These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#141 - 2012-04-14 16:49:23 UTC
Nephilius wrote:
Risk is not about money.
Not necessarily, no. It's about the chance of incurring a cost. Whether that cost is in money or goods or good-will or anything else is quite besides the point. Hell, the cost doesn't even have to be an actual cost — it could be a gain (negative cost), and the whole thing still works the same. Your risk calculation could be about you being absolutely certain that the sun will rise in the morning, but it's still a risk calculation… albeit a very trivial, and slightly odd one.

Quote:
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.
…and even without the “may”, the risk is still there, because you still have the chance and probability of a loss — it's just that they are unreasonably high, so you're not likely to be allowed to insure whatever you're trying to insure.

Quote:
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.
Of course not — that's how you turn the risk of being certain to lose your ship into something that might instead turn a profit: by reducing the chance of your return coming up as lower than the investment you're risking. No-one is arguing that you can't make a profit, just that you have to include the risk of ship loss in that calculation of the expected outcome to see if it's worth it.

The calculation is the same regardless of whether you do it to a wartarget or jump some unsuspecting schmuck on gate in lowsec or if you alpha him on the Jita 4-4 undock: each case offers a different probability of you losing your ship in the process and of picking up enough goods to make up for that loss.

Quote:
So maybe it's high time that the risk equal the reward.
Maybe, but that's a different discussion altogether.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#142 - 2012-04-14 16:53:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Herr Wilkus wrote:

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?


No, because I have signed off 15M, not 1 to 15M. If I feel to pour in more :effort: I can calculate the average (close to 50%) of mods being dropped minus the hull cost. Pre-scanning the target also helps at selecting worthwhile opportunities vs bad ones.


Tippia wrote:

Nitpicking aside


Pot met kettle?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#143 - 2012-04-14 17:03:24 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Aruken Marr wrote:


So the certainty of losing your ship once you aggress is not a risk? What is wrong with you people?


Losing your ship is a business cost when you're a suicide ganker, you undock with the sole intent of ruining someone's day and in the full knowledge that you are going to lose your ship, that is not a risk.


If losing your ship ruins your day may I suggest the merry-go-round in your friendly neighborhood play park = less risk and deservedly requires, nay, demands you quit Eve and go spin on it instead.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#144 - 2012-04-14 17:04:06 UTC
Tippa, can I get some of that stuff you're smoking? Must be good stuff.

By your definition for example investment risks aren't actual risks.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2012-04-14 17:05:54 UTC
This is ridiculous.

Tippia,

Quantum Mechanics acknowledges the (very statistically low) probability that you may at any moment turn into a tomato. Do you take that into account when you shop for vegetables at the supermarket?

You need to stop arguing semantics and use common sense. Lay off that textbook or at the very least, use it when it's appropriate to use it. I don't bring out my quantum mechanics book when accounting for a monthly tomato budget. And I don't fix my clock every day to account for the fact that there aren't exactly 24 hours in a day.

Or, if you insist in calling the inevitable loss of a suicide gank ship a "risk" instead of a cost, then fine. But you're better off arguing that a risk to suicide is a failed attempt or even loot loss. Those are, at least more practical and tangible.

Just sayin.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#146 - 2012-04-14 17:16:48 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
By your definition for example investment risks aren't actual risks.
Really? Care to explain why?

MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
You need to stop arguing semantics and use common sense. Lay off that textbook or at the very least, use it when it's appropriate to use it.
Ok. This is a very appropriate point to use it: we want to know what risks a ganker faces. So let's start with the glaringly obvious one, that he has to risk his ship in order to have any chance of getting the desired outcome. We can then go into the really interesting part and try to figure out what other risks there are (module losses, risks incurred by sec losses, risk of vindictiveness etc) and what the projected gains might be (which, as mentioned, are also risk calculations, but with a different sign in front of the cost).

Quote:
Or, if you insist in calling the inevitable loss of a suicide gank ship a "risk" instead of a cost, then fine. But you're better off arguing that a risk to suicide is a failed attempt or even loot loss. Those are, at least more practical and tangible.
Those are some of the other risks, yes, and as mentioned, they fall into the “interesting” category. That doesn't mean that we should forget the initial risk — that thing that means we actually have to care about all that interesting stuff since we have a huge risk that needs to be mitigated to begin with.

My entire point really comes down to that: just because the ship loss is a trivial case (trivial as in “we can trivially calculate its probability and cost”, not necessarily as in “it's so small it doesn't matter”) doesn't mean we shouldn't include it in our calculation of the risks.

If we start to ignore that trivially calculated risk, then we suddenly have to ignore a number of risks on the receiving end as well, and that would be just as silly (as in, “no, you losing your 300M Hulk to a 5-man gank is not a risk”).
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#147 - 2012-04-14 17:22:59 UTC
Tippia wrote:
risk of vindictiveness

Tippia, you know a miner or Tengu pilot would never actually try to fight back, right? That's not a risk the suicide ganker takes.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#148 - 2012-04-14 17:26:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
By your definition for example investment risks aren't actual risks.
Really? Care to explain why?


