These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#461 - 2013-08-23 18:36:24 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:

Is that where the new ice anoms come from after they are depleted?

Yep, the new spawns are collected from the tears of those who get ganked or failed to get to the previous spawn before the multibox / fleet operations

That's why it takes 4 hours ! Cool. Because EVE is harsh and cold, the tears collect and freeze. Interesting.

This means that people in Caldari ice space cry tears with a lot of nitrogen.



It's the whippits. They have the good stuff.

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.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#462 - 2013-08-23 18:37:46 UTC
suicide ganking has its risks and the only way to mitigate those risks is to increase the cost of the gank

fly away

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#463 - 2013-08-23 18:40:31 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
It's this thing called social skills, you need to work on them.


I'm all ears if you have some pointers; it's not something I'm good at.

However, I might point out that while getting people to smile and nod is a very useful skill, it doesn't seem appropriate here.

Try not to bamboozle people, throw out all the big fancy words and replace them with plain simple ones. A explanation that people can understand without having to refer to a dictionary will go a long way.

For example, my specialty is automotive telematics and control systems, most people will blink at telematics and switch off at control systems, especially if I start spouting acronyms and terms such as CANBUS, MOST, LIN or FlexRay.

If however I said I work with the computers that control modern cars, their security systems, and GPS navigation /tracking systems, people know what I'm talking about.



Until you got questioned. Then the big guns would come out to prove your knowledge right? That's what happened here.

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
#464 - 2013-08-23 18:41:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Andski wrote:
suicide ganking has its risks and the only way to mitigate those risks is to increase the cost of the gank

fly away

You mean:

suicide ganking has its costs and the only way to mitigate those costs is to increase the cost of the gank

wait what, but this makes no sense, I thought there were only costs, how can gankers get anywhere if they are always increasing the cost

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 ?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#465 - 2013-08-23 18:42:19 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.






You can profit from ganking too. Losing your ship might be totally overwritten by whatever you got out of the gank. If your ship going boom accomplish your goal, then you win even if the ship is an asset loss. If you fail your gank, the asset loss is a net loss. The risk in ganking is getting or not what you want out of the gank. Since this is not garanteed, then there is a risk involved or all gank would always be succesfull.

You have to see the grand scheme, not just your own ship. The greater goal is important. Much more than the asset you use to accomplish it. The risk of failure is always there unless your goal was only to lose your ship.

All gank are basicly a dice roll. You can load the dice in your favor but never enough to predict with 100% certainity what the final outcome will be. You take the risk by betting your ship to potentially win whatever you are looking for in a gank. Sometime you win, some time you lose. You can't get your bet back tho, only different kind of currency including but not limited to tears/ loot/salvage.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#466 - 2013-08-23 18:45:42 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Andski wrote:
suicide ganking has its risks and the only way to mitigate those risks is to increase the cost of the gank

fly away

You mean:

suicide ganking has its costs and the only way to mitigate those costs is to increase the cost of the gank

wait what, but this makes no sense, I thought there were only costs, how can gankers get anywhere if they are always increasing the cost


Thats the GOVT way of reducing cost.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#467 - 2013-08-23 18:48:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
I don't have to
Sure you do, since you're the one making the claim and since every time you've refused to do it, the suspicion has grown that you have no idea what on earth you're talking about. 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.



I just ran that through my head and envisioned every time you would derail a direct question by repeating your own and it made more sense to apply it to you than when you use those same words.

Not to get all psychological but it is becoming quite apparent you have issues with dominance.

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
#468 - 2013-08-23 18:53:27 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
If suicide ganking is riskless that would mean it is impossible to fail.



This is true. But before you use a very base and simple statement, define the words.

The gank being impossible to fail, or the suicide?

You can fail a gank easily enough. It's quite hard at failing to die when you attempt one though. By mechanics, it SHOULD be impossible, as a traditional suicide gank.

Only guarantee is the loss of your ship. Which is why it's a 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.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#469 - 2013-08-23 18:54:23 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Andski wrote:
suicide ganking has its risks and the only way to mitigate those risks is to increase the cost of the gank

fly away

You mean:

suicide ganking has its costs and the only way to mitigate those costs is to increase the cost of the gank

wait what, but this makes no sense, I thought there were only costs, how can gankers get anywhere if they are always increasing the cost

Thats the GOVT way of reducing cost.

So gankers are like big government

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 ?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#470 - 2013-08-23 19:01:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Andski wrote:
suicide ganking has its risks and the only way to mitigate those risks is to increase the cost of the gank

fly away

You mean:

suicide ganking has its costs and the only way to mitigate those costs is to increase the cost of the gank

wait what, but this makes no sense, I thought there were only costs, how can gankers get anywhere if they are always increasing the cost

Thats the GOVT way of reducing cost.

So gankers are like big government


Only the govt way will let you gank the tanked skiffs. The brain way will make you kill the orca he dumps into or the freighter he carry his stuff to market with. Fom some things, there is no other choice but the govt way.

EDIT : At the moment, the CFC seem to be avoiding such situation by being a little more selective of thier target. It prevent them from shutting down 100% of the ice mining but in the end, the goal of raising price is met without going GOVT.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#471 - 2013-08-23 19:02:26 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
So gankers are like big government


Well now that you mention it... Yes.

