These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#521 - 2013-08-23 20:06:13 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:


People were using the "ship loss is not a risk but a cost" to try to prove that suicide gank are 0 risk endeavor. This is false because there are still plenty of risk involved in suicide ganking for the ship loss to not change the action from riskless to risky. Suicide ganking is risky. Thats the point of the discussion because at the beginning of the thread, some tard stupidly said there was no risk in suicide ganking. It took over 20 apges to discuss this **** point and we might be done soon.

Or not...



That's because you are trying to equate 1 factor to be the norm for the entire endeavor for simplistic reasons.

Doesn't make it any less true because suicide ganking pass or fail, doesn't have any profit in it. Only loss. You have a chance at profit if you win, and you have a chance at profit if the loot fairy is kind.

But until that target dies, you only have cost of your ship to depend on. Whether it's a freighter or a noobship, that is the one constant.

Trust me, it helps to be specific and not generalize.

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
#522 - 2013-08-23 20:06:40 UTC
Also, did anyone ever amke a suicide gank just before a down time or node crash/remap? Can you "dodge" the CONCORDOKEN that way?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#523 - 2013-08-23 20:08:11 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Murk Paradox wrote:


Success rates and profitability at suicide ganking has risk.

You are a dumb rock aren't you? First you want "no reading between the lines" now you want 1 word to mean 20.

Man the **** up. Just watch your gifs and click F1 dude, let the big boys talk.



Because suicide ganking only has the goal of getting your own ship destroyed!

People suicide gank to kill themselves!


Yea that's your argument right now. You are ignoring everything past the point where your ship explodes cutting out the bulk of what happens in a suicide gank to try and defend a very bad argument that you have been making and for whatever reason refuse to give up despite the utter lack of facts and logic.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#524 - 2013-08-23 20:08:29 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:


People were using the "ship loss is not a risk but a cost" to try to prove that suicide gank are 0 risk endeavor. This is false because there are still plenty of risk involved in suicide ganking for the ship loss to not change the action from riskless to risky. Suicide ganking is risky. Thats the point of the discussion because at the beginning of the thread, some tard stupidly said there was no risk in suicide ganking. It took over 20 apges to discuss this **** point and we might be done soon.

Or not...



That's because you are trying to equate 1 factor to be the norm for the entire endeavor for simplistic reasons.

Doesn't make it any less true because suicide ganking pass or fail, doesn't have any profit in it. Only loss. You have a chance at profit if you win, and you have a chance at profit if the loot fairy is kind.

But until that target dies, you only have cost of your ship to depend on. Whether it's a freighter or a noobship, that is the one constant.

Trust me, it helps to be specific and not generalize.


Not if you are arguing over generic statement such as : There is no risk in suicide ganking. At that point, since the statement is generalized, you might as well stay general to fight the whole assumption instead of only part of it.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#525 - 2013-08-23 20:11:57 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

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.

You underestimate the ability of a goon to accidentally lock one of the other cat's that has already gone GCC, blow that up instead of the barge, then be left standing in the ice field wondering WTF just happened.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#526 - 2013-08-23 20:12:23 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

**** off lol. Starting to derail the topic. This is about the results from the ice interdiction thus far. It's already derailed by people talking about whether they think ganking is or isn't risky, and now you want to argue about the circumstance of the gank.

The gank is a fail if the target is alive at the end of it. That can and does happen. That's the risk. Any circumstance around that is entirely beside the point. The WHY you are doing it, and the resulting profit and loss is secondary to the objective which is target X must die. If you execute the gank, and target X lives, the operation was a failure. If he is dead, the operation was a success. I really don;t know how you don't get that.



Yes. It is. And when you have masses doing the suicide ganking, you aren't nitpicking over each and every wreck to distribute loot.

You are reshipping and killing, and dying, and doing it again. It's not me derailing the topic as I am the one keeping it in perspective. I have quite specifically spelled out where the costs and the risks are, and how they are defined.

I am not the one trying to lump in ideas without describing them, or painting pictures here.

To lump a general idea into a general term that can be applied many different ways is not very smart to do.

Keep it simple, but stop dumbing it down.

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
#527 - 2013-08-23 20:20:08 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:


But you can still slip and miss your gank. Thats why it's not riskless. Everything is only a cost if you don't analyse the goal of such expense. It's like you are saying sex without protection is riskless because we will all die at some spoint.

