These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#541 - 2013-08-23 20:42:50 UTC
Kicking your boss in the junk is riskless because you know you will lose your job.

Posting on the forum is riskless because you know you will get trolled anyway.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#542 - 2013-08-23 20:43:42 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
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.



And that t2 cat still cost you 10mil, regardless of what the loot fair did didn't it? That's a fixed cost. What's varied, is what will drop, IF you can even recoup any of that loot that may or may not have dropped since you cannot loot while in a pod, and anyone enar can easily loot and scoot with your junk.

But that does not change the initial investment. It also does not consider that initial investment as risk, because you know it's going to get blown up. You know no matter what happens, you are out that 10mil. Period.

You risk having LESS loss sure.

But the cost is still there no matter what.

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
#543 - 2013-08-23 20:44:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Georgina Parmala
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

So you are RISKING implants, therefore the gank was not risk-free.
Edit: and clone upgrade cost

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
#544 - 2013-08-23 20:44:45 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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.



But that's decided at the time of purchase. Not when you press F1. You willingly SPEND the money to buy the ship for that reason, whether you even go through with it 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#545 - 2013-08-23 20:46:10 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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.



Now do that in highsec and see how the result would be different.

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
#546 - 2013-08-23 20:47:09 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Murk Paradox wrote:



No, the goal does not have a set parameter.


What part of killing the target is so hard for you to get? The whole point of a suicide gank is to kill the target.


Murk Paradox wrote:


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?


I see you are ignoring the part where they force people to pay protection money and where they loot the victim for profit.


Murk Paradox wrote:


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


Your problem is that you are typing utter nonsense that has been shown to be wrong multiple times in every page of this topic.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#547 - 2013-08-23 20:47:53 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
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.



But the guy who got shot created a wreck, a wreck of someone who knew his cat would be a wreck. So 1+1 still equaled 2.

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
#548 - 2013-08-23 20:49:14 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kicking your boss in the junk is riskless because you know you will lose your job.

Posting on the forum is riskless because you know you will get trolled anyway.


That's ********.

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
#549 - 2013-08-23 20:50:11 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

So you are RISKING implants, therefore the gank was not risk-free.
Edit: and clone upgrade cost



Oooohhh you want to split hairs! Awesome. Ok, 0 implants, and no clone upgraded needed as it's under the required sp for sp loss.

Your turn.

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
#550 - 2013-08-23 20:51:16 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kicking your boss in the junk is riskless because you know you will lose your job.

Posting on the forum is riskless because you know you will get trolled anyway.


That's ********.


That's your argument.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#551 - 2013-08-23 20:58:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Georgina Parmala
Murk Paradox wrote:

And that t2 cat still cost you 10mil, regardless of what the loot fair did didn't it? That's a fixed cost.

No it's not. If nothing drops / loot is stolen it cost me 10 mil. If three blasters drop and I recover them it only costs me 7. The cost is variable.

Murk Paradox wrote:

What's varied, is what will drop, IF you can even recoup any of that loot that may or may not have dropped since you cannot loot while in a pod, and anyone enar can easily loot and scoot with your junk.

So what you're saying is I'm taking a RISK that the modules from the gank ship will not drop
A RISK that someone will steal the drops from the gank ship.
A RISK that I will get podded

Thanks for clarifying these risks, which all come into play prior to determining whether the victim's ship is even destroyed.
Murk Paradox wrote:

But that does not change the initial investment. It also does not consider that initial investment as risk, because you know it's going to get blown up. You know no matter what happens, you are out that 10mil. Period.


Except it does change the investment. If I am going to perform 100 ganks in a system and do it right, I'm going to seed 100 hulls but only enough fittings for maybe 60 cats. The expectation being that the latter half will be fitted from loot of the former.

Murk Paradox wrote:
You risk having LESS loss sure.
But the cost is still there no matter what.

Murk Paradox wrote:

No, the goal does not have a set parameter.


Now it's you assigning parameters to how I should view the loss and set up the gank.

I don't risk having less loss (edit: which is risk in and of itself). I EXPECT to recover 50% of the modules if I execute correctly. I risk losing those modules in the gank process.

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
#552 - 2013-08-23 20:58:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



No, the goal does not have a set parameter.


