These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#121 - 2012-04-14 12:05:43 UTC
Schalac wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:


You can pretend that 'consuming' your own ship is a 'fixed' cost - but thats wrong because there is a significant 'random' factor there because you are 'rolling the dice' on your OWN costs on each attempt.

....as well as the chance of success
...AND the chances of getting good drops.

Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.


Thats why I gank in T2 Tornados. Blink
EVE Stig
Doomheim
#122 - 2012-04-14 12:25:04 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Schalac wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:


You can pretend that 'consuming' your own ship is a 'fixed' cost - but thats wrong because there is a significant 'random' factor there because you are 'rolling the dice' on your OWN costs on each attempt.

....as well as the chance of success
...AND the chances of getting good drops.

Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.


Thats why I gank in T2 Tornados. Blink


you dont even log Youve said as much, stop trollin

"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"!
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#123 - 2012-04-14 12:42:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
EVE Stig wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Schalac wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:


You can pretend that 'consuming' your own ship is a 'fixed' cost - but thats wrong because there is a significant 'random' factor there because you are 'rolling the dice' on your OWN costs on each attempt.

....as well as the chance of success
...AND the chances of getting good drops.

Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.


Thats why I gank in T2 Tornados. Blink


you dont even log Youve said as much, stop trollin


Thats why I gank(ed) in T2 Tornados, until CCP got nerf happy around April 1. Good opportunity to get some BF3 in until the game rules stabilize. No point in investing time figuring out how things work- when CCP keeps moving the goalposts around every couple days.

Just a short break, though. I herd somewhere there are going to be some explosions in a couple weeks. Wouldn't want to miss that.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#124 - 2012-04-14 12:46:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
If you're suicide ganking in hisec and not losing your gank ship to CONCORD, you're committing an exploit by evading CONCORD.
The clue is in the word suicide


I don't know exact methods you guys use, but I've seen killmails of Tornado solo killing tanked Orcas and freighters in highsec before it gets destroyed by Concord. I've also heard about some stories how you guys use Orca's SMB to avoid losing your ship.

Why you guys just don't do real pvp? For example go 1vs1 against Curse in interceptor. Should be easy Curse kill for leet pvper.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#125 - 2012-04-14 13:47:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
They also forgot to buff exhumers tank when they buffed destroyers to become better at (real) PvP. Would you petition that too?
Of course not. Why would you petition if something that never was intended to happen doesn't happen?

Quote:
Can you stop talking about stuff you have no idea about
Sure. However, in this thread we're talking about risk, which I have a very good idea about — in fact, it's part of how I earn my real-life salary. People calling something a cost of doing business doesn't change the fact that it's a risk. Quite the opposite: all costs of doing business are risks — it's just risks that we see as unavoidable; that require mitigation; and that we should always remember to include in our calculations. Calling it anything else means you're missing out a huge part of the cost-benefit analysis to the point where any such analysis is just plain old wrong.

Again, for the n:th time: a risk is simply the cost of an event multiplied with the probability of it happening. If the probability is 100%, then the risk tends to be very high (as in: equal to the value of your cost). Just because the risk is very high doesn't mean it's not a risk. As Malc pointed out, by your logic, if CONCORD spawned only 99% of the time, gankers would have a higher risk than if it spawned 100% of the time (or, even worse, you're essentially saying that if CONCORD had a 1% chance of spawning, it would be more risky than at a 100% spawn rate). By your logic, a very high risk is not a risk. Put quite bluntly: your logic makes absolutely no sense. I would like to hear you explain how something equally bad occurring more often means it's actually less risky. Just because you're unaccustomed to the proper use of the term doesn't mean I'm using it improperly.

Quote:
The risk is there: 20% of the time the Mackinaw will NOT die (for many factors), that's your RISK.
Close, but not quite. That is indeed one of the risks — it's part of what Mara Rinn talked about earlier: that's one of the factors that influence the risk of not netting enough gain to counter the costs. Those costs however — mainly the loss of the ship — are still a risk in and of itself.

Schalac wrote:
Risk is the "dangers" of any action that you will take.
For instance, when you suicide gank, one of the dangers is the 100% chance that you will lose your ship. The base risk of this action is the cost of your ship. This risk can be mitigated, but it's always there and it's always a risk. Of course losing a ship to CONCORD is a risk factor — it's factor that determines the risks you need to try to reduce to zero, or preferably even reverse into a reward by manipulating the expected costs and gains.

