These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#681 - 2013-08-24 15:42:22 UTC
Kijo Rikki wrote:
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!



Suicide ganking is not like trading stocks.

Selling catalysts during a gank fest would be like trading stocks.

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
#682 - 2013-08-24 15:44:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.



All suicide gankings involve trying to kill the other guy before you get blown up since you know you will get blown up, yes.

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.
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#683 - 2013-08-24 15:45:45 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kijo Rikki wrote:
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!



Suicide ganking is not like trading stocks.

Selling catalysts during a gank fest would be like trading stocks.


Nah. You make an initial investment with the purchase of a catalyst, in the hopes that that investment will bring you a return in profit, which is not a guarantee. In fact, I'm willing to bet more often than not you lose your entire investment, sounds like stock trading to me.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#684 - 2013-08-24 15:52:42 UTC
Quote:



All suicide gankings involve trying to kill the other guy before you get blown up since you know you will get blown up, yes.


Good, you now agree that suicide ganking has risk.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#685 - 2013-08-24 15:56:53 UTC
Kijo Rikki wrote:




Nah. You make an initial investment with the purchase of a catalyst, in the hopes that that investment will bring you a return in profit, which is not a guarantee. In fact, I'm willing to bet more often than not you lose your entire investment, sounds like stock trading to me.



But it's suicide ganking. If you want to treat something different than what it is, that's up to you to do.

But you unfortunately are going to have a hard time trying to dictate how other people should play (people tend to trade stocks differently on a person by person basis).

If you want to say they both share the same qualities as a stock costing X amount which may or may not change tomorrow, then it would be accurate.

But the act of blowing up your investment in hopes the other persons investment pays you is odd to use as a metaphor if you think about it.

I couldn't in theory buy apple stock in the hopes I can give the guy with android stock a paper cut and drop his stock so I can take it now can 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#686 - 2013-08-24 16:01:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Quote:



All suicide gankings involve trying to kill the other guy before you get blown up since you know you will get blown up, yes.


Good, you now agree that suicide ganking has risk.



Only in terms of suicide ganking to make a profit.

It doesn't take risk to suicide gank. Only to make a lucrative living at it.

And it would be RISKS, not risk. The act isn't risky. What you do it for has risks associated with it. Not defined by it.

This is something I have I have said quite a few times. The act of simply dying by Concord is not 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.
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#687 - 2013-08-24 16:09:22 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kijo Rikki wrote:


Nah. You make an initial investment with the purchase of a catalyst, in the hopes that that investment will bring you a return in profit, which is not a guarantee. In fact, I'm willing to bet more often than not you lose your entire investment, sounds like stock trading to me.


But it's suicide ganking. If you want to treat something different than what it is, that's up to you to do.

But you unfortunately are going to have a hard time trying to dictate how other people should play (people tend to trade stocks differently on a person by person basis).

If you want to say they both share the same qualities as a stock costing X amount which may or may not change tomorrow, then it would be accurate.

But the act of blowing up your investment in hopes the other persons investment pays you is odd to use as a metaphor if you think about it.

I couldn't in theory buy apple stock in the hopes I can give the guy with android stock a paper cut and drop his stock so I can take it now can I?


It doesn't matter what it really is, what matters is I am demonstrating the risk involved, regardless of the acknowledgement of the loss of an initial investment. And if I may be so bold, stock traders do, in fact, do exactly what you propose. Short selling and market manipulation are not new concepts.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Dave Stark
#688 - 2013-08-24 16:09:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


i'm sorry, did you have a point? other than stating the obvious that has nothing to do with eve i fail to see why you hit the post button.

also the chance of something NOT happening is defined by the chance of it happening, therefore it is defined by the chance of it happening.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#689 - 2013-08-24 16:10:37 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Quote:



All suicide gankings involve trying to kill the other guy before you get blown up since you know you will get blown up, yes.


Good, you now agree that suicide ganking has risk.



Only in terms of suicide ganking to make a profit.

It doesn't take risk to suicide gank. Only to make a lucrative living at it.

And it would be RISKS, not risk. The act isn't risky. What you do it for has risks associated with it. Not defined by it.

This is something I have I have said quite a few times. The act of simply dying by Concord is not risk.


Suicide ganking is the act to attempt to kill a target. The act is a risk because a kill is not garenteed. All suicide ganks follow this rule.

Shooting someone with the aim of just getting youself killed by concord is not suicide ganking.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#690 - 2013-08-24 16:15:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
......The act is a risk because a kill is not garenteed. .......


At least one kill is guaranteed.

Quote:
Shooting someone with the aim of just getting youself killed by concord is not suicide ganking.


By definition it is.










Hey, this is fun!

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#691 - 2013-08-24 16:16:23 UTC
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kijo Rikki wrote:


Nah. You make an initial investment with the purchase of a catalyst, in the hopes that that investment will bring you a return in profit, which is not a guarantee. In fact, I'm willing to bet more often than not you lose your entire investment, sounds like stock trading to me.