What part of killing the target is so hard for you to get? The whole point of a suicide gank is to kill the target.


Murk Paradox wrote:


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?


I see you are ignoring the part where they force people to pay protection money and where they loot the victim for profit.


Murk Paradox wrote:


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


Your problem is that you are typing utter nonsense that has been shown to be wrong multiple times in every page of this topic.



The NO collects mining permits yes, and can be nullified at any time. Plus there's the red pen list. Let's not derail please.

None of it is hard. I understand it perfectly. You unfortunately,m have been trapped by your own sense of ego and got smacked int he face. Sorry. You think everything can be pushed and crammed into few words to make sense, and to the ignorant that may be true.

However, as you are the supposed "master of concord" I have a hard time understanding why you are being so intentionally thick. You know that everything has 1,2, maybe even 3 other agendas and is never just simply "it's this way for all eternity".

And

I have yet to be wrong. Please show me where I was wrong.

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.
#553 - 2013-08-23 20:59:32 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

I don't think you understand what a goal is. To be honest I don;t think you understand what the word risk means either.
The goal is not to die. The goal of a suicide GANK is the GANK part. The death of the target. Suicide is the method, GANK is the action. Yes, the cost of attempting a suicide gank is the ship, and that's not in dispute. That's why when you keep raising it like an idiot, people are arguing against you. The whole point of the argument is the risks associated with the GANK. And that risk is failing to GANK the target. End of.
And you are going to continue arguing this point to death even though you are just recycling the same nonsense bullshit trying to confuse the matter. I really can't believe you are dumb enough to not understand, so I can only think that you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dave Stark
#554 - 2013-08-23 21:02:22 UTC
people still reply to murk and his terrible troll posts?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#555 - 2013-08-23 21:02:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Murk Paradox wrote:
I have yet to be wrong. Please show me where I was wrong.

Sorry, the EVE forum wont allow me to quote ALL OF YOUR POSTS THUS FAR.

Dave Stark wrote:
people still reply to murk and his terrible troll posts?

I'm kinda regretting it, this guy it thick as ****, yet so adamant that he is right.
It's like trying to tell a stubborn little kid that Santa isn't real

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#556 - 2013-08-23 21:02:59 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


The NO collects mining permits yes, and can be nullified at any time. Plus there's the red pen list. Let's not derail please.


So why did you bring them up?


Murk Paradox wrote:

None of it is hard. I understand it perfectly. You unfortunately,m have been trapped by your own sense of ego and got smacked int he face. Sorry. You think everything can be pushed and crammed into few words to make sense, and to the ignorant that may be true.

However, as you are the supposed "master of concord" I have a hard time understanding why you are being so intentionally thick. You know that everything has 1,2, maybe even 3 other agendas and is never just simply "it's this way for all eternity".

And

I have yet to be wrong. Please show me where I was wrong.


Show me the people whose only goal is to kill themselves by shooting other ships without the goal of killing them.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#557 - 2013-08-23 21:04:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kicking your boss in the junk is riskless because you know you will lose your job.

Posting on the forum is riskless because you know you will get trolled anyway.


That's ********.


That's your argument.



Yea because of all the elements not related eh?

Because you think suicide ganking is the same as kicking your boss in the junk. Because you know, jail and police and pressing charges.

Grow up ma... wait, now you are just trolling. **** me I been had.

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
#558 - 2013-08-23 21:05:14 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
people still reply to murk and his terrible troll posts?


The last time we allowed idiots to post unopposed we got the barge balance pass which resulted in an even more broken line-up than we had before.

The lesson was learned and we now face down every moronic post lest CCP listen to these people again.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#559 - 2013-08-23 21:06:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


Because you think suicide ganking is the same as kicking your boss in the junk.


No that's what YOU are saying.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#560 - 2013-08-23 21:06:08 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

And that t2 cat still cost you 10mil, regardless of what the loot fair did didn't it? That's a fixed cost.

No it's not. If nothing drops / loot is stolen it cost me 10 mil. If three blasters drop and I recover them it only costs me 7. The cost is variable.


No it isn't. You haven't even lost the ship yet and it has already cost you isk. The cost is not a variable, the returns are.

Unless you are talking about a loan?

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.