EVE General Discussion

Seems like instead of effort, it would involve a whole lot of waiting for gankers to autopilot around highsec with billions in their cargo hold? While you were waiting for that, you'd probably get bored and just gank a freighter with billions in the hold...hm, maybe that's where gankers came from in the first place. chicken and the egg dilemma.


Oh, you meant gank the gankers at a loss...that's not really exactly the same thing, is it? Just a similar but much worse thing. The OP should definitely have just said "Just become a ganker yourself if you think it's OP", much better argument.

Of course I can't unconcede. I have to concede first, which is very hard since you provided the evidence you wanted.

At any rate, the fact remains: risk = probability × cost, and probability lies in the [0,1] span. Moreover, risk = 0 are occasionally risks worth calculating and including since they may have an impact on other risks. Same goes for 100%-probability risks, for much the same reason.

So what have you won so far seeing as how all of that remains undisputed?

No. I'm saying that before you can ‘unconcede’ you have to concede. Not having done the latter, I can't do the former.

Meanwhile, the fact remains: risk = probability × cost, and probability lies in the [0,1] span. Moreover, risk = 0 are occasionally risks worth calculating and including since they may have an impact on other risks. Same goes for 100%-probability risks, for much the same reason.

So yes, gankers losing their ships is indeed a risk — one of many they have to deal with.

Hey, if it's not profitable to gank them, that's because they didn't make themselves a profitable target to gank. Also something which anyone is capable of doing.
The "just do it yourself if you think it's overpowered" argument, though not a good one, is often a measure of how overpowered something really is. If ganking really was overpowered and risk-free, then everyone would be ganking the gankers. But they're not. It isn't even that hard to do, but you'd have to stop running level 4 missions and mining for a couple of hours.

It's pretty common — in fact, it happens every time a troll fails to respond with argumentation and instead have to rely on ad hominems, straw men and red herrings: keep repeating the core claim or question to see if they manage to actually respond to it rather than go off on a tangent. The result is the same as always: you failed.

So it seems we once again have come to road's end: the nature of risks has (unsurprisingly) not been disproved and no amount of dodging this issue will change it.

Risk = probability × cost, and it holds true even in the trivial cases where the probability is 0 or 1 (cases that might still be worth exploring for various reasons).

…and in doing so, they have risks, contrary to the persistent cries that theirs is a totally risk-free existence. It's neither meaningless or semantic BS, and it certainly isn't a side-point. It's just the fact at the heart of the matter. Just because this simple fact about risks disturbs people and ruins their argument doesn't make it false or off-topic.

So yes, gankers losing their ships is indeed a risk — one of many they have to deal with.

…and that is one of the risks the gankers have to face.

…that the simple facts of risks — that they are probability × cost, and that they don't necessarily go away just because you have the trivial cases of p=1 or p=0 — remain unchallenged.

You apparently need to be educated on the finer points of the English language...

risk (rsk)

The possibility of suffering harm or loss; danger.

---

If you are assured of losing something (which you are if you gank in hi sec), it is no longer a risk, its guaranteed. A risk is something that might happen, may even be likely to happen.. but its not guaranteed to happen. CONCORD killing gankers *is* guaranteed to happen.

This is really a matter of scale. A frieghter can carry so much in value before it becomes a gankable target. As EVE runs longer in the time line more players end up with more wealth. At some point frieghters end up carrying more and more wealth simply because it takes too many trips to haul all of that which needs to be moved. It is a function of the longevity of EVE.

In the early days nobody had the wealth to stress a frieghters capacity. The carrying capacity of ships in eve has not grown with the game. Although some changes have been made like jump ships to make traveling easier over long distances.

So in the end a cap to frieghters acts as a max limit to wealth. As players over load the wealth and these frieghters get ganked EVE losses wealth as it drains away. Maybe that is a good thing for EVE. In the end the game design is in the hands of CCP.

Do we see these ships grow with eve or not? Time will tell.

Tippia has a great way of teasing the "Argumentum ad I'm a Dumbass" out of people. (Why couldn't there be an elegant Latin way of saying it?)

Saying what?