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
#472 - 2013-08-23 19:04:34 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Grr, proftable ganking, must nerf.



Some losses are warranted for the "greater good".

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
#473 - 2013-08-23 19:05:53 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 :(



It's that simple. Depending on the ship, I buy them explicitly for not getting them blown up, but know I risk having it happen without my consent.

This is also why I do not undock my collectibles.

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
#474 - 2013-08-23 19:06:26 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
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.



Exactly!

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.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#475 - 2013-08-23 19:06:43 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If suicide ganking is riskless that would mean it is impossible to fail.



This is true. But before you use a very base and simple statement, define the words.

The gank being impossible to fail, or the suicide?

You can fail a gank easily enough. It's quite hard at failing to die when you attempt one though. By mechanics, it SHOULD be impossible, as a traditional suicide gank.

Only guarantee is the loss of your ship. Which is why it's a cost.


Except the suicide is not the key part of the action wich is why you ahve to evaluate the other part of the action, the gank part. The gank part is risky becasue the complete outcome is not set. There are plenty of way to gank without loosing your ship but each of them can also fail just like the suicide ones. The suicide part of a gank in high sec with no war dec or kill right is just an added rules being applied. You still face all the standard risk of ganks.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#476 - 2013-08-23 19:07:56 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Andski wrote:
suicide ganking has its risks and the only way to mitigate those risks is to increase the cost of the gank

fly away

You mean:

suicide ganking has its costs and the only way to mitigate those costs is to increase the cost of the gank

wait what, but this makes no sense, I thought there were only costs, how can gankers get anywhere if they are always increasing the cost



This is why Tippia is wrong in saying risk = 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.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#477 - 2013-08-23 19:11:12 UTC
Let's say I decide to gank a freighter. I don't want the gank to fail through the target surviving, so I use significantly more DPS than what is needed to take down the freighter before CONCORD arrives. That leaves me two options: use a small number of pilots in tier 3 BCs or use a large number of pilots in destroyers. The former option is more expensive ISK-wise, but I only end up with around a dozen dudes stuck in GCC limbo, but even 2-3 dudes failing to engage on time can fail the gank. With destroyers, I end up with a lot more pilots stuck in GCC limbo, and there is a lot more room for error if a few guys fail to engage on time.

If I end up with too many pilots stuck in GCC limbo, I risk not having enough numbers to gank a lucrative target that may show up within the next 15 minutes. If I minimize the number of pilots in GCC limbo, the gank costs more, which means that I risk throwing away a lot more ISK if the drop isn't in my favor.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#478 - 2013-08-23 19:12:37 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If suicide ganking is riskless that would mean it is impossible to fail.



This is true. But before you use a very base and simple statement, define the words.


No lets take that sentence as exactly as it is without any reading between the lines that are not there.

If suicide ganking is risk free then it should have a 100% success rate. Anything less is not risk free.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#479 - 2013-08-23 19:15:19 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.






You can profit from ganking too. Losing your ship might be totally overwritten by whatever you got out of the gank. If your ship going boom accomplish your goal, then you win even if the ship is an asset loss. If you fail your gank, the asset loss is a net loss. The risk in ganking is getting or not what you want out of the gank. Since this is not garanteed, then there is a risk involved or all gank would always be succesfull.

You have to see the grand scheme, not just your own ship. The greater goal is important. Much more than the asset you use to accomplish it. The risk of failure is always there unless your goal was only to lose your ship.

All gank are basicly a dice roll. You can load the dice in your favor but never enough to predict with 100% certainity what the final outcome will be. You take the risk by betting your ship to potentially win whatever you are looking for in a gank. Sometime you win, some time you lose. You can't get your bet back tho, only different kind of currency including but not limited to tears/ loot/salvage.



But we are talking about ship loss. Whether it is replaced, overwritten by profits or other means does not change the fact you spent the inial money on the ship and assume it's gone because you accurately treated it as a cost.

You say grand scheme, but we are not talking about the grand scheme, I've already agreed and admitted that the word "risk" can apply to margins of profit and chance in success/failure.

The origination of defining risk vs cost came from talking about ship loss. Which is what I'm speaking of.

Because it's relevant.

No one is refuting your point but you aren't really contributing to the discussion either.

You're explaining math in a social science class during a lecture.

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
#480 - 2013-08-23 19:16:34 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If suicide ganking is riskless that would mean it is impossible to fail.



This is true. But before you use a very base and simple statement, define the words.

The gank being impossible to fail, or the suicide?

You can fail a gank easily enough. It's quite hard at failing to die when you attempt one though. By mechanics, it SHOULD be impossible, as a traditional suicide gank.

Only guarantee is the loss of your ship. Which is why it's a cost.


Except the suicide is not the key part of the action wich is why you ahve to evaluate the other part of the action, the gank part. The gank part is risky becasue the complete outcome is not set. There are plenty of way to gank without loosing your ship but each of them can also fail just like the suicide ones. The suicide part of a gank in high sec with no war dec or kill right is just an added rules being applied. You still face all the standard risk of ganks.



Suicide is the key part of the action in "suicide gank".

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.