These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cagot
Zendian Solutions
#641 - 2013-08-24 03:51:38 UTC
Seems to me the whole "greater risk" discussion is a red herring. A simpler explanation that seems to fit the whole scenario is:

1. CFC has been enjoying the Odyssey-buffed ice-mining in Caldari 0.0 for months, and had a big backlog.
2. Some of them will be moving to Fountain, and it was time to cash in the mined nitrotopes or ice cubes.
3. They planned a Caldari ice interdiction, and the price ran up as it leaked and people started hoarding.
4. They announced the interdiction on 5 August, and sold the nitrotopes during the panic buying that day.
5. Profit.

Note that there's a huge spike in nitrotope volume in Jita immediately following the announcement. I suspect the sellers were mostly Goon/CFC.

So what about the actual interdiction? They need to kill enough to make it appear to be a realistic threat for the *next* time they manipulate the market, and they successfully pruned out the non-tanked miners, and put together impressive ganks on several well-tanked ships and freighters. The financial risk of gank-failing is irrelevant to them: a few thousand destroyers is chump change to an alliance that's controlled the best moon goo for years. Note that they don't bother to pick up the exhumer-dropped loot after the ganks. It's not about the ship isk - the market isk is already in the bag.

So my theory is that the interdiction was a success... two weeks before it started. The actual ganking of miners is merely corroborative detail intended to lend artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#642 - 2013-08-24 04:37:55 UTC
Cagot wrote:
Seems to me the whole "greater risk" discussion is a red herring. A simpler explanation that seems to fit the whole scenario is:

1. CFC has been enjoying the Odyssey-buffed ice-mining in Caldari 0.0 for months, and had a big backlog.
2. Some of them will be moving to Fountain, and it was time to cash in the mined nitrotopes or ice cubes.
3. They planned a Caldari ice interdiction, and the price ran up as it leaked and people started hoarding.
4. They announced the interdiction on 5 August, and sold the nitrotopes during the panic buying that day.
5. Profit.

Note that there's a huge spike in nitrotope volume in Jita immediately following the announcement. I suspect the sellers were mostly Goon/CFC.

So what about the actual interdiction? They need to kill enough to make it appear to be a realistic threat for the *next* time they manipulate the market, and they successfully pruned out the non-tanked miners, and put together impressive ganks on several well-tanked ships and freighters. The financial risk of gank-failing is irrelevant to them: a few thousand destroyers is chump change to an alliance that's controlled the best moon goo for years. Note that they don't bother to pick up the exhumer-dropped loot after the ganks. It's not about the ship isk - the market isk is already in the bag.

So my theory is that the interdiction was a success... two weeks before it started. The actual ganking of miners is merely corroborative detail intended to lend artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.


On a side note, I suppose it has made some people who were not goons with billions of ice very rich as well. That and people who continued to mine with the interdiction.

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
Jill Chastot
Black Water Oasis
#643 - 2013-08-24 05:21:09 UTC
My view on risk is that if there is any chance of the outcome which you wish to not happen exists there must be risk. I don't see why this deserves 30 bloody pages.
/shrug

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=298596&find=unread OATHS wants you. Come to the WH "Safety in eve is the greatest fallacy you will ever encounter. Once you accept this you will truely enjoy this game."
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#644 - 2013-08-24 05:57:55 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:

Geez. I try to throw you a bone and some sort of compromise and you tell me with a straight face that miners have less risk than gankers.

But then of course if they have less risk then gankers then that means the whole ice interdiction is failing because obviously you guys aren't doing your job and making it risky business to be out ice mining.

Thanks for the forum win.

I SHUT YOU DOWN!


I see you are ignoring the fact that exhumers are statistically one of the safest ships to fly in EVE even before they were buffed.

We can also have a successfull ice interdiction without torching every miner out there. The simple fact is that mining is one of the most risk free activities in EVE while suicide ganking is the most risky activity in space in high sec.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#645 - 2013-08-24 06:28:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:

Geez. I try to throw you a bone and some sort of compromise and you tell me with a straight face that miners have less risk than gankers.

But then of course if they have less risk then gankers then that means the whole ice interdiction is failing because obviously you guys aren't doing your job and making it risky business to be out ice mining.

Thanks for the forum win.

I SHUT YOU DOWN!


I see you are ignoring the fact that exhumers are statistically one of the safest ships to fly in EVE even before they were buffed.

We can also have a successfull ice interdiction without torching every miner out there. The simple fact is that mining is one of the most risk free activities in EVE while suicide ganking is the most risky activity in space in high sec.


Well if its risk free then you guys aren't doing your job well enough. Maybe you should be using battlecruisers to gank miners to make a point.

