These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High sec cargo gank... Whats the hate? Solutions?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#221 - 2012-11-05 12:08:07 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
No idea what you're talking about
Read your own posts, then.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#222 - 2012-11-05 12:08:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
No idea what you're talking about
Read your own posts, then.


Are you trolling me? I never made the claim you're accusing me of making.
Dave Stark
#223 - 2012-11-05 12:11:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Filling a hauling ship up with a massive assortment of low volume, low-ISK, crap items (like dancers and spirits) to minimize the odds that something valuable will drop.


lol

wrong, the chance of drop is still 50%.

You go item for item and roll a dice for each item in hold. For 1-3 no drop, for 4-6 its a drop. So if you roll the dice for a particular item its 50% chance, regardless if there are further 3748 items you will roll the dice for.


So be risky put all 66 billion in one contract on the frieghter. And that is all that is on the frieghter. 50% chance it drops or nothing drops.

Now for the guy that claims he will only attack a frieghter when he can profit. Will he take a 50% chance to come away with nothing at all and ruin his streak or is the 66 billion in that one contract enough for him to take the chance and gank it.
Then if nothing droped would he admit it, that he lost isk on that gank? We already know for a fact that if the 66 billion does drop it will make the kill mail list.


yes he would.

the expected cargo pay out would be the total value of the cargo multiplied by the drop chance. as per the statistical formula for calculating the expected value, expected value = sum(probability * value). that puts the freighter at an expected 33bn isk pay out.

hence if he ganks enough freighters, he will always be "winning".

edit to correct a formula i rushed because my lunch was burning...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#224 - 2012-11-05 12:12:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
I never made the claim you're accusing me of making.
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
sounds like we can ditch the technical definition of risk
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Risk probability nonzero, risk value zero, in the formula we know and love.
It's not an accusation. It's a matter of recorded fact.
Like I said, read your own posts.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#225 - 2012-11-05 12:13:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
I never made the claim you're accusing me of making.
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
sounds like we can ditch the technical definition of risk
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Risk probability nonzero, risk value zero, in the formula we know and love.
It's not an accusation. It's a matter of recorded fact.
Like I said, read your own posts.


Neither of those are 'my' claims. They are me referencing a quoted article. Sorry.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#226 - 2012-11-05 12:13:58 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Risk probability nonzero

risk is already an implied probability of fail. Just saying.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#227 - 2012-11-05 12:15:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Neither of those are 'my' claims.
Yes they are. They are not in the article. You made those claims using the article as a (very shoddy) basis to reach those conclusions (especially funny in the case of the risk value, since your claim on that point is directly contradicted by the stats in the article).
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#228 - 2012-11-05 12:17:30 UTC
You know, I do wonder why people are making such a simple thing so very complicated.

Fools stuff too much into their holds and we take it off them. Thats about as complicated as this needs to get.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#229 - 2012-11-05 12:21:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Neither of those are 'my' claims.
Yes they are. They are not in the article. You made those claims using the article as a (very shoddy) basis to reach those conclusions.


No, although they are paraphrases not direct quotes.

Here, though. let's move beyond boring claims and into real testing and actions.

You pay me 50 billion ISK. I will then "abandon the risk model" personally, in EVE online. I will proceed to act in the game without calculation of risk for 3 weeks, thereby proving that it is possible to do so. If I fail, and accidentally calculate the risk formula, I will return the 50 billion ISK. Seems like a win-win for you, you'll get proof that it's impossible to abandon the risk model, and you'll get 50 billion ISK at the end.

baltec1 wrote:
You know, I do wonder why people are making such a simple thing so very complicated.

Fools stuff too much into their holds and we take it off them. Thats about as complicated as this needs to get.



Well, that's what I thought the gist of power's article was as well, but everyone's jumping down my throat for saying so.
Dave Stark
#230 - 2012-11-05 12:23:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
You know, I do wonder why people are making such a simple thing so very complicated.

Fools stuff too much into their holds and we take it off them. Thats about as complicated as this needs to get.


because for some reason they feel entitled to 0 risk hauling.
Dave Stark
#231 - 2012-11-05 12:24:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Neither of those are 'my' claims.
Yes they are. They are not in the article. You made those claims using the article as a (very shoddy) basis to reach those conclusions.


No, although they are paraphrases not direct quotes.

Here, though. let's move beyond boring claims and into real testing and actions.

You pay me 50 billion ISK. I will then "abandon the risk model" personally, in EVE online. I will proceed to act in the game without calculation of risk for 3 weeks, thereby proving that it is possible to do so. If I fail, and accidentally calculate the risk formula, I will return the 50 billion ISK. Seems like a win-win for you, you'll get proof that it's impossible to abandon the risk model, and you'll get 50 billion ISK at the end.


just because you ignore risk doesn't mean it stops existing.

if that were the case, every time an upset child ignored their parents we'd have another orphan on our hands.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#232 - 2012-11-05 12:25:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
No, although they are paraphrases not direct quotes.
Not even that.
Nothing of the kind is stated in the article. If you think they are, post the full quote you believe you're paraphrasing.

You lean on the article to extract claims that are your guesses and assumptions — no-one else's. It “sounds like” the first (according to you), and it is quite explicitly stated not to be the second… unless you've misunderstood what the risk value actually means.

Why can't you stand by your own claims?

Quote:
Well, that's what I thought the gist of power's article was as well, but everyone's jumping down my throat for saying so.
Who is? It rather sounds like people are jumping down your throat for making shaky (and contradicting) claims supposedly, but not actually, based on what's in the article.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#233 - 2012-11-05 12:25:29 UTC
Dave stark wrote:


because for some reason they feel entitled to 0 risk hauling.


