These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#661 - 2013-08-24 13:22:41 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You know that there is a chance, a RISK, that you CAN lose 100% of the ship, and therefore it becomes a cost.

No. The cost is the part I know is guaranteed to be lost (the hull and rigs and some of the modules). The rest is a risk.

Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

Yeah I don't plan to feed ISK to people I violence the ships of. If I fail the gank, you bet the looter is going to grab what survives from my ship before the victim does. And since more often than not the victim is not at the keyboard in the case of ice miners, it's a pretty safe bet who will get the loot. Successfully killing the victim is not a condition of recovering the loot from the concorded wreck.



Yep. Exactly/ Ship loss is cost and not a risk. Thank you for that.

Nope. Ship loss is a risk. Hull loss is a cost.

Ship =/= Hull

For ship loss to be guaranteed, and therefore considerable as a guaranteed cost, Concord would need to instantly destroy the wreck of any ship they blow up. Luckily eve has a great PvP dynamic where any and every player can compete for the content of that wreck.



Any and all hull + fittings at the time of purchase are lost isk when you purchase them. If you have leftovers in your hold/containers it's up to you to consider them a loss or "free" then.

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
#662 - 2013-08-24 13:28:49 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
For 15 minutes, an already accepted part of the forfeiture. And also, highly unlikely and easily avoidable.


no, nobody expects to be podded every gank. are you actually a moron, or are you just saying moronic things? i can't tell the difference.

also, by virtue of it being "unlikely" not "impossible" does that not illustrate my point further? oh wait, it does. so you didn't "fail to see" how the ganker could be in any danger. you just ignored it because it didn't suit your argument.



You should as a suicide ganker or pirate or any -10 type player. You should always expect to be blown up and podded where ever you go.

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
#663 - 2013-08-24 13:33:50 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
For 15 minutes, an already accepted part of the forfeiture. And also, highly unlikely and easily avoidable.


no, nobody expects to be podded every gank. are you actually a moron, or are you just saying moronic things? i can't tell the difference.

also, by virtue of it being "unlikely" not "impossible" does that not illustrate my point further? oh wait, it does. so you didn't "fail to see" how the ganker could be in any danger. you just ignored it because it didn't suit your argument.



You should as a suicide ganker or pirate or any -10 type player. You should always expect to be blown up and podded where ever you go.


"when playing eve, always expect to have everything blown up, all the time, every day"

nothing in this game has any risk and this is 30 pages of irrelevant drivel. ok, sure thing.
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#664 - 2013-08-24 13:33:57 UTC
Quote:
You should as a suicide ganker or pirate or any -10 type player. You should always expect to be blown up and podded where ever you go.


Sounds like a pretty risky lifestyle....expecting to get blown up and podded everywhere I go?

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#665 - 2013-08-24 14:23:54 UTC
Andski wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
In my view, the two activies are seperate. I could simply fuel my ganking activities by buying plex. I don't really care about making money through ganking. Its not the point of it in my view.


Your view is irrelevant, a lot of players fund their PvP through piracy.



Then their views are irrelevant. That's the beauty of having a view. It's yours.

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
#666 - 2013-08-24 14:32:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
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.



Only in regards to profitability as a job. Not for acts of terrorism it isnt (eve terrorism;piracy etc). Not to manipulate a market it isn't.

Because of meta right?

This is why we are talking about suicide ganking in regards to ice interdictions not suicide ganking as a "noun" in it's own thread.

Because profit sources are indeed different when the threads are 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#667 - 2013-08-24 14:36:00 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
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.



Yay someone gets it! That's what we are talking about!

This IS an ice interdiction thread, not a suicide ganking thread. So shiploss as a cost is relevant. It's a meta used to manipulate the market. Not ganking for profit.

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
#668 - 2013-08-24 14:39:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lucas Kell wrote:
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?



I haven't checked for baltec's posts yet, but maybe. But if you are going to pretend to call me a troll, please do not misquote me. Consistency is key.

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
#669 - 2013-08-24 14:40:27 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
For 15 minutes, an already accepted part of the forfeiture. And also, highly unlikely and easily avoidable.


no, nobody expects to be podded every gank. are you actually a moron, or are you just saying moronic things? i can't tell the difference.

also, by virtue of it being "unlikely" not "impossible" does that not illustrate my point further? oh wait, it does. so you didn't "fail to see" how the ganker could be in any danger. you just ignored it because it didn't suit your argument.



You should as a suicide ganker or pirate or any -10 type player. You should always expect to be blown up and podded where ever you go.


"when playing eve, always expect to have everything blown up, all the time, every day"

nothing in this game has any risk and this is 30 pages of irrelevant drivel. ok, sure thing.



Meta sir. Meta.

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
#670 - 2013-08-24 14:41:17 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
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.



Yay someone gets it! That's what we are talking about!

This IS an ice interdiction thread, not a suicide ganking thread. So shiploss as a cost is relevant. It's a meta used to manipulate the market. Not ganking for profit.


yeah i said that pages ago...
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#671 - 2013-08-24 14:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Quote:
You should as a suicide ganker or pirate or any -10 type player. You should always expect to be blown up and podded where ever you go.


Sounds like a pretty risky lifestyle....expecting to get blown up and podded everywhere I go?



To some it is. To others it isn't.

That's why we have this wonderful english language that allows words such as "opportunity" and "skill" to mitigate such fears.

