These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Emergent Contradiction with HulkaWoWagettingboringdon
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#81 - 2012-06-06 09:51:51 UTC
BoSau Hotim wrote:
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:
My indy alt was able to mine in a hulk, unmolested for 6 hours yesterday afternoon and early evening. It was a .5 system.

Get over thus fear of ganking. It happens, but no where near as often as you think. If you gave ganking problems, move to a lesser known location.

Seriously, this isn't that hard to figure out, nor that difficult to deal with.



** I dont believe your answer had anything with the point OP was making...


OP was bleating for the end of HAG. That post was pointing out that HAG's not actually all that dangerous.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#82 - 2012-06-06 10:27:02 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Malphilos wrote:


Goon 101. Next comes the claim that he never intended to make sense.

Lol


You can be loss averse without being risk averse.


No.

Re-read your compadre's blurb. You risk nothing but loss. It's like saying you can be purple without being a color.


Until you see people self destructing uninsured ships for no reason, it's safe to assume Everybody's loss averse.

While I think he overstated by saying they're unconnected, it's like saying you can't be a [nationality] unless you're human. It's technically true, but it's silly to say in an argument.

Or, to continue your metaphor, like saying you can't be purple if you're not a color when we're talking about the differences between red and blue. It's true, but not relevant.


In other words, you were mistaken.

I'll accept that. I wouldn't hold you accountable to the idiocy of the previous poster, only to the defense of it.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#83 - 2012-06-06 10:34:28 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Malphilos wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Malphilos wrote:


Goon 101. Next comes the claim that he never intended to make sense.

Lol


You can be loss averse without being risk averse.


No.

Re-read your compadre's blurb. You risk nothing but loss. It's like saying you can be purple without being a color.


Until you see people self destructing uninsured ships for no reason, it's safe to assume Everybody's loss averse.

While I think he overstated by saying they're unconnected, it's like saying you can't be a [nationality] unless you're human. It's technically true, but it's silly to say in an argument.

Or, to continue your metaphor, like saying you can't be purple if you're not a color when we're talking about the differences between red and blue. It's true, but not relevant.


In other words, you were mistaken.

I'll accept that. I wouldn't hold you accountable to the idiocy of the previous poster, only to the defense of it.


Context matters. Read what was around that post. Other people were equating them.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
MasterEnt
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2012-06-06 14:36:34 UTC  |  Edited by: MasterEnt
Weaselior wrote:
being loss-averse is assumed in all discussions of risk aversion because without it the entire discussion makes no sense



Im beginning to understand that your relentless misuse of the term "risk-adverse" may just be due to your inability to form dynamic arguments and the need to follow people like Mittens without question or independent thought.

Germany had the same issue in the late 1930's.
I apologize for confusing and antagonizing you, maybe this is over the Goons head.


Im just going to say that Goons and other hi-sec miner focused gankers are REALLY the ones "risk-adversed"
I mean COME ON.. how much risk can you be willing to take if you are attacking NON COMBAT ships LOL...
HAHAHAHAHAH. That is fu@king funny.
Lustralis
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2012-06-06 14:54:24 UTC
Dragon Outlaw wrote:
Maybe its a reflection of what humanity is?


Fascinating. +1 for Advanced Philosophising.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#86 - 2012-06-06 15:13:02 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Context matters. Read what was around that post. Other people were equating them.


Other people being goofy doesn't entitle you to a whole new language.

Risk is the possibility of loss. Aversion to loss is aversion to risk. That's an "equals" sign there.

You want to argue degrees of aversion. Probably a little less satisfying.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#87 - 2012-06-06 18:30:12 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Context matters. Read what was around that post. Other people were equating them.


Other people being goofy doesn't entitle you to a whole new language.

Risk is the possibility of loss. Aversion to loss is aversion to risk. That's an "equals" sign there.

You want to argue degrees of aversion. Probably a little less satisfying.

i suppose miners, being beaten in every way in-game, have decided they'd like to be beaten at basic definitions as well on the forums

your definitions are wrong and they are dumb. you should reread the thread to attempt to learn something from those people who are correct.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Obsidian Dagger
Nitrus Nine
#88 - 2012-06-06 18:38:13 UTC
+1 returning to muds because EvE is not sandboxy enough anymore.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#89 - 2012-06-06 21:45:45 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Context matters. Read what was around that post. Other people were equating them.


Other people being goofy doesn't entitle you to a whole new language.

Risk is the possibility of loss. Aversion to loss is aversion to risk. That's an "equals" sign there.

You want to argue degrees of aversion. Probably a little less satisfying.


Risk is the possibility of a varied result. Loss is loss.
Aversion to Risk is accepting a result with a lower expected value because it has a lower variance.
Aversion to Loss is avoiding loss where possible.


