct result.

Again, shoot an asteroid, read the warning, and do it again. Tell me what happens.

You do not need to /facedesk to realize this, it's a simple concept. Action, reaction.

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
#453 - 2013-08-23 18:16:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rekon X wrote:


It's in comment to baltec's statement "These are all risks currently faced by suicide gankers in high sec."

Fact is there are no "risks", it is calculated loses. There is no skill, it is all procedure.

It is carebear pvp. PVP being it involves another player. Not that they can actually attack back.



How exactly is a 50% drop chance, the chance of the target having better than expected defences, the target getting unexpected help and going suspect while looting the wreck (and thus, open to attack from everyone) not classed as risks?



Because you are not using the part of cost to determine risk. You are deciding on what we have already defined as risk to insinuate we are calling it cost.

Of course you risk getting a profit! That has not been in question. Suicide ganking as an act, has 0 risk if you decide to blow up your ship. Death by cop is still the same as blowing off your own head with a shotgun.

If you buy a 5mil ship with the intention of getting it blown up by Concord for an unsolicited act of aggression, you are not considered as "risking" that ship. It is serving it's purpose.

You might be risking a profit in doing so, but that isn't in question.

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.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#454 - 2013-08-23 18:18:59 UTC
Grr, proftable ganking, must nerf.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#455 - 2013-08-23 18:21:18 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


So you are saying that everytime I suicide gank someone I know for a fact that I will not profit from it? Think about what you're saying there.



I'm saying everytime you suicide gank you know you will lose your ship.

Profit has nothing to do with 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.
Joepopo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#456 - 2013-08-23 18:23:01 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


Of course you risk getting a profit! That has not been in question. Suicide ganking as an act, has 0 risk if you decide to blow up your ship. Death by cop is still the same as blowing off your own head with a shotgun.

If you buy a 5mil ship with the intention of getting it blown up by Concord for an unsolicited act of aggression, you are not considered as "risking" that ship. It is serving it's purpose.

You might be risking a profit in doing so, but that isn't in question.


I buy all my ships with the intention of blowing them off.

Thank to you I realise I never take any risks :(
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#457 - 2013-08-23 18:23:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
[

Quote:
The difference, is outcome based on intent.
Intent only determines the sign on your outcome: if the outcome is aligned with your intent, you generally put a plus sign in front of it; if the outcome is counter to your intent, you put a minus sign in front of it. If your intent is to calculate projected losses, then costs are positive and gains are negative.

Quote:
To prove a constant. It isn't a risk if you do not consider it anything more than a cost.
It doesn't matter if it's a constant. A risk is a risk is a risk, and costs with p=1 are also risks because they are still a cost-probability duplet.



I'm not even going to address your nonsensical spinning, you already lost that battle and I've moved on after accepting your defeat.

Cost is not a risk if you don't treat it as a chance or anything other than what it is... a cost.

Any sort of risk assessment would assume the worst of a risk and consider it a cost, not the other way around. That's where hope and optimism plays into things, which has nothing to do with assessing risk.

Go home, you're drunk.

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.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#458 - 2013-08-23 18:24:38 UTC
Joepopo wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Of course you risk getting a profit! That has not been in question. Suicide ganking as an act, has 0 risk if you decide to blow up your ship. Death by cop is still the same as blowing off your own head with a shotgun.

If you buy a 5mil ship with the intention of getting it blown up by Concord for an unsolicited act of aggression, you are not considered as "risking" that ship. It is serving it's purpose.

You might be risking a profit in doing so, but that isn't in question.

I buy all my ships with the intention of blowing them off.

Thank to you I realise I never take any risks :(

Huh I guess I never risk anything either. Now if I was a -highsec ice miner- expecting to be safe, then I'd be taking risks.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#459 - 2013-08-23 18:25:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I will however, take the time to applaud all the people who rise to the defense of people, even in fact of them being wrong and trying to circumvent simple fact into fantasy to pretend something is something different than it is.
Well, if they just accepted the reality of what risks are (i.e. cost × probablity, where c can be both positive and negative and p can be anything from 0 to 1), they wouldn't have to be wrong so much in spite of having this simple fact explained to them over and over again.

Quote:
Now, get the hell over the fact that suicide ganking is in fact riskless pvp since you aren't putting anything on the line and just gank a ship and be done with it.
Why should they get over that fantasy, when it has no connection to reality? After all, there are plenty of risks involved: the loss of the ship(s) being one; the destruction of the target being another; and getting the loot being a third. If you really want to go with the argument that they're just costs, then guess what? There is no risk for the gank victim either, because his loss is also just a cost. That leads us nowhere. Accepting the simple fact that ganks are risky means we can actually start to legitimately debate whether that risk is where it should be or not — denying it only leaves you at an impasse with no proof for your case and no argument to change anything.

Quote:
I have yet to ever hear anyone ever think they could suicide gank and not get blown up by Concord.
That's because you're not paying attention.



Or just approached a thing in the most simplest way; the truth.

Thanks for playing, but you lost. You spend money on something you know you are going to lose, you are not risking or chancing to keep it. You are spending it like a currency.

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
#460 - 2013-08-23 18:30:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Rekon X wrote:
It is your choice to do the ganking. That does not make it a risk. It is a result.
By that logic, there are no risks anywhere, ever. You don't risk getting blown up when you're getting ganked because dying to gankers is a result, not a risk. It's all a cost of doing business. See how that works?

…and the risk involved in doing that action is still a risk. You're confusing the projected and the actual outcome.


I have a feeling you're the one confusing the facts to suit your theories. The only thing you risk, is what you take a chance on. That's the definition of risk. You're trying to equate risk to losing something in regards to the fact the act is meant to consume the expenditure.

If you know there's a 100% of loss, there is no chance, the +/- is known and absolute and treated as a cost. Not a risk.

Again, suicide ganks are considered losses, not risks, until there is a chance you won't lose your ship, then you risk your ship in the hopes you will NOT lose it.

Which would mean you are not paying attention.




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.