Fortunatly we are here to enforce the daft tax.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#234 - 2012-11-05 12:27:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
No, although they are paraphrases not direct quotes.
Not even that.
Nothing of the kind is stated in the article. If you think they are, post the full quote you believe you're paraphrasing.

You lean on the article to extract claims that are your guesses and assumptions — no-one else's. It “sounds like” the first (according to you), and it is quite explicitly stated not to be the second… unless you've misunderstood what the risk value actually means.

Why can't you stand by your own claims?


I'm willing to put 50 billion ISK on the line to test and prove one of those claims, even though I maintain it's not mine. If that's not good enough for you, then I give up.
Herr Hammer Draken
#235 - 2012-11-05 12:30:11 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Filling a hauling ship up with a massive assortment of low volume, low-ISK, crap items (like dancers and spirits) to minimize the odds that something valuable will drop.


lol

wrong, the chance of drop is still 50%.

You go item for item and roll a dice for each item in hold. For 1-3 no drop, for 4-6 its a drop. So if you roll the dice for a particular item its 50% chance, regardless if there are further 3748 items you will roll the dice for.


So be risky put all 66 billion in one contract on the frieghter. And that is all that is on the frieghter. 50% chance it drops or nothing drops.

Now for the guy that claims he will only attack a frieghter when he can profit. Will he take a 50% chance to come away with nothing at all and ruin his streak or is the 66 billion in that one contract enough for him to take the chance and gank it.
Then if nothing droped would he admit it, that he lost isk on that gank? We already know for a fact that if the 66 billion does drop it will make the kill mail list.


yes he would.

the expected cargo pay out would be the total value of the cargo multiplied by the drop chance. as per the statistical formula for calculating the expected value, expected value = sum(probability * value). that puts the freighter at an expected 33bn isk pay out.

hence if he ganks enough freighters, he will always be "winning".

edit to correct a formula i rushed because my lunch was burning...


Ok 2 frieghters fly into a system.
One has 4 billion in one contract the other 4 billion value of 50 items. 50 chances for stuff to drop as opposed to one chance for everything to drop.
The ganker has only enough ships on hand to kill one of them.
Which does he choose?

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#236 - 2012-11-05 12:30:30 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
If that's not good enough for you, then I give up.
50M ISK are not the same as quotes, so no, that's not good enough a replacement for me. And while such a bribe certainly highlights that you aren't standing by your claims, it doesn't answer the question why you can't.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#237 - 2012-11-05 12:33:29 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:


Ok 2 frieghters fly into a system.
One has 4 billion in one contract the other 4 billion value of 50 items. 50 chances for stuff to drop as opposed to one chance for everything to drop.
The ganker has only enough ships on hand to kill one of them.
Which does he choose?


The one with double wrapped trit in itStraight
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#238 - 2012-11-05 12:33:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
If that's not good enough for you, then I give up.
50M ISK are not the same as quotes, so no, that's not good enough a replacement for me. And while such a bribe certainly highlights that you aren't standing by your claims, it doesn't answer the question why you can't.


If physically testing a claim isn't standing by a claim, then I don't even want to stand by a claim. I'd rather claimjump. Or fly a claymore. And it was 50B isk not 50M, which I would certainly earn if you paid the fee, but you're scared.
Dave Stark
#239 - 2012-11-05 12:35:20 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Filling a hauling ship up with a massive assortment of low volume, low-ISK, crap items (like dancers and spirits) to minimize the odds that something valuable will drop.


lol

wrong, the chance of drop is still 50%.

You go item for item and roll a dice for each item in hold. For 1-3 no drop, for 4-6 its a drop. So if you roll the dice for a particular item its 50% chance, regardless if there are further 3748 items you will roll the dice for.


So be risky put all 66 billion in one contract on the frieghter. And that is all that is on the frieghter. 50% chance it drops or nothing drops.

Now for the guy that claims he will only attack a frieghter when he can profit. Will he take a 50% chance to come away with nothing at all and ruin his streak or is the 66 billion in that one contract enough for him to take the chance and gank it.
Then if nothing droped would he admit it, that he lost isk on that gank? We already know for a fact that if the 66 billion does drop it will make the kill mail list.


yes he would.

the expected cargo pay out would be the total value of the cargo multiplied by the drop chance. as per the statistical formula for calculating the expected value, expected value = sum(probability * value). that puts the freighter at an expected 33bn isk pay out.

hence if he ganks enough freighters, he will always be "winning".

edit to correct a formula i rushed because my lunch was burning...


Ok 2 frieghters fly into a system.
One has 4 billion in one contract the other 4 billion value of 50 items. 50 chances for stuff to drop as opposed to one chance for everything to drop.
The ganker has only enough ships on hand to kill one of them.
Which does he choose?


the second freighter.

the probability of 0 drops is much, much lower on the second freighter.

granted both freighters have an expected payout of 2bn isk, however it's "safer" to attack the 2nd freighter as the probability of a 0 pay out is lower. however on the flip side, the chance of getting a 4bn isk payout is also lower.

or alternative the pirate could be feeling lucky and just go for the first freighter.
Dave Stark
#240 - 2012-11-05 12:36:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:


Ok 2 frieghters fly into a system.
One has 4 billion in one contract the other 4 billion value of 50 items. 50 chances for stuff to drop as opposed to one chance for everything to drop.
The ganker has only enough ships on hand to kill one of them.
Which does he choose?


The one with double wrapped trit in itStraight

on a bad luck streak lately? :P