Operation Barbarossa was not risky because it only ever cost divisions right?


If you want to say "suicide ganking is riskles because shiploss is only a matter of cost" you would'nt be wrong.

You'd have to defend that stance by explaining, but it could be explained. And easily too.

Now, you can say suicide ganking for profit has risks, and be true as well!

But that is because you mention for profit, which is the intended goal in that instance.

Suicide ganking for other reasons has those other reasons as being definitive as to what profit is, and how you achieve that profit.

When you ignore parts that can define the act, you run the RISK of being wrong.

Which is why it's better to explain, and be succint.

The act of suicide ganking is riskless. And here's a way to prove my entire post here....

I can buy a ship, knowing how much it costs, and can suicide gank anything. I will not have any risk having full knowledge that I will die to Concord as I am in highsec, and I know Concord will not pod me. So I am not risking implants, I am not risking anything as I am using a noobship. I would risk success as a noobship while being free, would create a much higher chance of not being able to kill my target.

But I can make sure Concord will be on site, I can make sure I would create a wreck, without it costing me anything but my security rating.

I would not have to risk anything in order to accomplish this. My chance at success is slim, my chance at death would be very high.

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
#528 - 2013-08-23 20:22:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Georgina Parmala wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:

Georgina Parmala wrote:

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


I don't understand the "no" part.

I bet it's the part in Bold that you're missing, creating said confusion. The result is not binary.

Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


Whether you believe a 100% probability to indicate no risk is irrelevant, because fortunately it's not the case in a suicide gank.

Yes I am saying you can "survive concord" and there is an element of chance involved on multiple levels in this, creating a risk factor where P =/= 1.The only time P approaches 1 is when you do it solo on something along the lines of the Jita undock.

Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

How about you fit out a cat and shoot a station instead. Then open the wreck with your looter alt. Tell me what you see.

Tell me how you "lost the ship so it's a 1" when you still have 0-8 blasters and 0-3 mag stabs in your hangar. Note how you risked these modules not once, not twice but three times - once to the loot fairy, then to other players looting them before you, then again going suspect while collecting loot.

The probability of losing the catalyst hull and rigs is 1. The rest of the ship is a risk, up to the loot fairy and good old pvp interaction.



Ship loss is 1.

When you shoot that station, or asteroid, or unflagged player, Concord destroys your ship. As there is no chance, the element of risk is replaced by cost.

Otherwise how would you know I'd be a wreck if I shot a station?

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.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#529 - 2013-08-23 20:23:11 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

**** off lol. Starting to derail the topic. This is about the results from the ice interdiction thus far. It's already derailed by people talking about whether they think ganking is or isn't risky, and now you want to argue about the circumstance of the gank.

The gank is a fail if the target is alive at the end of it. That can and does happen. That's the risk. Any circumstance around that is entirely beside the point. The WHY you are doing it, and the resulting profit and loss is secondary to the objective which is target X must die. If you execute the gank, and target X lives, the operation was a failure. If he is dead, the operation was a success. I really don;t know how you don't get that.



Yes. It is. And when you have masses doing the suicide ganking, you aren't nitpicking over each and every wreck to distribute loot.

You are reshipping and killing, and dying, and doing it again. It's not me derailing the topic as I am the one keeping it in perspective. I have quite specifically spelled out where the costs and the risks are, and how they are defined.

I am not the one trying to lump in ideas without describing them, or painting pictures here.

To lump a general idea into a general term that can be applied many different ways is not very smart to do.

Keep it simple, but stop dumbing it down.

But you can take the costs, and shove them up your ass. They are beside the point. The ENTIRE argument is: Is there any risk in suicide ganking (overall). The answer is Yes. You surely must see that. You are trying to take different parts of suicide ganking and different reasons for suicide ganking to complicate matters, but it DOESNT NEED to be complicated any more beyond the overall aim of suicide ganking.
Let me try to explain this in as much details as is required:

ALL sucide ganks have a single common GOAL
That GOAL is the death of the target.
That GOAL is not GUARANTEED, thus there is a RISK.

