These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#721 - 2013-08-24 17:12:08 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
remind me again, how do you avoid the criminal flag when shooting some one in high security space that you aren't at war with, or in the same corp with?



You don't shoot. Because you don't want the criminal flag.


suicide ganking, not a risk if you don't shoot people.


well. ****. really? **** me, captain obvious is in the house tonight guys!



But you're talking about getting flagged, not suicide ganking. If you want to be captain obvious, you're going to have to reread your question.

Because that has nothing to do with getting blown up, only aggression mechanics.


and now you see the issue with cherry picking mechanics to talk about and calling it "suicide ganking". which, is exactly what people keep doing.



Yes, and I've been saying that as well; suicide ganking is not defined by doing something for profit, it's by attempting to kill someone before Concord knowingly kills you. The REASON has nothing to do with it, since that is a variable.

And because you know the exact direct result of firing a shot at someone, it's not a risk, but simply measured in 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.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#722 - 2013-08-24 17:13:05 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
And when I see Goons kill miners there is no one there to get the loot usually. I sat for 15 minutes and watched a freighter wreck and no one bothered to loot it because it was probaly a pain to haul 500 units of ice.


Name & shame. Standing orders are to destroy the wreck.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#723 - 2013-08-24 17:15:14 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
And when I see Goons kill miners there is no one there to get the loot usually. I sat for 15 minutes and watched a freighter wreck and no one bothered to loot it because it was probaly a pain to haul 500 units of ice.


Name & shame. Standing orders are to destroy the wreck.



Wait, you mean Goons aren't suicide ganking for profit? Maybe you and baltec need to get your stories straight.

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
#724 - 2013-08-24 17:17:43 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yes, and I've been saying that as well; suicide ganking is not defined by doing something for profit, it's by attempting to kill someone before Concord knowingly kills you. The REASON has nothing to do with it, since that is a variable.

And because you know the exact direct result of firing a shot at someone, it's not a risk, but simply measured in cost.


and the calculation for expected cost (or profit) includes risk, stop pretending it doesn't.
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#725 - 2013-08-24 17:18:04 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

See that's where the standard falls short. "Most" people. When you set a standard and define a term, it's an absolute. "MOST" doesn't cut it.

It's a tool for a job. What you use it for defines at that time what it is. Think of using a hammer as a screwdriver.

The person putting together the catalyst is, by definition, putting a fit together. What defines that ship is the use.

When you buy that stock for toilet paper, it's not an investment is it? Even though stocks can be used as such (and usually are). you can change it's entire definition by what you bought it for. In this case, you bought expensive toilet paper (or cheap depending on the price eh?).

When you start speaking for "everyone" when you know there's a chance it isn't 100%.... that's where "error" comes from. So when you try to speak volumes with 1 simple line, you better be sure as hell you are accurate in what you're saying.


Oh, but we're talking about a very specific subset of people in this argument, by which the very definition of this subset guarantees a 100% chance that the tool in question is used as an investment. So we're not talking about people who buy stocks to wipe their bums with or give them to their dads as sentimental gifts, we're talking about people who buy them to make a profit (which is the vast majority of stockholders). While I am at it, almost every ship you purchase in some way was purchased with the intent to make a profit, being mining, transportation of goods, missioning, ratting, or suicide ganking.

Trying to argue like this is silly. It's like saying cars aren't used for transportation because not all people buy automobiles with the intent to drive them.




Fair enough. Let me ask you a question, for posterity... Is something defined by the greater percentage, or the smaller percentage?


If you want to discount "subsets" then I have a counter for that, but I'll need your answer first.


Depends on if that something is an abstract concept or something that can clearly be defined. You're trying to put a definitive label on the word "risk", by arguing that only if 100% of all people who buy an item are doing so in the hopes of getting a return in investment, otherwise it is merely a cost, and that is just plain wrong. If even 1% of all stockholders buy stock to wipe their bums with, you have now defined everyone who has ever bought stock the same as someone who bought toilet paper, groceries, office supplies, replacement parts, etc. Most people would call you crazy, because it is generally accepted that investing in stocks is done for the purpose of making a profit.