Jorma Morkkis wrote:
I don't know exact methods you guys use, but I've seen killmails of Tornado solo killing tanked Orcas and freighters in highsec before it gets destroyed by Concord. I've also heard about some stories how you guys use Orca's SMB to avoid losing your ship.
…and all of those are generally deemed as exploits and are being shut down at a… ehm… leisurely pace (which could indeed be improved). The whole point about CONCORD is that it is meant to generate a 100% probability of ship loss.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#126 - 2012-04-14 14:00:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
and all of those are generally deemed as exploits and are being shut down at a… ehm… leisurely pace (which could indeed be improved). The whole point about CONCORD is that it is meant to generate a 100% probability of ship loss.


If the only thing you want is losing ships I have a good solution for you:

1) Get a titan
2) Fit it with civilian modules
3) Go to hostile space
4) ???
5) Profit!
Elsa Nietchize
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#127 - 2012-04-14 15:09:34 UTC
ganker tears are best tears
Vito Antonio
Doomheim
#128 - 2012-04-14 15:15:01 UTC
It's called a stealth nerf, not a shadow nerf!
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#129 - 2012-04-14 15:54:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Tippia wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
They also forgot to buff exhumers tank when they buffed destroyers to become better at (real) PvP. Would you petition that too?
Of course not. Why would you petition if something that never was intended to happen doesn't happen?


How do you know? There's examples of half done CCP implementations that were "forgotten" for years. Pax Amarria still capping Nocx anyone? Then one day minerals markets pressure happened and they changed it.


Tippia wrote:

Quote:
Can you stop talking about stuff you have no idea about
Sure. However, in this thread we're talking about risk, which I have a very good idea about — in fact, it's part of how I earn my real-life salary. People calling something a cost of doing business doesn't change the fact that it's a risk. Quite the opposite: all costs of doing business are risks — it's just risks that we see as unavoidable; that require mitigation; and that we should always remember to include in our calculations. Calling it anything else means you're missing out a huge part of the cost-benefit analysis to the point where any such analysis is just plain old wrong.


I have lived for decades with "certified" people including with degrees who still were totally clueless, I don't care what you do for a living.
I trade securities in RL, I LIVE risk every day and one mistake = I can lose a lifetime of work.

I also don't care about your textbook schooling and apparently so do most in the thread, everyone can discern what is real risk from real cost.

You ALWAYS lose the ship. It's a risk = 100%? Maybe in your textbook, but everybody knows that it's a commoditized risk, that is a fixed or variable cost of operating a business.

Those who own the facility doing car crash tests, are they risking 100% when a car crashes against a concrete wall?
Do those who give them the cars to crash risk 100%?

Call it as you wish, if your little texbook says it's a risk then enjoy the scholarship.

For everybody else it's a cost. The cost is 100%, the outcome (total ship loss) is certain.

The risk is in the many ways the cost can be wasted: getting a target not to pop, getting a ninja steal the loot and / or salvage, getting podded and losing the implants. Those are some of a range of risks.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Gorki Andropov
I Dn't Knw Wht You Wnt Bt I Cn't Gve It Anymre
#130 - 2012-04-14 16:13:24 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
Zverofaust wrote:
So the certainty of losing your ship once you aggress is not a risk? What is wrong with you people?


If you attempt to do something *knowing* the outcome is the loss of your ship how could you consider that risk? (See Ganking A$$HAT)


Allow me to point out how stupid and hypocritical you are in carebear terms.

When you invent something: What happens?
-You destroy a BPC, a number of datacores, and a decryptor.
-You lose those items 100% of the time, you don't get them back.
-You may, or may not get back a T2 BPC, based on a random number generator.
The inventor is taking a risk. And nobody disputes that.


Suicide ganker: What happens?
-You gank with a Tornado or a Catalyst.
-You lose it 100% of the time, you don't get it back.
-You may, or may not kill your target. (based on target tank, ganker skill and gunnery random number generation)
-You may, or may not get good drops. (again, random number generated)

Somehow, according to carebears, the ganker is not taking a risk.