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
Dave Stark
#646 - 2013-08-24 06:31:52 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
If you use a 20 million isk ship to gank a 100 million ship, your risk is lower because you risk less isk


i'm sorry but the level of risk is completely independent of the value of the ships.

you're talking about the expected loss, not the level of risk.
Dave Stark
#647 - 2013-08-24 06:36:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Well if its risk free then you guys aren't doing your job well enough. Maybe you should be using battlecruisers to gank miners to make a point.


again you miss the point. at the end of the day it's an ice interdiction not a hulkageddon. baltec is right, you don't have to pop and pod every week old miner in his retriever to have a successful interdiction.

also the choice of ships that are being used to carry out the ganks are largely irrelevant.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#648 - 2013-08-24 06:48:38 UTC
I don't know. It just seems like you all feel like you are being persecuted and feel like the only way to overcome this is to win a war of words.

I mean I just failed a gank about an hour ago (he had 25% structure left too), but I don't feel like I am punished by the game or the community because of it.

You guys just take yourself too seriously and it seems that you demand that everyone feel bad for you when your lifestyle is a choice you chose to live. No one forced you to do those things.

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
Dave Stark
#649 - 2013-08-24 06:51:00 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I don't know. It just seems like you all feel like you are being persecuted and feel like the only way to overcome this is to win a war of words.

I mean I just failed a gank about an hour ago (he had 25% structure left too), but I don't feel like I am punished by the game or the community because of it.

You guys just take yourself too seriously and it seems that you demand that everyone feel bad for you when your lifestyle is a choice you chose to live. No one forced you to do those things.


all i really got from this post was "i have no idea how to do basic maths and use a ship scanner"
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#650 - 2013-08-24 07:03:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Dave Stark wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I don't know. It just seems like you all feel like you are being persecuted and feel like the only way to overcome this is to win a war of words.

I mean I just failed a gank about an hour ago (he had 25% structure left too), but I don't feel like I am punished by the game or the community because of it.

You guys just take yourself too seriously and it seems that you demand that everyone feel bad for you when your lifestyle is a choice you chose to live. No one forced you to do those things.


all i really got from this post was "i have no idea how to do basic maths and use a ship scanner"


Oh so now you are saying it was my fault and nothing to do with the risk of the profession?

Doesn't it dawn of you that is the basic opposite of what your side said earlier.

That the risk was the fact the target would survive and woe are gankers because this happens all the damn time.

I think just because I take a contrary stance, that if I switched sides mid-argument you would change your opinion to keep arguing.

It's just pathetic. This cognitive dissonance.

And for your knowledge, I did scan.

Maybe I took a risk.

Unless you want to say there is none if you do the math.

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
Dave Stark
#651 - 2013-08-24 07:29:15 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Oh so now you are saying it was my fault and nothing to do with the risk of the profession?

Doesn't it dawn of you that is the basic opposite of what your side said earlier.

That the risk was the fact the target would survive and woe are gankers because this happens all the damn time.

I think just because I take a contrary stance, that if I switched sides mid-argument you would change your opinion to keep arguing.

It's just pathetic. This cognitive dissonance.

And for your knowledge, I did scan.

Maybe I took a risk.

Unless you want to say there is none if you do the math.


yes i am saying it was your fault, because it was.

and what was it that i said earlier that it's the opposite of? quotes appreciated, i've been to sleep since whatever i said previously.

don't believe i've ever mentioned targets surviving so far in this thread, again quotes appreciated.

no, if you stopped saying dumb things i'd stop pointing out that you're saying dumb things.

i doubt you scanned, and i doubt you "took a risk" i doubt you did more than roll your face over your keyboard to create a scenario you could use to scream... whatever it is you're screaming.

as far as suicide ganking goes the act of blowing up a ship is essentially a foregone conclusion. before and after the shooting of the guns is when the risk is there. the human element is something you cannot always account for. however, your dps vs tank is something you can always calculate, and quite easily.

just because blowing up a ship is, for the most part, a basic mathematical equation does not mean the activity as a whole is riskless.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#652 - 2013-08-24 07:49:24 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
yes i am saying it was your fault, because it was.

and what was it that i said earlier that it's the opposite of? quotes appreciated, i've been to sleep since whatever i said previously.

don't believe i've ever mentioned targets surviving so far in this thread, again quotes appreciated.

no, if you stopped saying dumb things i'd stop pointing out that you're saying dumb things.

i doubt you scanned, and i doubt you "took a risk" i doubt you did more than roll your face over your keyboard to create a scenario you could use to scream... whatever it is you're screaming.

as far as suicide ganking goes the act of blowing up a ship is essentially a foregone conclusion. before and after the shooting of the guns is when the risk is there. the human element is something you cannot always account for. however, your dps vs tank is something you can always calculate, and quite easily.

just because blowing up a ship is, for the most part, a basic mathematical equation does not mean the activity as a whole is riskless.


