EVE General Discussion

Consider how suicide ganking impacts on the balance of power in EVE, in the most basic sense - ISK.

Suicide ganker loses something like 10mil.
Miner loses something like 100mil.

And in addition:
Suicide ganker gains fun.
Miner loses some fun.


For the price of 10 mil, the suicide ganker (With no difficulty or skill) strikes an extremely disproportionate punch ISK-wise. Furthermore, they even gain some priceless fun.

What is certain is that the amount of fun gained is too high given the ISK cost. It's time to either reduce the fun gained, increase the cost to the ganker, or reduce the cost to the miner.

The balance of 'fun vs ISK cost' is not self-balancing, and so suicide-ganking is overly lucrative given the rewards offered.

CCP agree, and are making changes, so there's no point arguing otherwise.

Don't forget the possibility that someone might run into the store with a bomb strapped to their chest and blow you up. Afterwards of course the bomber's alts will walk into the store pick up the milk you just bought. Oh wait no, that only happens in EVE.

The only risks that a suicide ganker takes are that they fail to pop the target, the loot doesn't drop or the target doesn't cry, the ship loss is not a risk it's a guaranteed outcome and is simply the cost of doing business, it's the same as office rental, a cost that can't be avoided without exploiting the system or choosing not to do business in that fashion.

If gankers don't like the cost of doing business, they should choose a less aggressive profession. Miners & haulers accept that there is a risk of getting ganked, usually to amuse those who find it funny to shoot up defenceless ships, and the sensible ones will factor that into the cost of doing business. I haul and trade on an alt, I factor in the risk of being ganked into my costs and price my goods on the market accordingly, if in fact I do get ganked and lose a load it makes a dent in my wallet but doesn't take long to make back up out of my profit margins. Though TBH I never carry enough to make it worthwhile ganking me.

Again, I don't. I am simply compounding your risks and adhering to your exact description of the probabilities.

In your scenario:

Risk of paying = $lots × 100% (because they have shoplifting-proof milk).
Risk of having milk = -$lots × 100% (because they have very good milk QA and you get exactly what you're paying for).

The milk risk is -1 because it's a “negative cost”, aka a gain — you gain $lots worth of milk.

Total risk = $lots - $lots = 0.

No. It's a risk. It's the cost of the ship multiplied with the likelihood of losing the ship (100%). The value of the risk ends up being the value of the cost of the ship. Just because it's a certainty doesn't mean it's not a risk, and just because the two values end up being the same doesn't mean I'm confusing the two concepts.

Stunning comeback.

So you understand the maths now, then? It's actually very simple and the only issue is the slightly unintuitive edge case of having 100% probability, since it falls somewhat outside how the word is used in everyday speech. I suppose the idea of negative risks might raise an eyebrow at first as well, but that's just a way to decide how you want to signify losses and gains, especially if you want to be able to deal with both at the same time.

At some point you have to call the ISK spent on a Catalyst a cost. At some point you have to have an outcome that you are seeking that leads you to evaluate the risk of a particular course of action. If your desired outcome is "illegally firing upon a neutral target and not losing my ship" then sure, go ahead and start evaluating the "risk" of shooting someone in hisec and declaring that your probability of failure is 100%. But then you are automatically disqualifying yourself from the economics game because economics assumes rational actors.

So I'll agree with you that it is indeed possible to evaluate the "risk" of an activity which has a known certain outcome by plugging those numbers into a formula in the appropriate positions. I look forward to discussing with you the "risk" of purchasing some Quafe from a retailer at the Impetus Holoreel Convention: the list price is 5ISK, so therefore the risk of handing the money to the teller and hoping that I don't get a Quafe is 5ISK, because I know that despite my greatest desire to not receive a Quafe, I will in fact receive a Quafe when I pay for one. Then I can whine on the forums about how paying for Quafe is one of the riskiest professions in EVE Online because no matter what you do, when you pay for a Quafe you always get one. Even your beloved ISO 31000 discusses risk in terms of uncertainty: thus any rational person would realise that discussing the risk of an action with a known outcome is at best intellectual onanism, at worst the ravings of an irrational mind.

Your argument is logical, but not rational.

As for a logical, rational argument, here's an example:

I buy a Hulk. That has a cost (not a risk) of about 400M by current prices.

I head out to an asteroid field and start mining. My expectation is that I'll get home with lots of ore to sell. The probability that this will not happen is, in my estimate, 10% each time I attempt this task. Thus in the long run, I expect my risk to be 40M ISK per trip, and I must optimise my selection of ore in order to earn more than 40M ISK each trip.

I can mitigate the risk by using a cheaper ship such as a Covetor, as long as the probability that I will lose that ship isn't going to cancel out the benefit of using a cheaper ship. I have choices that I can make to change that risk.

That is correct. The desired outcome was "receive bacon". This was uncertain, since the bacon could have evaporated in the ship explosion, or been stolen by a bacon thief.

You cannot include failure to achieve expected income as a risk. What you risk is only what you have paid. The expected income comes in at the Reward stage, where Reward = Expected Income x Probability of Success.

Your scam has a 10% risk of failure, therefore your risk is 1M ISK per attempt. Your expected reward is 400M x 90% = 360M ISK per attempt. Your expected ROI is thus 359M ISK per attempt (or about 3590%). In the long run. You can't risk money you haven't spent. You're starting to sound like a recording industry executive claiming that every lost sale costs them $20k, when each actual sale only makes them $15.

High sec ganking still has risk in the sense that the next target you go after will not be as easy as you thought. You run the risk of a failed gank. I have recently started diving into ganking as a side hobby, but have consistently failed to successfully kill a mining ship.

HAHA. MatrixSkye Mk2 just got schooled because he can't even comprehend, even when its been explained multiple times.

Seriously, acting like losing a ship to Concord isn't 'a risk'...simply because its a guaranteed outcome - is complete nonsense.

Simple mental exercise:
Suppose CCP modified Concord so it only killed the ganker 90% of the time. (which would be awesome, BTW)
It would mean LESS risk for the ganker. Obviously.

But wait! If you are stupid, and believe that merely having 100% chance of being killed by Concord = 'no risk exists'....
well, how can you reduce your risk to less than zero? Or do you think that 'risk' for the ganker somehow 'increases' by simply adding a probability of surviving Concord?

Really, these are simple concepts, and Tippia has spent hours patiently spoon-feeding them for you.
If you STILL don't comprehend them...well, I'm sorry, but there are no drugs that will fix your particular empty-headed condition.