These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

Nice shadow nerf to highsec ganking CCP o7o7o7o7o7o7
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#61 - 2012-04-13 23:48:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Tippia wrote:
Cedo Nulli wrote:
When something will happen 100% certainty ... its not a risk. The risk is 0
No. When something will happen with 100% certainty, the risk is 100%. That's how risk works: [probability] × [cost].


Risk is the probability of an undesirable outcome. The loss of your ship when you suicide gank someone is not risk, it is a known cost. The only risks in suicide ganking are that (a) you don't end up blowing up the target because you were a lazy bones and skipped the step of "scan the target's fitting", (b) the target doesn't produce tears, or (c) that the phat lewt doesn't drop.

Tippia wrote:
No, the risk I'm talking about is the net effect of all the variables. Just because there is a chance that you can reduce the cost doesn't mean that the base risk isn't a risk. If there is no risk reduction in the form of a cost reduction, the total risk is still that 100% × cost of ship.


That's a cost. It's like stating that one of the "risks" of running a business is paying rent on the premises, or paying electricity bills, or paying salaries. That's not risk, that's cost. So in your "Risk = Cost * Probability of Failure" equation, known costs are one of the multiplicands, risk is the product.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#62 - 2012-04-13 23:48:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Sasha Azala wrote:
100% ship lost is not a risk, you've already factored that in, it's a known result before you even start.
It most certainly is a risk. Again: risk = probability × cost. Just because the probability is 100% doesn't mean there is no risk — quite the opposite, in fact: it means there the risk is total.




Risk implys there's an element of uncertainty, there is no uncertainty, they will lose their ship.

Like others have mentioned before the ship is being used like ammo, it's disposable.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#63 - 2012-04-13 23:49:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
And yet if CCP added this feature, all you will get back is "working as intended".
If CCP added this as a feature, they would do it as a part of the crimewatch and CONCORD revamp, and would present it in a devblog. Until then, it's a bug since it directly contradicts their stated goals for CONCORD, should it happen the way the OP describes it.

Fortunately, as testing has shown, it doesn't actually work that way, but rather works the way it's supposed to work.
Mara Rinn wrote:
Risk is the probability of an undesirable outcome.
Sasha Azala wrote:
Risk implys there's an element of uncertainty
No, uncertainty is something slightly different. Risk denotes the statistical cost of (usually) a negative event (you can have positive risks as well, but the word isn't commonly used that way). It is not the same as the probability of the event.

If the statistical likelihood of the event occurring is 100%, then that's a bit of an edge case, but it doesn't change what the risk is. Hell, there's even an ISO standard for the thing, and it boils down to the same old formula: risk = probability × cost. A probability of 100% does not suddenly turn a risk into a non-risk.

Ships being used as ammo doesn't remove the risk factor of the ship — it's still 100% × ship cost. It just sets a higher bar for the compound risk of not coming out ahead and lets us simplify the equation for that compound risk since once of the factors is pinned at 100%.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#64 - 2012-04-13 23:51:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
It would not be the first time something in the near future accidentalied it's way in before release however. Granted I don't know what testing you're referring to, I am tired and did not read all 4 pages of people flinging poo at each other.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
EVE Stig
Doomheim
#65 - 2012-04-13 23:56:55 UTC
Kadesh Priestess wrote:

If you didn't use this exploit and nerf still affects you - you can say 'thanks' to guys who abused it.


Happens alot lately huh

"Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"!
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#66 - 2012-04-14 00:14:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Tippia wrote:
Risk denotes the statistical cost of (usually) a negative event (you can have positive risks as well, but the word isn't commonly used that way). It is not the same as the probability of the event.


Exactly. Risk is neither the cost, nor the probability of failure. Risk is the product of cost and probability of failure. If the probability of failure is low (i.e.: you properly surveyed the target and have the right amount of firepower to blow it up before CONCORD arrives), the risk is low.