You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Dave Stark
#726 - 2013-08-24 17:18:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Murk Paradox wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
And when I see Goons kill miners there is no one there to get the loot usually. I sat for 15 minutes and watched a freighter wreck and no one bothered to loot it because it was probaly a pain to haul 500 units of ice.


Name & shame. Standing orders are to destroy the wreck.



Wait, you mean Goons aren't suicide ganking for profit? Maybe you and baltec need to get your stories straight.


destroying a freighter full of ice, and it's wreck, does provide profit, though.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#727 - 2013-08-24 17:19:59 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kicking your boss in the junk is riskless because you know you will lose your job.

Posting on the forum is riskless because you know you will get trolled anyway.


That's ********.


That's exactly what you're saying about suicide ganking.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#728 - 2013-08-24 17:23:24 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yes, and I've been saying that as well; suicide ganking is not defined by doing something for profit, it's by attempting to kill someone before Concord knowingly kills you. The REASON has nothing to do with it, since that is a variable.

And because you know the exact direct result of firing a shot at someone, it's not a risk, but simply measured in cost.


and the calculation for expected cost (or profit) includes risk, stop pretending it doesn't.



But that has no bearing on calling suicide ganking "risky". Because it's not. Or rather, let me rephrase so I'm not speaking in an absolute.... it should NOT be risky. Because if you are doing it right, you are getting a result in the green. Even with loot fairy chances.

Now, it may be riskier for you than me to suicide gank, but again that's moving into semantics.

Suicide ganking is a measure of costs, not risks. The profit margin is a risk sure, but again that's talking about being a suicide ganker and making a profit, which could be seen as your cherrypicking (which is done in the first place when talking about suicide ganking for profit anyways).

I am not pretending at any of it. It's a very cold, calculated method of assigning costs and seeing if that decision is acceptable.

Any sort of "risk" would be in ignoring any of the costs and "doing it anyways" while hoping for the best.

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
#729 - 2013-08-24 17:23:57 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kicking your boss in the junk is riskless because you know you will lose your job.

Posting on the forum is riskless because you know you will get trolled anyway.


That's ********.


That's exactly what you're saying about suicide ganking.



What that it's ********? No, I like suicide ganking. I think it's good sport.

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
#730 - 2013-08-24 17:25:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

See that's where the standard falls short. "Most" people. When you set a standard and define a term, it's an absolute. "MOST" doesn't cut it.

It's a tool for a job. What you use it for defines at that time what it is. Think of using a hammer as a screwdriver.

The person putting together the catalyst is, by definition, putting a fit together. What defines that ship is the use.

When you buy that stock for toilet paper, it's not an investment is it? Even though stocks can be used as such (and usually are). you can change it's entire definition by what you bought it for. In this case, you bought expensive toilet paper (or cheap depending on the price eh?).

When you start speaking for "everyone" when you know there's a chance it isn't 100%.... that's where "error" comes from. So when you try to speak volumes with 1 simple line, you better be sure as hell you are accurate in what you're saying.


Oh, but we're talking about a very specific subset of people in this argument, by which the very definition of this subset guarantees a 100% chance that the tool in question is used as an investment. So we're not talking about people who buy stocks to wipe their bums with or give them to their dads as sentimental gifts, we're talking about people who buy them to make a profit (which is the vast majority of stockholders). While I am at it, almost every ship you purchase in some way was purchased with the intent to make a profit, being mining, transportation of goods, missioning, ratting, or suicide ganking.

Trying to argue like this is silly. It's like saying cars aren't used for transportation because not all people buy automobiles with the intent to drive them.




Fair enough. Let me ask you a question, for posterity... Is something defined by the greater percentage, or the smaller percentage?


If you want to discount "subsets" then I have a counter for that, but I'll need your answer first.