No further information is needed.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#530 - 2013-08-23 20:26:37 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I know Concord will not pod me. So I am not risking implants

But I will... (try)

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#531 - 2013-08-23 20:29:45 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

Success rates and profitability at suicide ganking has risk.



So suicide ganking has risks right?



No. The act does not. It is riskless to try.

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
#532 - 2013-08-23 20:32:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Success rates and profitability at suicide ganking has risk.

You are a dumb rock aren't you? First you want "no reading between the lines" now you want 1 word to mean 20.

Man the **** up. Just watch your gifs and click F1 dude, let the big boys talk.



Because suicide ganking only has the goal of getting your own ship destroyed!

People suicide gank to kill themselves!


Yea that's your argument right now. You are ignoring everything past the point where your ship explodes cutting out the bulk of what happens in a suicide gank to try and defend a very bad argument that you have been making and for whatever reason refuse to give up despite the utter lack of facts and logic.



No, the goal does not have a set parameter.

Want a for instance? You ever see a brand new player hero tackle a carrier with any hope of success? No? Did you laugh about it then shower him with isk AFTER the fact?

How about the New Order, do you read about them? Did you know that the Baptism by Fire has a would be Enforcer of the Code intentionally attack a miner specifically to get Concord to blow them up?

Sorry you think it's a bad argument, but I am not the one having trouble typing out words.

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.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#533 - 2013-08-23 20:33:47 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

Ship loss is 1.

When you shoot that station, or asteroid, or unflagged player, Concord destroys your ship. As there is no chance, the element of risk is replaced by cost.

Otherwise how would you know I'd be a wreck if I shot a station?

Yes, you get a T2 catalyst for 10 mil and get it concorded. You loot 9 mil of that 10mil from your own wreck, yet you still incurred a COST of 10 mil. RollRollRoll

Ship loss is (Cost of ship - cost of hull - cost of rigs) * 50% NOT the whole ship
It's variable, it's not a fixed cost. When you gank with a 10 mil t2 cat, you are risking 9 mil. you will can get back anywhere between 0 and 9 mil, even if you fail to kill the target.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#534 - 2013-08-23 20:33:59 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

Success rates and profitability at suicide ganking has risk.



So suicide ganking has risks right?



No. The act does not. It is riskless to try.


If you try in an attemp to succede, then there is a risk of failure. If you try with no intend to succede, then yeah I guess there is only cost but thats not a gank if you also don't intend your target to die. It's a plain suicide.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#535 - 2013-08-23 20:34:23 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:


People were using the "ship loss is not a risk but a cost" to try to prove that suicide gank are 0 risk endeavor. This is false because there are still plenty of risk involved in suicide ganking for the ship loss to not change the action from riskless to risky. Suicide ganking is risky. Thats the point of the discussion because at the beginning of the thread, some tard stupidly said there was no risk in suicide ganking. It took over 20 apges to discuss this **** point and we might be done soon.

Or not...



That's because you are trying to equate 1 factor to be the norm for the entire endeavor for simplistic reasons.

Doesn't make it any less true because suicide ganking pass or fail, doesn't have any profit in it. Only loss. You have a chance at profit if you win, and you have a chance at profit if the loot fairy is kind.

But until that target dies, you only have cost of your ship to depend on. Whether it's a freighter or a noobship, that is the one constant.

Trust me, it helps to be specific and not generalize.


Not if you are arguing over generic statement such as : There is no risk in suicide ganking. At that point, since the statement is generalized, you might as well stay general to fight the whole assumption instead of only part of it.



With such a simple statement, it's stupid to try to even second guess the intent beyond the actual word.

It's much easier to actually just be true and speak what you mean, instead of leaving things up to the imagination. It's a major problem with today's society, and I for one would rather not feed into it.

You can of course, allow that to happen if you wish.

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
#536 - 2013-08-23 20:35:04 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

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.

You underestimate the ability of a goon to accidentally lock one of the other cat's that has already gone GCC, blow that up instead of the barge, then be left standing in the ice field wondering WTF just happened.



Same result then. You bought a ship to get blown up, and it did.

Pretty straight forward.

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
#537 - 2013-08-23 20:35:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lucas Kell wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

**** off lol. Starting to derail the topic. This is about the results from the ice interdiction thus far. It's already derailed by people talking about whether they think ganking is or isn't risky, and now you want to argue about the circumstance of the gank.