Your post makes me smile. Because of something you said... I want to type something in response but I lack the words that will not result in ISD action. Suffice to say we are almost at page 34.

I will construct more arguments tomorrow depending on what people seem to be all mad and persecuted about.

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
Dave Stark
#653 - 2013-08-24 07:59:31 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I want to type something in response but I lack the words that will not result in ISD action. Suffice to say we are almost at page 34.


please. do it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#654 - 2013-08-24 08:10:21 UTC
Quote:


Well if its risk free then you guys aren't doing your job well enough. Maybe you should be using battlecruisers to gank miners to make a point.


Please point out where I said mining has no risk.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#655 - 2013-08-24 13:00:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


See how that works? That's what you were doing with me.

And 50% loot dropping is a risk, noone is saying it isn't.



Difference between us is that I wasn't making things up like you just did.

You say there is no risk in suicide ganking. Dispite the fact that between the fact that the target may not die for any number of reasons, the loot may not drop, your ship that is looting the wreck might get blown up due to being open to attack by everyone and the fact that you now have a killright on your head that can be acted upon by anyone at any time.

Its like saying that there is no risk fighting a war. No risk in investment banking.

Its a stupid argument.



But it's not "like" any of those because your examples do not show a guaranteed death. That's you making **** up. I quite SPECIFICALLY say that it's not "like" anything else. It is specifically you blowing up to Concord is 100% certainty when aggressing someone.

You are trying to find nonsensicals to compare to, so yes, your argument is in fact stupid. I agree 100% with you being stupid when you make things up on behalf of other people.

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
#656 - 2013-08-24 13:01:30 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

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.

A chance of getting 0. An uncertain outcome. A risk you might say. You want me to assume I'm going to fail, not once but twice in the same gank, so you can change the position on the balance sheet and support your argument. That's not how projections and risks work.

Murk Paradox wrote:
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...

I prefer to look at the AVERAGE case to get a proper view of the risks, rather than assume I'm going to sell PLEX to jita contracts for 360 mil on a daily basis and plan according to that.



You mean if I buy a ship on the market there's a % chance I won't receive the ship after spending isk? In that caase I would direct you to margin trading threads that have Tippia explaining pretty clearly that if you do not receive the product you do not lose the isk.

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.
#657 - 2013-08-24 13:01:46 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


See how that works? That's what you were doing with me.

And 50% loot dropping is a risk, noone is saying it isn't.



Difference between us is that I wasn't making things up like you just did.

You say there is no risk in suicide ganking. Dispite the fact that between the fact that the target may not die for any number of reasons, the loot may not drop, your ship that is looting the wreck might get blown up due to being open to attack by everyone and the fact that you now have a killright on your head that can be acted upon by anyone at any time.

Its like saying that there is no risk fighting a war. No risk in investment banking.

Its a stupid argument.

More nonsense.

Is this idiot still trolling here?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#658 - 2013-08-24 13:01:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



We are talking about getting a ship and encouraging Concord to blow it up. Nothing else past that.


Because the whole gank part of suicide ganking doesn't matter...



Not when you are talking about ship loss being a cost versus risk. Stop oveer complicating the situation.

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
#659 - 2013-08-24 13:20:38 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

I hoped it would live long enough to pay for itself. I expected to get scanned and ganked the first time i undocked because lol loot piniada in mission hub. Oh I ran missions in it under wardecs too. I think i swapped out the heat sinks to T2 but kept the rest.

But who says everyone buys a ship with the intention of suicide ganking? The last time I ganked someone I used a tier 3 BC with expired insurance that had been on multiple killmails. It was personal and i wanted to do it myself. Yet I still managed to get the loot from my ship, his ship, and the salvage from the exhumer. It did not cost me 100 mil up front to prepare, and I sure as hell did not plan to let his buddies pick up the loot. The cost was buying a replacement hull and whatever didn't drop.



Suicide gankers.

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
#660 - 2013-08-24 13:21:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT THE 100% SHIPLOSS IS A RISK.
You are one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered.
**** the shiploss. **** the cost.
The ACT OF GANKING requires you TO KILL YOUR TARGET.
that ACT is not a GUARANTEED SUCCESS.
THAT IS WHERE THERE IS RISK.

Thus. SUICIDE GANKING as an ACT has RISK
The costs are obviously costs, the same as ANY OTHER COST.

Just because you post a bunch of nonsense repeatedly doesn't make you right. It just makes you an argumentative prick.

At the end of the day, you repeatedly shiptoasting has gone on long enough. You are either remarkably stupid or a massive troll. Either way, go **** yourself.



Then I you shouldn't be yelling since we aren't having the same conversation.

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.