I mean, at the end of the day it IS a game. "Risk" is a word and only a word to convey an idea. An idea for the ignorant to justify NOT doing something.

To those who don't mind commiting to an act, risk becomes a matter of costs.

Spreadsheets online and all that.

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
#672 - 2013-08-24 14:43:43 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
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.



Yay someone gets it! That's what we are talking about!

This IS an ice interdiction thread, not a suicide ganking thread. So shiploss as a cost is relevant. It's a meta used to manipulate the market. Not ganking for profit.


yeah i said that pages ago...



So did I.

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
#673 - 2013-08-24 14:53:32 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
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.



Yay someone gets it! That's what we are talking about!

This IS an ice interdiction thread, not a suicide ganking thread. So shiploss as a cost is relevant. It's a meta used to manipulate the market. Not ganking for profit.


yeah i said that pages ago...



So did I.


no, read what i quoted. you said that the isk cost of a ship was directly proportionate to the risk. which is entirely false.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#674 - 2013-08-24 15:16:49 UTC
Quote:



Only in regards to profitability as a job. Not for acts of terrorism it isnt (eve terrorism;piracy etc). Not to manipulate a market it isn't.

Because of meta right?

This is why we are talking about suicide ganking in regards to ice interdictions not suicide ganking as a "noun" in it's own thread.

Because profit sources are indeed different when the threads are different.



All suicide ganking is e actly the same. The goal is the destruction of the target and there is a very real risk of failing to kill the target.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#675 - 2013-08-24 15:30:02 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


no, read what i quoted. you said that the isk cost of a ship was directly proportionate to the risk. which is entirely false.



No I did not. I have specifically, quite a few times, mentioned they are not related as risk is not a word to be considered with an act you know as a 100% loss. Risk denotes "chance", and I do not believe chance is a word that can be governed by an absolute.

I've been spending 18 pages arguing that very 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#676 - 2013-08-24 15:30:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
Quote:



Only in regards to profitability as a job. Not for acts of terrorism it isnt (eve terrorism;piracy etc). Not to manipulate a market it isn't.

Because of meta right?

This is why we are talking about suicide ganking in regards to ice interdictions not suicide ganking as a "noun" in it's own thread.

Because profit sources are indeed different when the threads are different.



All suicide ganking is e actly the same. The goal is the destruction of the target and there is a very real risk of failing to kill the target.



No it isn't. Well, by your standards you said all suicide ganking was profit. Are you changing your stance now?

And yes, there is definitely a risk you will fail to kill your target. I've said that already. You keep equating that with "then it means it's applied to everything" which is simply untrue.

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
#677 - 2013-08-24 15:33:04 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


no, read what i quoted. you said that the isk cost of a ship was directly proportionate to the risk. which is entirely false.



No I did not. I have specifically, quite a few times, mentioned they are not related as risk is not a word to be considered with an act you know as a 100% loss. Risk denotes "chance", and I do not believe chance is a word that can be governed by an absolute.

I've been spending 18 pages arguing that very point.


oh right it was the other guy, you just decided to randomly interject. i see.

the cost of ships has nothing to do with this thread, or topic, as a whole.

1 is still a probability, so 100% chance of loss, is still a chance, and therefore risk is still present.
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#678 - 2013-08-24 15:33:08 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Quote:
You should as a suicide ganker or pirate or any -10 type player. You should always expect to be blown up and podded where ever you go.


Sounds like a pretty risky lifestyle....expecting to get blown up and podded everywhere I go?



To some it is. To others it isn't.

That's why we have this wonderful english language that allows words such as "opportunity" and "skill" to mitigate such fears.

I mean, at the end of the day it IS a game. "Risk" is a word and only a word to convey an idea. An idea for the ignorant to justify NOT doing something.

To those who don't mind commiting to an act, risk becomes a matter of costs.

Spreadsheets online and all that.


So its like wall street traders, those who dare to trade stocks aren't taking risks, they're just skilled traders who see opportunities to make profit, and any potential losses are just a cost of doing business. This makes sense!

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#679 - 2013-08-24 15:34:49 UTC
Quote:



No it isn't. Well, by your standards you said all suicide ganking was profit. Are you changing your stance now?

And yes, there is definitely a risk you will fail to kill your target. I've said that already. You keep equating that with "then it means it's applied to everything" which is simply untrue.


All suicide ganking involves attacking a target with the aim of killing it. There are no exceptions.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#680 - 2013-08-24 15:41:29 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


no, read what i quoted. you said that the isk cost of a ship was directly proportionate to the risk. which is entirely false.



No I did not. I have specifically, quite a few times, mentioned they are not related as risk is not a word to be considered with an act you know as a 100% loss. Risk denotes "chance", and I do not believe chance is a word that can be governed by an absolute.

I've been spending 18 pages arguing that very point.


oh right it was the other guy, you just decided to randomly interject. i see.

the cost of ships has nothing to do with this thread, or topic, as a whole.

1 is still a probability, so 100% chance of loss, is still a chance, and therefore risk is still present.


That's a semantic argument, not an application argument.

That's like saying no matter the time weather or any other environmental state the sky is "blue" even if you cannot see it.

You don't risk $3 entry fee for a carnival when you buy a ticket to get in. You spend it.

It's not defined by a chance of it happening, it's defined by the chance of it NOT happening.

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.