These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dave Stark
#581 - 2013-08-23 21:29:59 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


c'mon now murk, you don't actually expect me to believe any of that do you?
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#582 - 2013-08-23 21:30:32 UTC
Welp, that's it for the Thread.

Just like when Interwebz posters mention a certain 20th Century Northern European dictator, once The New Order is dragged into an EVE-O Thread it's all over.

Time to move on 'cause it's just shear insanity from here on out.

(And using them to prove a point ? You must be seriously wrong to be so seriously desperate.)

"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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#583 - 2013-08-23 21:31:23 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:

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.


Anything is possible in Eve. Who am I to say what you can or cannot do?

New Order Cats are designed for 3day old alts. /shrug (not to mention if they donate or provide any! Talk about lack of risk AND 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#584 - 2013-08-23 21:32:42 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
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?



Because you have to buy it first.

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
#585 - 2013-08-23 21:34:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.



So I am right.

Thank you for conceding that. That's all I needed. Now, we can actually have a discussion in earnest without stupid mudslinging.

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
#586 - 2013-08-23 21:34:37 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

You have just described every single ship I have ever purchased, up to and including my bling Nightmare. I know it will be blown up, the only question left is whether I will profit from it sufficiently (by whatever metric you choose, ISK, fun, whatever) to offset the upfront cost.

Therefore, there are no risks in eve.

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
#587 - 2013-08-23 21:35:08 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
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.



So where is it a risk and not a cost to buy a ship from the market? Because now that's not going to make sense.

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
#588 - 2013-08-23 21:37:36 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



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


So a 50% change of failing to get anything is not a risk now?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#589 - 2013-08-23 21:37:50 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
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.



Risk of what? You already bought it. You already know it's going to be destroyed. You already know there is a chance you might get 0%. Now, I cannot tell you to already assume it, but if you were smart, you would assume 100% loss and HOPE for +% recoup.

But then, we would be talking about risk assessment, which is weighing costs and risks associated and would be going back full circle to it not being a risk if you already discounted it as a cost because you took the safer view as opposed as the hopeful...

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
#590 - 2013-08-23 21:39:19 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



So I am right.

Thank you for conceding that. That's all I needed. Now, we can actually have a discussion in earnest without stupid mudslinging.


A handful of players does not make the norm.

They are committing suicide. They are not suicide ganking.
Dave Stark
#591 - 2013-08-23 21:39:53 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
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.



So where is it a risk and not a cost to buy a ship from the market? Because now that's not going to make sense.


i'm sorry; what does buying a ship have to do with suicide ganking?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#592 - 2013-08-23 21:41:02 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


c'mon now murk, you don't actually expect me to believe any of that do you?



Don't care if you do sir, but I will talk to you regardless if you want.

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
#593 - 2013-08-23 21:41:16 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

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.

Suicide is an adjective in this context, with gank being the verb. You're arguing that it's the other way around and Suicide-by-assault is risk-free because you know the result upfront (losing your life).

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
#594 - 2013-08-23 21:41:33 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Welp, that's it for the Thread.

Just like when Interwebz posters mention a certain 20th Century Northern European dictator, once The New Order is dragged into an EVE-O Thread it's all over.

Time to move on 'cause it's just shear insanity from here on out.

(And using them to prove a point ? You must be seriously wrong to be so seriously desperate.)



Nah, just a documented encounter with suicide ganking.

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
#595 - 2013-08-23 21:42:15 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

You have just described every single ship I have ever purchased, up to and including my bling Nightmare. I know it will be blown up, the only question left is whether I will profit from it sufficiently (by whatever metric you choose, ISK, fun, whatever) to offset the upfront cost.

Therefore, there are no risks in eve.



But you do know when you specifically buy a ship to not last past 1 engagement.

I daresay you chose to spend that money on a nightmare for that reason.

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
#596 - 2013-08-23 21:43:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



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


So a 50% change of failing to get anything is not a risk now?




50% chance of Concord not blowing you up is a stretch for you to claim.

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
#597 - 2013-08-23 21:43:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



So I am right.

Thank you for conceding that. That's all I needed. Now, we can actually have a discussion in earnest without stupid mudslinging.


A handful of players does not make the norm.

They are committing suicide. They are not suicide ganking.



Guess we are back to success and failure not dictating the act then aren't we?

Don't have to be good at something to do 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.
Dave Stark
#598 - 2013-08-23 21:44:27 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Don't care if you do sir, but I will talk to you regardless if you want.

please do.
i regard you as the eve-o equivalent of the facebook friend we never unfriend because their car crash of a life periodically popping up on your news feed makes you feel better about yourself.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#599 - 2013-08-23 21:44:50 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



50% chance of Concord not blowing you up is a stretch for you to claim.


Good thing that I am not claiming that then isn't it?

There is a 50% chance of the loot dropping. How is that not a risk?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#600 - 2013-08-23 21:45:01 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


i'm sorry; what does buying a ship have to do with suicide ganking?



If you have to ask that you do not have the qualifications to tell me I'm right or 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.