These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#561 - 2013-08-23 21:06:12 UTC
Hrm... Let me try to apply some Rogerian Argument from my English 112 clas...

Let's come to a compromise...

I'm willing to say ganking has a minimial limited risk (some but not much) compared to mining which has an exponentially greater risk.

Unless you want to say that gankers suck at what they do and miners don't have any danger mining in high sec.

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
#562 - 2013-08-23 21:08:22 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:

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.


Yes, before the risk part of the endeavor even happens you have to associate costs FIRST. Ship loss is one of those. That has never been argued by myself and I have reiterated quite a few times that again, that does not encompass the entire idea that suicide gankinghas risks, only that it CAN have risks. Not that it does. But it does have a cost, always.

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
#563 - 2013-08-23 21:10:07 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:


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.


Then your cost margin is off and you are then risking the ability to be able to go beyond 60 attempts as your projected cost. A cost which you already gladly paid knowing you would have atleast 60 tries. That's not a variable. Beyond 60 is.

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.
Dave Stark
#564 - 2013-08-23 21:11:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.


I'm willing to let the barge rebalance slide on CCP's part because let's face it; they ****** it up, fozzie admitted as much in his tmc interview, but they've got the ship balancing right since then so yeah... i'm willing to let it slide.

you do realise though, that murk is a troll and has admitted as much previously... in one of the multiboxing threads iirc.

i know you feel obliged to fight stupidity on the forums, and i applaud you for it, but i feel you're never going to get anywhere with this one.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#565 - 2013-08-23 21:12:38 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Hrm... Let me try to apply some Rogerian Argument from my English 112 clas...

Let's come to a compromise...

I'm willing to say ganking has a minimial limited risk (some but not much) compared to mining which has an exponentially greater risk.

Unless you want to say that gankers suck at what they do and miners don't have any danger mining in high sec.


So there is a 50% chance for each strip miner to fail to mine anything per cycle?

You also turn kill on sight to everyone when the ore hits your hold?

Also you get a sec rating hit when you fire up your mining lasers on the rock and get a month long killright put on your head that can be sold to anyone?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#566 - 2013-08-23 21:12:58 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:


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. I EXPECT to recover 50% of the modules if I execute correctly. I risk losing those modules in the gank process.



Nope, not at all, because at the very beginning, no matter what goal you have involving a suicide gank, or rather, intended outcome.. you are still buying the ship knowing it's going to get blown up. You know that there is a chance, a RISK, that you CAN lose 100% of the ship, and therefore it becomes a cost. The risk comes from the hope that the cost will get offset by victory.

But if you do not succeed in killing your target, you already know the loss is 100% since you already assumed it from the get go. Anything else is bonus.

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
#567 - 2013-08-23 21:13:23 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

Ooohh. OK.

So you are going to use a valuable character slot on one of your accounts and deprive the main character of about two weeks worth of training. You are then going to use an under-skilled character with no implants. Then you will use a third account (you already have a second for the warp-in/looter) and another slot with two weeks training to make another such character, as the dps is now insufficient from just one.

Thank you for pointing out how Risk-Free it is to just jump in a 10 mil destroyer and go suicide gank.

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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#568 - 2013-08-23 21:15:00 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


I'm willing to let the barge rebalance slide on CCP's part because let's face it; they ****** it up, fozzie admitted as much in his tmc interview, but they've got the ship balancing right since then so yeah... i'm willing to let it slide.

you do realise though, that murk is a troll and has admitted as much previously... in one of the multiboxing threads iirc.

i know you feel obliged to fight stupidity on the forums, and i applaud you for it, but i feel you're never going to get anywhere with this one.


It is a sacrifice we are willing to make to aid CCP in their fantastic work on teircide over the last year.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#569 - 2013-08-23 21:15:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lucas Kell wrote:
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.



I do know a goal has costs and risks. Chances and probability. That 100% shiploss would even be considered a risk is silly.

And yes, I will stick by my stance no matter how many asshats try to imply something other than what I'm saying, yourself included.

I have already said there is associated risks in the gank aspect, but it was the cost aspect I was discussing. It's not my fault mongoloids cannot read.

Remember, it's them telling me how wrong I am, such as you are, when I have succinctly said over the last few pages what the costs were, as well as what the risks are.

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
#570 - 2013-08-23 21:16:59 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
people still reply to murk and his terrible troll posts?



It's not trolling if I'm right.

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
#571 - 2013-08-23 21:18:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
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.



Because the NO have a specific initiation that involves suicide ganking their first death with the intent of not winning since it's a solo "baptism by fire(concord)" and showed proof of how suicide ganking does not have to adopt the "norm" of "only for profit" such as you claimed. It's to "prove their commitment".

tl;dr To prove you 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#572 - 2013-08-23 21:20:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.