It's you who say those aren't actual risks. Why would I have to explain it?
Hatt0ri Hanz0
Life sucks then you die Ltd.
#149 - 2012-04-14 17:30:39 UTC
Aruken Marr wrote:
Aranakas wrote:
Zverofaust wrote:
So apparently yesterday's patch introduced a secret shadow feature change, as CONCORD police will now insta-jam the moment they show up on grid.


About time this change was made. Suicide ganking as a profession is too risk-free for the ganker and harmful to the target.


So the certainty of losing your ship once you aggress is not a risk? What is wrong with you people?


No that's not risk at all, because you know 100% that it will happen, so you can choose the time, means, and method. What's wrong with you?
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#150 - 2012-04-14 17:32:29 UTC
Tippia,

You're attempting to hold on to strings so you can justify suicide ganking as a "risky" profession.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Commander Spurty
#151 - 2012-04-14 17:57:31 UTC
Quote:
definition of risk is the 'effect of uncertainty on objectives'. In this definition, uncertainties include events (which may or not happen) and uncertainties caused by ambiguity or a lack of information. It also includes both negative and positive impacts on objectives



The only risk (uncertaincy) a ganker deals with is the loot that drops. They are doing it for the loot right? Not to E-grief? That would be lame and a waste of play time for all involved

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#152 - 2012-04-14 18:18:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Karl Hobb wrote:
Tippia, you know a miner or Tengu pilot would never actually try to fight back, right? That's not a risk the suicide ganker takes.
I know that the risk is small. It's in the list anyway and is interesting to figure out.

Jorma Morkkis wrote:
It's you who say those aren't actual risks.
Nope. You're the one who's saying that, so I'm asking you: care to explain why they aren't actual risks by the standard definition?

MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tippia, You're attempting to hold on to strings so you can justify suicide ganking as a "risky" profession.
Nope. I'm holding on to a well-established, long-used, and very solid definition of risk to generate a list of the risks a ganker might face. The actual riskiness of the profession is left unanswered, but the simple fact that it's not risk-free is enough of a start, since that's such a common and such a silly claim.

Spurty wrote:
The only risk (uncertaincy)
No. I'm going to have to cut you off right there. Risk is not the same thing as uncertainty. Risk is an attempt to quantify how probabilities affect costs (and gains).
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#153 - 2012-04-14 18:32:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nope. You're the one who's saying that, so I'm asking you: care to explain why they aren't actual risks by the standard definition?


I have never said buying stocks or other investments aren't risks.

For you risk always includes 100% loss of investment. That's the difference between your world and real world.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#154 - 2012-04-14 18:37:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
For you risk always includes 100% loss of investment. That's the difference between your world and real world.
Ok, then you should probably go back to the post that gave you that impression (and please provide a link so I can see if I can make it clearer), because that's not what I said.

I said that, like all investments, the losing your ship in a suicide gank is a risk, even though you're looking at a 100% probability of initial loss when you're doing that. I'm not saying that all investments are like that — I'm saying that this particular investment is like that.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#155 - 2012-04-14 18:43:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
I said that, like all investments, the losing your ship in a suicide gank is a risk, even though you're looking at a 100% probability of initial loss when you're doing that. I'm not saying that all investments are like that — I'm saying that this particular investment is like that.


Risk =/= Certainty
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#156 - 2012-04-14 18:47:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Risk =/= Certainty
…which no-one is saying.

Risk = probability × cost. If you're certain (probability = 1), then risk = 1× cost. Just because you're certain doesn't mean it's no longer a risk. Instead, it means the risk is at its maximum value.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#157 - 2012-04-14 19:15:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Risk =/= Certainty
…which no-one is saying.

Risk = probability × cost. If you're certain (probability = 1), then risk = 1× cost. Just because you're certain doesn't mean it's no longer a risk. Instead, it means the risk is at its maximum value.


If you lose 100% of your investment and gain something at the same time it's not a risk.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#158 - 2012-04-14 19:21:01 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
If you lose 100% of your investment and gain something at the same time it's not a risk.
Sure it is. See the previous discussion of combined risks and negative costs. How large that risk is, and what sign it ends up having, will depend on the gain it the probabilities of it happening.
Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#159 - 2012-04-14 19:29:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Harrigan VonStudly
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Risk =/= Certainty
…which no-one is saying.

Risk = probability × cost. If you're certain (probability = 1), then risk = 1× cost. Just because you're certain doesn't mean it's no longer a risk. Instead, it means the risk is at its maximum value.


If you lose 100% of your investment and gain something at the same time it's not a risk.



If I risk my entire life savings on the stock market and lose it all. Every penny leaving me flat broke BUT I gained a life lesson; are you saying I did not take a risk because I gained some sort of a life experience?
EVE Stig
Doomheim
#160 - 2012-04-14 19:39:24 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:



Tippia wrote:

Nitpicking aside


Pot met kettle?


yah thats a joke right tippia?

"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"!