Depends on if that something is an abstract concept or something that can clearly be defined. You're trying to put a definitive label on the word "risk", by arguing that only if 100% of all people who buy an item are doing so in the hopes of getting a return in investment, otherwise it is merely a cost, and that is just plain wrong. If even 1% of all stockholders buy stock to wipe their bums with, you have now defined everyone who has ever bought stock the same as someone who bought toilet paper, groceries, office supplies, replacement parts, etc. Most people would call you crazy, because it is generally accepted that investing in stocks is done for the purpose of making a profit.







It doesn't depend on anything other than the fact you know you end up as a wreck.

Let's not derail the stock options thing, because we all know there are still quite a few reasons to have stock and NOT have them for profit.

So to go with your "abstract" ideas... you mentioned subsets and the "norm".

What is the "normal" # of gank ships to use for a gank? Would that determine the level of "risk"? Would you consider the risk to be such a low level as that the % would merit the fact it is not considered a risk at all? Do you have a hard limit?

Where do YOU set your standard as to be normal? 1? 10? 100?

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
#731 - 2013-08-24 17:26:18 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
And when I see Goons kill miners there is no one there to get the loot usually. I sat for 15 minutes and watched a freighter wreck and no one bothered to loot it because it was probaly a pain to haul 500 units of ice.


Name & shame. Standing orders are to destroy the wreck.



Wait, you mean Goons aren't suicide ganking for profit? Maybe you and baltec need to get your stories straight.


destroying a freighter full of ice, and it's wreck, does provide profit, though.



So to clarify, you're saying suicide ganking is only killing a freighter full of ice?

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
#732 - 2013-08-24 17:36:47 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yes, and I've been saying that as well; suicide ganking is not defined by doing something for profit, it's by attempting to kill someone before Concord knowingly kills you. The REASON has nothing to do with it, since that is a variable.

And because you know the exact direct result of firing a shot at someone, it's not a risk, but simply measured in cost.


and the calculation for expected cost (or profit) includes risk, stop pretending it doesn't.



But that has no bearing on calling suicide ganking "risky". Because it's not. Or rather, let me rephrase so I'm not speaking in an absolute.... it should NOT be risky. Because if you are doing it right, you are getting a result in the green. Even with loot fairy chances.

Now, it may be riskier for you than me to suicide gank, but again that's moving into semantics.

Suicide ganking is a measure of costs, not risks. The profit margin is a risk sure, but again that's talking about being a suicide ganker and making a profit, which could be seen as your cherrypicking (which is done in the first place when talking about suicide ganking for profit anyways).

I am not pretending at any of it. It's a very cold, calculated method of assigning costs and seeing if that decision is acceptable.

Any sort of "risk" would be in ignoring any of the costs and "doing it anyways" while hoping for the best.


if you do anything right then you're getting a result in the green. then again, that's exactly how it should be so all is well.

it may well be riskier for me to do it than for you to do it; but for both of us risk is still present.

and those costs are still calculated with the relevant probabilities associated with risks. even if you choose to say "i will lose my pod every gank" for example, you are still using a probability of 0 or 1 (probability of 0 of keeping your pod, or a probability of 1 of losing you pod). if your profit is coming directly from loot then yes that's always going to be a risk because you're playing against the loot fairy.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#733 - 2013-08-24 17:36:58 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
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.


Two Worlds.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Dave Stark
#734 - 2013-08-24 17:37:46 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
And when I see Goons kill miners there is no one there to get the loot usually. I sat for 15 minutes and watched a freighter wreck and no one bothered to loot it because it was probaly a pain to haul 500 units of ice.


Name & shame. Standing orders are to destroy the wreck.



Wait, you mean Goons aren't suicide ganking for profit? Maybe you and baltec need to get your stories straight.


destroying a freighter full of ice, and it's wreck, does provide profit, though.



So to clarify, you're saying suicide ganking is only killing a freighter full of ice?


no, that wasn't about suicide ganking. that was merely a statement to say "blowing up a wreck full of ice still provides profit" nothing more, nothing less.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#735 - 2013-08-24 17:38:08 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
And when I see Goons kill miners there is no one there to get the loot usually. I sat for 15 minutes and watched a freighter wreck and no one bothered to loot it because it was probaly a pain to haul 500 units of ice.