But it's suicide ganking. If you want to treat something different than what it is, that's up to you to do.

But you unfortunately are going to have a hard time trying to dictate how other people should play (people tend to trade stocks differently on a person by person basis).

If you want to say they both share the same qualities as a stock costing X amount which may or may not change tomorrow, then it would be accurate.

But the act of blowing up your investment in hopes the other persons investment pays you is odd to use as a metaphor if you think about it.

I couldn't in theory buy apple stock in the hopes I can give the guy with android stock a paper cut and drop his stock so I can take it now can I?


It doesn't matter what it really is, what matters is I am demonstrating the risk involved, regardless of the acknowledgement of the loss of an initial investment. And if I may be so bold, stock traders do, in fact, do exactly what you propose. Short selling and market manipulation are not new concepts.



It very much matters. If you are saying 2 things are synonymous, and you know they aren't... that's being disingenuous.

There is not any risk in actually buying stock. It's quite simple. You choose, you give money, you get the stock. That's a cost.

The risk, is if you want to invest in stock for the purpose of getting a return (short term OR long term) or you want to use stock as some sort of leveraging tool for a company... all those methods have inherent risks associated with them.

The act of purchasing the stock does not have risk.

I have 0 risk if I buy my dad Guinness stock as a gift because he is a big fan of Guinness. He isn't going to turn around and sell it, and I do not expect anything else. But to be semantic and technical I would be risking NOT getting a smile from him by choosing a poor present.

But that has nothing to do with buying the stock in the first place. I can still see it costs $X money, and I would still get a certificate for my purchase. I wouldn't be risking it at all since I bought it with the sole intention of not keeping it.

Even if I set fire to it or shredded it, the outcome would be I still bought it, and I ended up not having it anymore.

There's no chance or probability associated with it, only 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.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#692 - 2013-08-24 16:18:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Suicide ganking is the act to attempt to kill a target. The act is a risk because a kill is not garenteed. All suicide ganks follow this rule.




Again, it is not a risk as there is no danger involved, as the ship is voluntarily forfeit in the decision to act.

What you call a risk is a gamble.Smile

"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
#693 - 2013-08-24 16:19:01 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


i'm sorry, did you have a point? other than stating the obvious that has nothing to do with eve i fail to see why you hit the post button.

also the chance of something NOT happening is defined by the chance of it happening, therefore it is defined by the chance of it happening.



Because you obviously have not been catching up and are repeating **** already been said. So I pointed out how foolish you were to jump in like you were saying something new, which you haven't.

See, you using a semantic stance is only being disingenuous and has no bearing on any sort of correct or incorrect meaning to this conversation.

So, instead of being trolled, I will try to refrain from replying to you until you post something worth replying to.

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
#694 - 2013-08-24 16:19:42 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Suicide ganking is the act to attempt to kill a target. The act is a risk because a kill is not garenteed. All suicide ganks follow this rule.




Again, it is not a risk as there is no danger involved, as the ship is voluntarily forfeit in the decision to act.

What you call a risk is a gamble.Smile


if a kill is not guaranteed then there is obviously risk.

stop posting such completely moronic statements.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#695 - 2013-08-24 16:20:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Quote:



All suicide gankings involve trying to kill the other guy before you get blown up since you know you will get blown up, yes.


Good, you now agree that suicide ganking has risk.



Only in terms of suicide ganking to make a profit.

It doesn't take risk to suicide gank. Only to make a lucrative living at it.

And it would be RISKS, not risk. The act isn't risky. What you do it for has risks associated with it. Not defined by it.

This is something I have I have said quite a few times. The act of simply dying by Concord is not risk.


Suicide ganking is the act to attempt to kill a target. The act is a risk because a kill is not garenteed. All suicide ganks follow this rule.

Shooting someone with the aim of just getting youself killed by concord is not suicide ganking.



Guess it depends on intent.

If you meant to die by Concord and targetted some poor bystander in a ship that couldn't survive your volley, it would still be considered a suicide gank, even though you did not do it for money.

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
#696 - 2013-08-24 16:20:30 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
So, instead of being trolled, I will try to refrain from replying to you until you post something worth replying to.


mission accomplished.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#697 - 2013-08-24 16:21:22 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


if a kill is not guaranteed then there is obviously risk.

stop posting such completely moronic statements.



I don't think the words you are using mean what you think.

"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
Dave Stark
#698 - 2013-08-24 16:22:50 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
I don't think


we know.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#699 - 2013-08-24 16:24:45 UTC
Risk: a situation involving exposure to danger (only definition I find in every dictionary.

Gamble : take a chanced action in the hope of a desired result

"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
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#700 - 2013-08-24 16:25:43 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
I don't think


we know.



Booo. Try harder. Even I don't chop your sentences to shreds. Very unclassy.

"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