Tippia wrote:
If the statistical likelihood of the event occurring is 100%, then that's a bit of an edge case, but it doesn't change what the risk is.


That's not an edge case at all. A probability of 1 means that you are dealing with a certainty.

Tippia wrote:
Hell, there's even an ISO standard for the thing, and it boils down to the same old formula: risk = probability × cost. A probability of 100% does not suddenly turn a risk into a non-risk.


And the mistake that you are making is confusing "cost" with "risk". The risk applies to the ganking operation, not to the illegal attack against a neutral target in hisec. The cost is the total of the ships and fittings you are going to blow up. The probability of failure is the probability that, having expended your costs, you will not get a return. Thus if the target is carrying 1 thing of value, the probability is 50%. If the target is carrying many things of value (bunch of blueprints not in a can), the probability of failure is significantly lower. There is also the probability of not getting significant salvage from the wreck of a player ship.

Tippia wrote:
Ships being used as ammo doesn't remove the risk factor of the ship — it's still 100% × ship cost. It just sets a higher bar for the compound risk of not coming out ahead and lets us simplify the equation for that compound risk since once of the factors is pinned at 100%.


Cost is not Risk. Risk is not Cost. Risk is Cost multiplied by Probability of Failure. A 100% chance of achieving the desired outcome means you have a certainty, and there is no risk. And note that in this instance, the probability of failure is 0% since it is 100% guaranteed by the game mechanics that this cost will be successfully spent.

Please, make sure you understand how these calculations work. If you're calculating metres per second, you don't look at the 300m travelled and then say, "the speed is 300 metres!" You have to look at the seconds too. If you're calculating the velocity of a ship, you don't look at its speed and say, "the velocity is 60 metres a second", because velocity is a vector.

A ganking catalyst costs about 4M ISK. That is the cost. The risk of the cargo-fit hulk standing motionless in a 0.5 not being destroyed is about 0%. Thus the risk is 0 ISK.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#67 - 2012-04-14 00:23:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mara Rinn wrote:
That's not an edge case at all. A probability of 1 means that you are dealing with a certainty.
The edge case is that it's still a risk in spite of it being a certainty, which is a bit contrary to how the word is commonly used.

Quote:
And the mistake that you are making is confusing "cost" with "risk".
Except that I'm not doing that. I'm saying that if the probability is 1, then the risk will have the same value as the cost.

Quote:
Cost is not Risk. Risk is not Cost. Risk is Cost multiplied by Probability of Failure. A 100% chance of achieving the desired outcome means you have a certainty, and there is no risk.
…and again, I'm not saying that cost and risk are the same. I'm saying that at 100% probability, the value of the risk is the same as the value of the cost. I'm also saying that just because you have a certainty (a 100% probability), doesn't mean that you no longer have a risk — it just means you have a risk that has a value equal to the cost.

Quote:
Please, make sure you understand how these calculations work
Yes, please make sure that you do, because you keep contradicting yourself. So let's go through them. It's very very simple.

risk = probability × cost.
Probability = 1 → risk = 1 × cost = cost.

If you have a 100% chance of losing $100, your risk is $100.
If you have a 50% chance of losing $200, your risk is $100.

In both cases, you have a risk, even though in one case, the loss is a certainty.

Or, in EVE terms, just because the probability of losing your ship when you suicide gank is 100% doesn't mean that your ship loss isn't a risk. It is, in fact, a total / complete / 100% risk, and as such it's something you'll probably want to mitigate by reducing the one thing you can reduce — the cost.
Ender Karazaki
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2012-04-14 00:27:57 UTC
As a guy who used to work with statistics I can tell you with 99.8% certainty that you all have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to probability, risk and uncertainty. Then again, nobody does.
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#69 - 2012-04-14 00:35:00 UTC
If you are too lazy to grind your ISK maybe you should consider selling a few PLEX.
Not PvP enough for you?

Stuffs, I can has?

R.I.P. Vile Rat
VagabondAlt
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#70 - 2012-04-14 00:54:55 UTC
From my test this does not appear to be true.