Why is inventing a risk, while suicide ganking is not?
Simple, the 'ganker is bad' and carebears don't even want to concede that the ganker is risking something.
Because that admission would contradict other carebear arguments for removing suicide ganking from the game entirely. (on the grounds that it is unbalanced because there is 'no risk')

Nonsense, but thats what is going on their heads.








I love how someone from TEARS of all places is going around wailing 'Carebears, oh carebears, I hate your gameplay style so, it maddens me to no end'.
Bluddwolf
Heimatar Military Industries
#131 - 2012-04-14 16:14:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nub Sauce wrote:
Are you saying an unintended, exploitable, game mechanic was fixed?

If so, how dare they?!
No, he's saying that a fix to an exploit had unintended consequences.

The fix was to keep ships from warping off; what is apparently happening is that it keeps ships from shooting.


I recall the period that you could continue shooting was so short, that being instantly jammed (once CONCORD arrives) is not a big issue.

Suicide Gankers will just have to use multiple ships or rig and fit their ships so that they can one-shot their targets; then immediately eject to pod (hopfully preventing CONCORD from popping their ship).

Or, if they can't find a way, they could just leave HiSec for PVE and War Dec PVP as CCP intended, and go out to low sec and 0.0 for all the pvp they want.

EVE Online Fan ... Looking for "End Game" since 2006 ... Happily, I still havn't found it
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#132 - 2012-04-14 16:16:23 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
How do you know?
Because they have been quite clear about it whenever they do balance passes on ships, and they've also been quite clear about barges not being the ones to be the first ones out in the upcoming pass.

Quote:
everyone can discern what is real risk from real cost.
Yes, and that's exactly what I'm doing here. Are you really going to go down that road too? I've done this three times already in the thread. I'm not confusing risk and cost. I'm using the cost to calculate the risk. Since the probability is 100%, the value of the risk will turn out to be the value of the cost. Just because the two have the same value doesn't mean they are the same concept. Just because you can tell the concepts apart doesn't mean you can always tell the values apart.

Quote:
You ALWAYS lose the ship. It's a risk = 100%?
No. 100% is the probability of incurring the cost. The risk is the probability multiplied with the cost. Thus, for suicide ganks, the risk in question is equal to the value of the ship, since you multiply that value by one to get the risk. So the risk would probably be somewhere along the lines of 5M ISK before you include expected returns. The risk will not be 100% because that doesn't make any sense — then you're saying that your cost has no unit, so what on earth are you wagering at that point?

Quote:
Maybe in your textbook, but everybody knows that it's a commoditized risk, that is a fixed or variable cost of operating a business.
Exactly. It's a risk. That's why the whole risk concept was invented: so you could calculate all of those “costs of doing business” whether they were 100% certain or not. Your nuclear plant blowing up, killing millions and starting a war with the neighbouring nation as your fall-out decimates their crops is a cost of doing business. That cost may only be $2.50, because of the insanely low probability, but it's a cost of doing business nevertheless, just like the cost of supplying the staff with toilet paper. Risk lets us calculate all of those costs, from the most improbable ones to the ones that are an absolute certainty (assuming, of course, that we can imagine the implausible and give it a good value).

Ignoring risks just because they are certain is very bad for your business because it leaves out things you actually really need to care about…

Quote:
For everybody else it's a cost. The cost is 100%, the outcome is certain.
No. The cost is whatever the cost is. The probability is 100%. Multiply the two together and you get the risk. You're confusing the concepts and values a whole lot here. If everyone treats it as not-a-risk just because it has a 100% chance of occurring, then those everyone will end up with incorrect risk analyses since they forget to include a pretty significant factor.

The ganker risks his ship at 100% of the cost of the ship. He may also risk a couple of modules at a much lower percentage, and he may risk a set of negative costs to counteract that initial risk and thus turn the whole thing into a venture with a predicted nice windfall (ok, so that part is a bit screwy — the whole point of windfalls is that they're not predicable, but still, you get the point).
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#133 - 2012-04-14 16:21:00 UTC
Bluddwolf wrote:
I recall the period that you could continue shooting was so short, that being instantly jammed (once CONCORD arrives) is not a big issue.
That period is supposed to vary with the system security rating, and it's not being touched by the crimewatch revamps. If anything, it's being made more consistent. The worry in the OP was that they had accidentally broken that mechanic, but now testing seems to show that it's still intact — you still get the intended period of trying to get the kill — and that it's probably only a matter of the OP being inattentive to CONCORD already being on the spot that caused the apparent “bug”.