The gank is a fail if the target is alive at the end of it. That can and does happen. That's the risk. Any circumstance around that is entirely beside the point. The WHY you are doing it, and the resulting profit and loss is secondary to the objective which is target X must die. If you execute the gank, and target X lives, the operation was a failure. If he is dead, the operation was a success. I really don;t know how you don't get that.



Yes. It is. And when you have masses doing the suicide ganking, you aren't nitpicking over each and every wreck to distribute loot.

You are reshipping and killing, and dying, and doing it again. It's not me derailing the topic as I am the one keeping it in perspective. I have quite specifically spelled out where the costs and the risks are, and how they are defined.

I am not the one trying to lump in ideas without describing them, or painting pictures here.

To lump a general idea into a general term that can be applied many different ways is not very smart to do.

Keep it simple, but stop dumbing it down.

But you can take the costs, and shove them up your ass. They are beside the point. The ENTIRE argument is: Is there any risk in suicide ganking (overall). The answer is Yes. You surely must see that. You are trying to take different parts of suicide ganking and different reasons for suicide ganking to complicate matters, but it DOESNT NEED to be complicated any more beyond the overall aim of suicide ganking.
Let me try to explain this in as much details as is required:

ALL sucide ganks have a single common GOAL
That GOAL is the death of the target.
That GOAL is not GUARANTEED, thus there is a RISK.

No further information is needed.



You are leaving things to be argued. I am not.

There's a difference.

The costs ARE NOT beside the point if you are to be believed, they are onyl besides the point if you choose to side with me. That's the whole thing with cost and risk. If you want to say costs are irrelevant, then you have baltec1's stance that suicide ganking is only for profit, and then costs matter.

If you go with assuming the cost of the ship is a cost and not a risk, then you have a means to an end with a controlled element; you know what it's going to take to accomplish your goal.

If you want to make a profit from someone else's wreck via suicide gank, it would indeed have a risk. But that doesn't make it a risk across the board. Alot of you asshats are saying it is, and are wrong because of it.

The goal is NOT always the death of the target. That goal is also not always gauranteed. Yes suicide ganks have 1 true goal NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS AND THAT IS THE DEATH OF THE SUICIDER.

So yes, more information is needed, or you would simply just side with me and be done and not bother to post. Since you are becoming increasingly incorrect with your statements, you are indeed needing more information.

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
#538 - 2013-08-23 20:36:33 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Success rates and profitability at suicide ganking has risk.

You are a dumb rock aren't you? First you want "no reading between the lines" now you want 1 word to mean 20.

Man the **** up. Just watch your gifs and click F1 dude, let the big boys talk.



Because suicide ganking only has the goal of getting your own ship destroyed!

People suicide gank to kill themselves!


Yea that's your argument right now. You are ignoring everything past the point where your ship explodes cutting out the bulk of what happens in a suicide gank to try and defend a very bad argument that you have been making and for whatever reason refuse to give up despite the utter lack of facts and logic.



No, the goal does not have a set parameter.

Want a for instance? You ever see a brand new player hero tackle a carrier with any hope of success? No? Did you laugh about it then shower him with isk AFTER the fact?

How about the New Order, do you read about them? Did you know that the Baptism by Fire has a would be Enforcer of the Code intentionally attack a miner specifically to get Concord to blow them up?

Sorry you think it's a bad argument, but I am not the one having trouble typing out words.


If the hero tackle held the ship long enough for other more skilled tackle to take over the duty, he did succede. His success is based on the fact that he held the target or not for the required time.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#539 - 2013-08-23 20:40:34 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

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.

You underestimate the ability of a goon to accidentally lock one of the other cat's that has already gone GCC, blow that up instead of the barge, then be left standing in the ice field wondering WTF just happened.



Same result then. You bought a ship to get blown up, and it did.

Pretty straight forward.

Except it didn't blow up, because the hapless ganker shot a global criminal fleet member and is left standing in his ship surrounded by barges wrecks and concord. The barge probably lived too, since the gank was 2 cats short.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#540 - 2013-08-23 20:40:36 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I know Concord will not pod me. So I am not risking implants

But I will... (try)



Yes. But the goal has already been achieved since I would have been in a pod at that point.

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.