No, I said it was ********.

You said it was what I was saying. That means you sir ffs.

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
#573 - 2013-08-23 21:20:54 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

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?


Georgina Parmala wrote:

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.


How is the cost not variable when I am guaranteed to get it for half price and have mods left over if everything goes right, yet have to spend an additional 360 million if it all goes wrong?

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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#574 - 2013-08-23 21:22:38 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



Because the NO have a specific initiation that involves suicide ganking their first death with the intent of not winning since it's a solo "baptism by fire(concord)" and showed proof of how suicide ganking does not have to adopt the "norm" of "only for profit" such as you claimed. It's to "prove their commitment".

tl;dr To prove you wrong.



Great.

Now account for the other 99.99999% of suicide ganks.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#575 - 2013-08-23 21:25:35 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Hrm... Let me try to apply some Rogerian Argument from my English 112 clas...

Let's come to a compromise...

I'm willing to say ganking has a minimial limited risk (some but not much) compared to mining which has an exponentially greater risk.

Unless you want to say that gankers suck at what they do and miners don't have any danger mining in high sec.

To start with, you need to define a risk of what exactly you are talking about.

I would say the other way around. Gankers have higher risk (of getting an STI) as opposed to a miner, since the former is generally an activity for people with more social dispositions.

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
Dave Stark
#576 - 2013-08-23 21:25:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
It is a sacrifice we are willing to make to aid CCP in their fantastic work on teircide over the last year.
That's a level of dedication that I can envy.

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



It's not trolling if I'm right.
but you're not. that's the problem.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#577 - 2013-08-23 21:27:11 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:

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.


Yes, before the risk part of the endeavor even happens you have to associate costs FIRST. Ship loss is one of those. That has never been argued by myself and I have reiterated quite a few times that again, that does not encompass the entire idea that suicide gankinghas risks, only that it CAN have risks. Not that it does. But it does have a cost, always.

And that cost is the cost of the hull, not that of the whole ship, implants and clone which are at risk.

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
#578 - 2013-08-23 21:27:24 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Hrm... Let me try to apply some Rogerian Argument from my English 112 clas...

Let's come to a compromise...

I'm willing to say ganking has a minimial limited risk (some but not much) compared to mining which has an exponentially greater risk.

Unless you want to say that gankers suck at what they do and miners don't have any danger mining in high sec.



What I've been saying from the get go, is that suicide ganking as an act is risk free. That's the original focal point of the argument.

Not profit. Not goal.

The act.

A few people here have decided that THEIR suicide ganking has to apply to everyone as the same reasons and goals.

I have argued that since people do as people do for whatever reason they want.

People like baltec1 suicide gank for profit, and that's fine. But that means that act of suicide ganking for profit has risks in regards to the profit part.

Suicide ganking as an act, regardless of reason or goal, always has a flat cost, which is apparent in ship loss. And that's my point.

Now before baltec1 got involved, Tippia said that risk IS cost, and so there was quite a few arguments in regards to that, which then she has not appeared. But she was proven wrong as well.

So now we are here, with dave trolling because he has a hard on for me, and people thinking THEIR sense of entitlement is applied to everyone else.

And that is simply not true.

So yes, I will argue, and continue to argue, until I am proven wrong. At that point, I will then use their information against them, when they try it again.

Because that's what learning is.

tl;dr, **** any sort of Eve GD hierarchy.

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
#579 - 2013-08-23 21:28:33 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.


I'm willing to let the barge rebalance slide on CCP's part because let's face it; they ****** it up, fozzie admitted as much in his tmc interview, but they've got the ship balancing right since then so yeah... i'm willing to let it slide.

you do realise though, that murk is a troll and has admitted as much previously... in one of the multiboxing threads iirc.

i know you feel obliged to fight stupidity on the forums, and i applaud you for it, but i feel you're never going to get anywhere with this one.



I am not always a troll. I just know how to troll people into failure. There's a difference.

And know, he wont get anywhere with this one, because he is the one being stupid =)

I don't even have to troll, I can actually just speak plainly and dole out the ass whoopin.

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
#580 - 2013-08-23 21:29:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Hrm... Let me try to apply some Rogerian Argument from my English 112 clas...

Let's come to a compromise...

I'm willing to say ganking has a minimial limited risk (some but not much) compared to mining which has an exponentially greater risk.

Unless you want to say that gankers suck at what they do and miners don't have any danger mining in high sec.


So there is a 50% chance for each strip miner to fail to mine anything per cycle?





See, that would be your argument in saying "suicide ganking is 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.