Death to all miners.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#71 - 2012-04-14 01:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Tippia wrote:
If you have a 100% chance of losing $100, your risk is $100.
If you have a 50% chance of losing $200, your risk is $100.

In both cases, you have a risk, even though in one case, the loss is a certainty.


The probability of undesired outcome is what you need to look at. Someone suicide ganking a target has some outcome they desire. The outcome might be as simple as "I want to see a Hulk explode". Perhaps they're hoping that the officer small shield booster drops. If the hulk doesn't explode, or the booster doesn't drop, that's the undesirable outcome.

Thus Risk = Cost (of ganking ship) x Probability (of undesirable outcome)

If the only desired outcome is the target exploding, the risk is near 0 ISK because the probability of the hulk not exploding is near 0% because the risk mitigation has been done. Expending ammunition is not a risk, it's a cost. Not destroying the target is an undesired outcome, with some probability of happening. The risk is what percentage of the cost you are likely to lose, in the long run.

Similarly, the Reward = Value (of desirable outcome) x Probabilty (of desirable outcome)

Here's how you evaluate risk as a ganker:

  1. Target is flying a ship carrying 500M ISK worth of stuff in one pile. When the ship blows up, there will be a 50% probability that the pile will be intact
  2. To gank that ship we need 5 catalysts, or approximately 20M ISK
  3. With 5 catalysts, the target will die before CONCORD arrives, even with gate guns
  4. The Risk is thus 10M ISK, the reward is 250M ISK
  5. The Risk is less than the reward, so let's go blow that guy up!


The important thing to observe here is that Risk & Reward relate to outcomes and inputs.

(of course, if someone is so shortsighted as to only consider the act of shooting the target, yes the RISK of illegally aggressing a target in hisec is 100% of the cost of whatever you're flying at the time, assuming the only outcome you wanted is for your ship to be intact — even tear miners have longer vision than that, they're after the outcome of the ship exploding, especially if it means another 100 page thread on the forums)

I'm not contradicting myself :P

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Tarsus Zateki
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#72 - 2012-04-14 01:04:34 UTC
This argument is redundant anyhow. This change, assuming its even happened, changes nothing. If someone wants to suicide gank something, its still dies. Nothing has changed.

You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#73 - 2012-04-14 01:20:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mara Rinn wrote:
The probability of undesired outcome is what you need to look at. Someone suicide ganking a target has some outcome they desire. The outcome might be as simple as "I want to see a Hulk explode". Perhaps they're hoping that the officer small shield booster drops. If the hulk doesn't explode, or the booster doesn't drop, that's the undesirable outcome.

Thus Risk = Cost (of ganking ship) x Probability (of undesirable outcome)
…and that's because you're jumping straight to the simplification. I'm doing it in steps.

Total risk of suicide = cost (of suicide) × probability (of side-effects of suicide gank). That probability is 1, because so sayeth CCP.
Total risk of suicide = cost (of suicide) × 1.

Next step: what goes into that cost? Well, the ship for one…

Cost = ship - risk of rewards.

What are the risk of rewards? Who knows… but that's where the step you describe come in. Thus:

Total risk = [Cost (of ganking ship) x Probability (of undesirable outcome)] × 1

Basically, what I'm saying is that, yes, your calculation is essentially correct, but it is what we end up with when we simplify the compound equation for the whole event (and we can do that trivially because the probability for the total risk is 1). The ship loss is itself a risk, even though it's certain. What the ganker can do is to manipulate the cost part of the equation to reduce that risk. Since the probability for the suicide is 1, all we really have to bother with is the cost directly and/or with the risks (and rewards) encapsulated within it.