Quote:
Or, if they can't find a way, they could just leave HiSec for PVE and War Dec PVP as CCP intended
Good thing, then, that CCP never intended it to be that way…

…that's why they're leaving the kill window intact even with the new changes in place.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#134 - 2012-04-14 16:25:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Text


If you are in low sec or wardec and shoot a 3M cost projectile to an exhumer and pop it, do you say that risk is 100%?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Serene Repose
#135 - 2012-04-14 16:28:38 UTC
Zverofaust wrote:
People, I said Jam, not scram, not damp, not whatever else. Jamming means literally only one thing. They instantly ECM jam you the moment they appear on grid.

It's not mechanical. Their presence so awes your crew all they can do is stare till they drool.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#136 - 2012-04-14 16:32:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
If you are in low sec or wardec and shoot a 3M cost projectile to an exhumer and pop it, do you say that risk is 100%?
No. I would say that the risk is 3M ISK.

Nitpicking aside, yes, even at a 100% chance of it being expended, it's a risk, especially when looking at the total, since the return for that investment is quite random and might not fully live up to what I expected from that projectile.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#137 - 2012-04-14 16:32:36 UTC
Flying around in a pod if you have expensive implants or you forgot to upgrade your clone is a risk. Doing missions in 2 bil Tengu if you have unstable internet connection is a risk. Jumping to lowsec in freighter full of deadspace modules is a risk.
Just a few risks you can take in EVE. There is a lot more.

Certain loss of ship isn't a risk.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#138 - 2012-04-14 16:34:25 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Certain loss of ship isn't a risk.
Of course it is. You're confusing the word “risk” with the word “uncertainty”. The two are not the same.
Nephilius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#139 - 2012-04-14 16:35:08 UTC
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].

If the risk is zero, it's because the cost is zero, and that can only really happen if the gank is 100% certain to return more ISK than was spent on it… and that certainty isn't 100% simply because the drop mechanics won't let it.



Anyway, as mentioned: it's a bug. Report it as such.


The definition of Risk:

risk   

noun
1. exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance: It's not worth the risk.
2. Insurance .
a. the hazard or chance of loss.
b. the degree of probability of such loss.
c. the amount that the insurance company may lose.
d. a person or thing with reference to the hazard involved in insuring him, her, or it.
e. the type of loss, as life, fire, marine disaster, or earthquake, against which an insurance policy is drawn.

verb (used with object)
3. to expose to the chance of injury or loss; hazard: to risk one's life.
4. to venture upon; take or run the chance of: to risk a fall in climbing; to risk a war.

Risk is not about money. Even in the definition when referring to insurance, the words chance, probability, and may are the key points there. When you suicide gank, the chance and probability are 100%. There is no may. Of course, by embarking on such a venture, you prematurely know that you will lose what you have invested in your ship, thus negating any actual risk and turning it into acceptable losses. If you don't want to risk your ship on such a venture, it becomes unacceptable losses, and you do not embark on the venture.

Besides, anyone with any degree of honesty knows that the vast majority of ganks are against ships that have little to no chance of defending against the attack. In terms of a ship carrying high dollar goods, the only risk taken by the aggressor is whether or not aforementioned goods will be destroyed or not. Sometimes, the reward far outweighs the risk.

So maybe it's high time that the risk equal the reward.
"If."
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#140 - 2012-04-14 16:43:30 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Tippia wrote:

Text


If you are in low sec or wardec and shoot a 3M cost projectile to an exhumer and pop it, do you say that risk is 100%?


You are a ganker, flying a 15M ISK Catalyst.
The simple nature of drop mechanics means that your costs are highly variable - (anywhere from 1 Million to 15M) - isn't that a 'risk', even by your flawed definition?

And further, its a risk that is simply left to a random number generator and cannot be predicted or modified in any way until the act is complete? I mean, you are literally just throwing dice here.