Risk aversion is investing in T-Bills instead of Stocks.
Loss aversion is not setting stacks of money on fire.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#90 - 2012-06-06 22:48:57 UTC
I'm sorry, but I got to laugh at all these so called "risk aversed miner" claims. 8000 hulks killed in 1 month. Hardly what I'd call risk averse. The ganker is a different story though. All the ganker risks, is if he fails the gank or not. If he does his homework first even that doesn't become a risk.

There are miners out there now in their hulks. So you saying that miners are risk averse is way of the mark. I cannot begin to tell you how much I am laughing at you, the way you think miners are. The dedicated Hulk pilot, has more ball's than anyone else in this game. He knows he is a target, for every "1337 PvP" scrub out there, but still he mines, and solo at times too.

Please give me more "miners are risk averse" especially when your "pets" are the most risk averse in the game. So I can carryon laughing at you.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#91 - 2012-06-06 22:58:33 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
malcovas Henderson wrote:
I'm sorry, but I got to laugh at all these so called "risk aversed miner" claims. 8000 hulks killed in 1 month. Hardly what I'd call risk averse. The ganker is a different story though. All the ganker risks, is if he fails the gank or not. If he does his homework first even that doesn't become a risk.

There are miners out there now in their hulks. So you saying that miners are risk averse is way of the mark. I cannot begin to tell you how much I am laughing at you, the way you think miners are. The dedicated Hulk pilot, has more ball's than anyone else in this game. He knows he is a target, for every "1337 PvP" scrub out there, but still he mines, and solo at times too.

Please give me more "miners are risk averse" especially when your "pets" are the most risk averse in the game. So I can carryon laughing at you.


40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).

Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#92 - 2012-06-06 23:31:01 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).

Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that.


Lol. Listen to yourself. Miners are still mining. That blows your "miners are risk averse" arguement out of existance. Period. You could argue that "Some miners WERE risk averse". The drop in actual mining commodities could also be attributed to all sorts of things. D3. Only 1 Hulk, cant afford another, so mission instead. Rage quit. not only risk aversion. Although I am not saying HAG wasn't the major reason. You could argue that it is only sensible to do something safer, while Hulks are at risk.

You think the Hulk Ganker does Ganking for profit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And they say Mining is poor profit. You cannot make a profit using a Nado on a hulk, and you be lucky making a profit Using 2 dessies. Please please, don't ever use that as an arguement for "risk". The Hulk ganker, does what he does because the Goons have deemed it FOTM.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#93 - 2012-06-06 23:44:08 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).

Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that.


Lol. Listen to yourself. Miners are still mining. That blows your "miners are risk averse" arguement out of existance. Period. You could argue that "Some miners WERE risk averse". The drop in actual mining commodities could also be attributed to all sorts of things. D3. Only 1 Hulk, cant afford another, so mission instead. Rage quit. not only risk aversion. Although I am not saying HAG wasn't the major reason. You could argue that it is only sensible to do something safer, while Hulks are at risk.

You think the Hulk Ganker does Ganking for profit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And they say Mining is poor profit. You cannot make a profit using a Nado on a hulk, and you be lucky making a profit Using 2 dessies. Please please, don't ever use that as an arguement for "risk". The Hulk ganker, does what he does because the Goons have deemed it FOTM.


Those are the week before HAG to week after HAG began numbers. At the time I think there were 1k exhumer kills or so. All the other reasons for miners stopping mining are examples of people leaving the market due to their aversion to risk.

But then, individual exceptions aren't relevant. A 40% decrease in mining (in spite of the newly increased income) for a small chance of being ganked (even smaller of actually getting ganked before making a profit) is an irrational overreaction.

Ganking untanked Hulks is profitable. 2 Cats at 5m each for 10m loot avg, 10m salvage avg, and 10m bounty. That's called profitability.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#94 - 2012-06-07 00:07:49 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


Those are the week before HAG to week after HAG began numbers. At the time I think there were 1k exhumer kills or so. All the other reasons for miners stopping mining are examples of people leaving the market due to their aversion to risk.

But then, individual exceptions aren't relevant. A 40% decrease in mining (in spite of the newly increased income) for a small chance of being ganked (even smaller of actually getting ganked before making a profit) is an irrational overreaction.


You still don't get it. Miners are still mining. How can they be "Risk aversed".

RubyPorto wrote:
Ganking untanked Hulks is profitable. 2 Cats at 5m each for 10m loot avg, 10m salvage avg, and 10m bounty. That's called profitability.



That bounty only comes into play when you have killed 10 Hulks, and TBH not guarenteed.

You telling me, these are the guys that ridicule the Miners income, when their income is lower? and they do this for profit?. They only Gank hulks, because the Goons have said it is cool to gank them. If they where doing it for profit, they would be Ganking haulers. Come on. you can do better than that.
EVE Roy Mustang
Doomheim
#95 - 2012-06-07 00:07:56 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).

Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that.