…and at any rate, we arrive at a non-zero risk because the game mechanics ensure that the probability for the desired outcome is itself non-zero.
Quote:
I'm not contradicting myself :P
You're contradicting yourself by saying that, yes, risk = cost × probability, and yes, probability = 1, but no those two combined somehow don't yield risk = cost. Granted, this may just be a terminology issue — you are thinking “value of…” in one case but “concept of…” in another, and the contradiction arises from how both are being referred to with the same words without any qualifier to set them apart.
EVE Stig
Doomheim
#74 - 2012-04-14 01:25:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
That's not an edge case at all. A probability of 1 means that you are dealing with a certainty.
The edge case is that it's still a risk in spite of it being a certainty, which is a bit contrary to how the word is commonly used.

Quote:
And the mistake that you are making is confusing "cost" with "risk".
Except that I'm not doing that. I'm saying that if the probability is 1, then the risk will have the same value as the cost.

Quote:
Cost is not Risk. Risk is not Cost. Risk is Cost multiplied by Probability of Failure. A 100% chance of achieving the desired outcome means you have a certainty, and there is no risk.
…and again, I'm not saying that cost and risk are the same. I'm saying that at 100% probability, the value of the risk is the same as the value of the cost. I'm also saying that just because you have a certainty (a 100% probability), doesn't mean that you no longer have a risk — it just means you have a risk that has a value equal to the cost.

Quote:
Please, make sure you understand how these calculations work
Yes, please make sure that you do, because you keep contradicting yourself. So let's go through them. It's very very simple.

risk = probability × cost.
Probability = 1 → risk = 1 × cost = cost.

If you have a 100% chance of losing $100, your risk is $100.
If you have a 50% chance of losing $200, your risk is $100.

In both cases, you have a risk, even though in one case, the loss is a certainty.

Or, in EVE terms, just because the probability of losing your ship when you suicide gank is 100% doesn't mean that your ship loss isn't a risk. It is, in fact, a total / complete / 100% risk, and as such it's something you'll probably want to mitigate by reducing the one thing you can reduce — the cost.


tippia's specialty

"Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#75 - 2012-04-14 01:34:34 UTC
EVE Stig wrote:
tippia's specialty
Nah. My speciality is crisis managment and the cognitive issues of knowledge transfer under stress…

…but risk evaluation is a common puzzle piece in that.
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2012-04-14 01:35:36 UTC
Since when is risk = reward * probability ?
Try using the dictionary definition. Don't tie in a formula with specific, niche and irrelevant concepts to EVE. Spaceships is not real. Especially when the ganker is after miner tears or personal happiness. There is no price on that.

I, too, could attach an arbitrary formula to a concept. However, I won't, because it is meaningless.

Suicide ganking is not a risk because there is no chance of failure. Once you decide to suicide gank you are guaranteed what you are after.

Suicide ganker loses a couple of mil, miner loses several hundred mil, suicide ganker gains a few dozen 'fun and happiness' units.
This process is a complete certainty.

Don't beat around the bush. Do you agree that suicide ganking has unbalanced risk vs reward?
What is the price on fun?
Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#77 - 2012-04-14 01:40:02 UTC
If I troll the forums and might not get any bites, am I taking a risk?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#78 - 2012-04-14 01:41:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
DarkAegix wrote:
Since when is risk = reward * probability ?
Since ages ago (well… 1960s or so, when a need arose to be able to quantify potential damages from disasters).

Quote:
Suicide ganking is not a risk because there is no chance of failure. Once you decide to suicide gank you are guaranteed what you are after.
…except that there is indeed a chance of failure. Your fun units may not appear for any number of reasons (no target, no kill, no tears, etc). Yes, it's easier to mitigate the risk when the reward is intangible, but the risk is still there. If the reward is in terms of ISK or assets, the risks quickly increase.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#79 - 2012-04-14 01:49:49 UTC
So what I'm hearing is that CCP should change the way that CONCORD works so that there is a 1% chance that they don't kill gankers.
Ganking now has risk: everyone is happy!

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2012-04-14 01:51:29 UTC
When I go to the supermarket to get a gallon of milk I run the risk of having to pay for it.

That's how much sense those of you justifying that cost = risk are making.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.