Name & shame. Standing orders are to destroy the wreck.



Wait, you mean Goons aren't suicide ganking for profit? Maybe you and baltec need to get your stories straight.



We are, that's the point of destroying dirty highsec ice. Why would we risk a freighter to pick up the ice when we can just blow it up?

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#736 - 2013-08-24 17:39:35 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Yep. There it is again with everyone saying "Players who don't play like me are inferior and are my lessers."


there it is again with "i should be able to play this game however i want without anybody affecting me"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#737 - 2013-08-24 17:45:10 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yes, and I've been saying that as well; suicide ganking is not defined by doing something for profit, it's by attempting to kill someone before Concord knowingly kills you. The REASON has nothing to do with it, since that is a variable.

And because you know the exact direct result of firing a shot at someone, it's not a risk, but simply measured in cost.


and the calculation for expected cost (or profit) includes risk, stop pretending it doesn't.



But that has no bearing on calling suicide ganking "risky". Because it's not. Or rather, let me rephrase so I'm not speaking in an absolute.... it should NOT be risky. Because if you are doing it right, you are getting a result in the green. Even with loot fairy chances.

Now, it may be riskier for you than me to suicide gank, but again that's moving into semantics.

Suicide ganking is a measure of costs, not risks. The profit margin is a risk sure, but again that's talking about being a suicide ganker and making a profit, which could be seen as your cherrypicking (which is done in the first place when talking about suicide ganking for profit anyways).

I am not pretending at any of it. It's a very cold, calculated method of assigning costs and seeing if that decision is acceptable.

Any sort of "risk" would be in ignoring any of the costs and "doing it anyways" while hoping for the best.


if you do anything right then you're getting a result in the green. then again, that's exactly how it should be so all is well.

it may well be riskier for me to do it than for you to do it; but for both of us risk is still present.

and those costs are still calculated with the relevant probabilities associated with risks. even if you choose to say "i will lose my pod every gank" for example, you are still using a probability of 0 or 1 (probability of 0 of keeping your pod, or a probability of 1 of losing you pod). if your profit is coming directly from loot then yes that's always going to be a risk because you're playing against the loot fairy.



See that's where I differ, because once you assume an absolute of a thing, you aren't willfully "risking" it because you assume it gone already. The merit of "risk" changes and all you have is the word "risk" as a term, not a description. When COST fits BETTER as a description of that thing, you then can only semantically be correct in calling it risk, because of the smaller percentage of relevancy. While you are not incorrect, you aren't totally correct either.

When you consider it cost, it is "more" truthful therefore fits better, and has a better asociation with your design.

The merit of "cost" is more apt, so saying "oh it HAS risk therefore it IS risk" is not correct. Because it has something does not mean it's defined by it.

It IS cost because that is inescapable, so while you CAN change the variable of risk, you cannot change the variable of cost because it is a constant.

So if you want to agree to disagree that's fine, but if you want to disingenuously say something IS something because there is not a total lack of it, and I can find a BETTER description for it, I am going to engage in that conversation.

Otherwise I wouldn't bother.

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
#738 - 2013-08-24 17:45:55 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
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.


Two Worlds.




Wasn't that a ****** ps3 game?

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
#739 - 2013-08-24 17:46:34 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


no, that wasn't about suicide ganking. that was merely a statement to say "blowing up a wreck full of ice still provides profit" nothing more, nothing less.



So it doesn't belong in this topic then. Got 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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#740 - 2013-08-24 17:47:18 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
And when I see Goons kill miners there is no one there to get the loot usually. I sat for 15 minutes and watched a freighter wreck and no one bothered to loot it because it was probaly a pain to haul 500 units of ice.


Name & shame. Standing orders are to destroy the wreck.



Wait, you mean Goons aren't suicide ganking for profit? Maybe you and baltec need to get your stories straight.



We are, that's the point of destroying dirty highsec ice. Why would we risk a freighter to pick up the ice when we can just blow it up?



Wheres the profit in the destruction of?

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.