Lol. Listen to yourself. Miners are still mining. That blows your "miners are risk averse" arguement out of existance. Period. You could argue that "Some miners WERE risk averse". The drop in actual mining commodities could also be attributed to all sorts of things. D3. Only 1 Hulk, cant afford another, so mission instead. Rage quit. not only risk aversion. Although I am not saying HAG wasn't the major reason. You could argue that it is only sensible to do something safer, while Hulks are at risk.

You think the Hulk Ganker does Ganking for profit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And they say Mining is poor profit. You cannot make a profit using a Nado on a hulk, and you be lucky making a profit Using 2 dessies. Please please, don't ever use that as an arguement for "risk". The Hulk ganker, does what he does because the Goons have deemed it FOTM.


Yeah, even Goons are mining lol
David Cedarbridge
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2012-06-07 01:15:36 UTC
Dimitryy wrote:

Remember, your enterprise is effecting the market, lowering prices, competing with others. YOU are effecting people, and it is only fair that others should effect you right back.

I think the word you're looking for is "affecting." Effecting people and markets is generally beyond the general scope.
David Cedarbridge
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2012-06-07 01:17:15 UTC
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).

Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that.


Lol. Listen to yourself. Miners are still mining. That blows your "miners are risk averse" arguement out of existance. Period. You could argue that "Some miners WERE risk averse". The drop in actual mining commodities could also be attributed to all sorts of things. D3. Only 1 Hulk, cant afford another, so mission instead. Rage quit. not only risk aversion. Although I am not saying HAG wasn't the major reason. You could argue that it is only sensible to do something safer, while Hulks are at risk.

You think the Hulk Ganker does Ganking for profit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And they say Mining is poor profit. You cannot make a profit using a Nado on a hulk, and you be lucky making a profit Using 2 dessies. Please please, don't ever use that as an arguement for "risk". The Hulk ganker, does what he does because the Goons have deemed it FOTM.


Yeah, even Goons are mining lol

The difference is, those Goons who mine take enough of the basic precautions to avoid dying in stupid ways. These basic precautions don't involve docking up and whining on the forums about it.
Eyezpiddydafooh
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2012-06-07 02:05:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Eyezpiddydafooh
David Cedarbridge wrote:
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).

Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that.


Lol. Listen to yourself. Miners are still mining. That blows your "miners are risk averse" arguement out of existance. Period. You could argue that "Some miners WERE risk averse". The drop in actual mining commodities could also be attributed to all sorts of things. D3. Only 1 Hulk, cant afford another, so mission instead. Rage quit. not only risk aversion. Although I am not saying HAG wasn't the major reason. You could argue that it is only sensible to do something safer, while Hulks are at risk.

You think the Hulk Ganker does Ganking for profit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And they say Mining is poor profit. You cannot make a profit using a Nado on a hulk, and you be lucky making a profit Using 2 dessies. Please please, don't ever use that as an arguement for "risk". The Hulk ganker, does what he does because the Goons have deemed it FOTM.


Yeah, even Goons are mining lol

The difference is, those Goons who mine take enough of the basic precautions to avoid dying in stupid ways. These basic precautions don't involve docking up and whining on the forums about it.





Oh that is just awesome. A Goon saying their miners take "precautions". Yeah, they risk avert by mining in Goon owned systems. What a ball of irony this guy is. Goon miners are totally risk aversed compared to high sec. No wonder the Goons find people like this guy so easy.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#99 - 2012-06-07 02:43:37 UTC
David Cedarbridge wrote:

The difference is, those Goons who mine take enough of the basic precautions to avoid dying in stupid ways. These basic precautions don't involve docking up and whining on the forums about it.



Even you cannot be dumb enough to compare Hi sec to Null sec. Unless you are stating that Goons are actually Mining in Highsec.

I do not see 8000 miners complaining on these Forums. Linky please.


RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#100 - 2012-06-07 02:56:25 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


Those are the week before HAG to week after HAG began numbers. At the time I think there were 1k exhumer kills or so. All the other reasons for miners stopping mining are examples of people leaving the market due to their aversion to risk.

But then, individual exceptions aren't relevant. A 40% decrease in mining (in spite of the newly increased income) for a small chance of being ganked (even smaller of actually getting ganked before making a profit) is an irrational overreaction.


You still don't get it. Miners are still mining. How can they be "Risk aversed".


Never said EVERY SINGLE ONE of them are. But 40% of Miners have stopped. That's kind of a lot of miners who have stopped due to a small increase in risk. I d

Quote:

RubyPorto wrote:
Ganking untanked Hulks is profitable. 2 Cats at 5m each for 10m loot avg, 10m salvage avg, and 10m bounty. That's called profitability.



That bounty only comes into play when you have killed 10 Hulks, and TBH not guarenteed.

You telling me, these are the guys that ridicule the Miners income, when their income is lower? and they do this for profit?. They only Gank hulks, because the Goons have said it is cool to gank them. If they where doing it for profit, they would be Ganking haulers. Come on. you can do better than that.


They would do it less if it was running at a loss (proof in the tanked Hulks who are mostly overlooked). Therefore profit is a motivator.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon