These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why risk versus reward doesn't matter
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#381 - 2013-04-08 13:27:45 UTC
Look, we already went over what they do and can do, you're just to stubborn to realize that by definition you are wrong.

Just move on.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#382 - 2013-04-08 13:35:09 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Their success rate in protecting from ganks is what... maybe 5%?

Their success in preventing ganks(through deterrence) is what..... maybe that same 5%? Maybe lower?

No, it's a lot higher than that, unless you're going to try to pretend that you have a 95% chance of getting ganked every time you undock.

Every time you undock, travel a few jumps, meet unknown people along the way and redock safely, concord's protection has worked.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#383 - 2013-04-08 15:06:27 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Murk Paradox wrote:
Think of that statement and how that would apply to say.... development of nuclear arms in the world as of right now (won't name specific countries but you should see where I'm going with this).

Then go ahead and say (enter country name) is trying to be a "protector".


Sure, I see where you're going with this.

Iraq: No Nuclear weapons + Pissed off the US > Got Invaded

North Korea: Nuclear weapons + Constantly Pissing off the US > Protected from Invasion


Hang on... that goes against your wacky claim that deterrence does not provide protection (a claim that, in the specific case of CONCORD, you've already agreed is false).

"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
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#384 - 2013-04-08 15:21:39 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Think of that statement and how that would apply to say.... development of nuclear arms in the world as of right now (won't name specific countries but you should see where I'm going with this).

Then go ahead and say (enter country name) is trying to be a "protector".


Sure, I see where you're going with this.

Iraq: No Nuclear weapons + Pissed off the US > Got Invaded

North Korea: Nuclear weapons + Constantly Pissing off the US > Protected from Invasion


Hang on... that goes against your wacky claim that deterrence does not provide protection (a claim that, in the specific case of CONCORD, you've already agreed is false).


Murk has a problem with very black and white thinking. To him "protection" means 100% safety it seems.

I had a similar argument years ago as a rookie with a citizen while I was trying to eat lunch (That day learned why older officers eat in their cars lol). he said we don't provide protection, i said in a way he's correct, but we do provide a LEVEL of protective service by deterring "casual criminals" and making operating more difficult for more determined hard core ones. His response was "either i'm protected or i'm not".

He couldn't' grasp the idea that or jub was to make crime and disorder less likely, because totally preventing it isn't physically possible.

Pretty much the same in EVE. People fly around high sec, get ganked, then say "EVE has no protection". Yes, high sec EVE does have a LEVEL of protection. Last time someone tried to gank my (tanked) hauler and failed it was because CONCORD showed up before they could shoot at me more, where it not to CONCORD, I'd have lost a s ship and cargo.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#385 - 2013-04-08 15:41:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Last time someone tried to gank my (tanked) hauler and failed it was because CONCORD showed up before they could shoot at me more, where it not to CONCORD, I'd have lost a s ship and cargo.

i guess if there is no CONCORD you would not fly (tanked) hauler anyway. You would do hauling other way.

So this comparison is not so easy as you said.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#386 - 2013-04-08 15:49:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
March rabbit wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Last time someone tried to gank my (tanked) hauler and failed it was because CONCORD showed up before they could shoot at me more, where it not to CONCORD, I'd have lost a s ship and cargo.

i guess if there is no CONCORD you would not fly (tanked) hauler anyway. You would do hauling other way.

So this comparison is not so easy as you said.


What does that have to do with anything? I know English isn't your 1st language, but what are you trying to say?

Outside of high sec is use transports or jump freighters because there is no or little automated protection. In high sec ("more" protected space) I can use regualr freighters , orcas and regular tanked haulers. So, because of the existence of CONCORD and it's "protection" I can haul stuff more easily.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#387 - 2013-04-08 16:04:06 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Last time someone tried to gank my (tanked) hauler and failed it was because CONCORD showed up before they could shoot at me more, where it not to CONCORD, I'd have lost a s ship and cargo.

i guess if there is no CONCORD you would not fly (tanked) hauler anyway. You would do hauling other way.

So this comparison is not so easy as you said.


What does that have to do with anything? I knw English isn't your 1st language, but what are you trying to say?

Outside of high sec is use transports or jump freighters because there is no or little automated protection. In high sec ("more" protected space) I can use regualr freighters , orcas and regular tanked haulers.

i said the same Lol situations ARE DIFFERENT.

Check is details:
1) high-sec: you haul stuff in hauler -> you ganked -> CONCORD arrives -> you rescued
2) low/0.0/WH: you don't haul stuff in hauler -> ...?

Jenn aSide wrote:
So, because of the existence of CONCORD and it's "protection" I can haul stuff more easily.

this should be used instead of bold part of previous quote.
And it's ok

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#388 - 2013-04-08 16:06:55 UTC
march rabbit no sense

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#389 - 2013-04-08 16:11:08 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
march rabbit no sense

hello goony o/

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#390 - 2013-04-08 16:19:29 UTC
Quote:


That's actually the best way to prove Concord is not a protector. Since nukes aren't known for their protection. Their known for their disastrous effect and everyone knows a nuke is made to destroy, not protect =).


No.

Both sides were stopped from attacking eachother because both sides would be vaporised. Nukes protected both states by deturing both sides from attacking. Thier destructive power ended up protecting the nations that had them.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#391 - 2013-04-08 16:41:34 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Their success rate in protecting from ganks is what... maybe 5%?

Their success in preventing ganks(through deterrence) is what..... maybe that same 5%? Maybe lower?

No, it's a lot higher than that, unless you're going to try to pretend that you have a 95% chance of getting ganked every time you undock.

Every time you undock, travel a few jumps, meet unknown people along the way and redock safely, concord's protection has worked.



Considering the rule of thumb is to assume you will get ganked 100% of the time...

Any time you are not ganked, you should count as a blessing, not depend on Concord to do what you think is their "job".

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#392 - 2013-04-08 16:43:06 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Think of that statement and how that would apply to say.... development of nuclear arms in the world as of right now (won't name specific countries but you should see where I'm going with this).

Then go ahead and say (enter country name) is trying to be a "protector".


Sure, I see where you're going with this.

Iraq: No Nuclear weapons + Pissed off the US > Got Invaded

North Korea: Nuclear weapons + Constantly Pissing off the US > Protected from Invasion


Hang on... that goes against your wacky claim that deterrence does not provide protection (a claim that, in the specific case of CONCORD, you've already agreed is false).



You mean the part where NK says "we are going to bomb you and we will put a nuclear warhead on our weapons if we want"?

Yea. Because we are constantly threatening to invade NK therefore they must have nuclear warheads for "protection".

NK is the aggressor sir, not the other way around =).

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#393 - 2013-04-08 16:44:32 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Considering the rule of thumb is to assume you will get ganked 100% of the time...

Any time you are not ganked, you should count as a blessing, not depend on Concord to do what you think is their "job".

And yet, I've never gotten ganked, on any char, in hisec, and I've done a fair bit of travelling over the past 4-5 years. I guess concord must be doing a good job of protecting us.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#394 - 2013-04-08 16:48:12 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Think of that statement and how that would apply to say.... development of nuclear arms in the world as of right now (won't name specific countries but you should see where I'm going with this).

Then go ahead and say (enter country name) is trying to be a "protector".


Sure, I see where you're going with this.

Iraq: No Nuclear weapons + Pissed off the US > Got Invaded

North Korea: Nuclear weapons + Constantly Pissing off the US > Protected from Invasion


Hang on... that goes against your wacky claim that deterrence does not provide protection (a claim that, in the specific case of CONCORD, you've already agreed is false).


Murk has a problem with very black and white thinking. To him "protection" means 100% safety it seems.

I had a similar argument years ago as a rookie with a citizen while I was trying to eat lunch (That day learned why older officers eat in their cars lol). he said we don't provide protection, i said in a way he's correct, but we do provide a LEVEL of protective service by deterring "casual criminals" and making operating more difficult for more determined hard core ones. His response was "either i'm protected or i'm not".

He couldn't' grasp the idea that or jub was to make crime and disorder less likely, because totally preventing it isn't physically possible.

Pretty much the same in EVE. People fly around high sec, get ganked, then say "EVE has no protection". Yes, high sec EVE does have a LEVEL of protection. Last time someone tried to gank my (tanked) hauler and failed it was because CONCORD showed up before they could shoot at me more, where it not to CONCORD, I'd have lost a s ship and cargo.



It's not a problem of black and white thinking Jenn, it's a matter of definition.

Concord does not provide protection. YOU might generate or feel a sense of protection in knowing that Concord will blow up anyone who attacks you. But that won't keep you from getting blown up. Therefore any sense of "protection" ends up being false because you aren't protected. You then realize that Concord does not protect, they merely avenge.

Loose use of the word to describe one thing while meaning another is where you get a "false sense of security" as pirates and highsec miscreants are known for; preying on that false sense.

And that's what Concord does. Gives you a false sense of security, because they do not protect. They do not heal, or repair, or reimburse. They will watch you die even as they assist in blowing up the person who broke Empire's law.

It's really quite simple.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#395 - 2013-04-08 16:52:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Quote:


That's actually the best way to prove Concord is not a protector. Since nukes aren't known for their protection. Their known for their disastrous effect and everyone knows a nuke is made to destroy, not protect =).


No.

Both sides were stopped from attacking eachother because both sides would be vaporised. Nukes protected both states by deturing both sides from attacking. Thier destructive power ended up protecting the nations that had them.



Much like a hammer, used to bash things, can be used to screw something in. But not what it's intended for.

And a hammer is not defined by it's ability to turn a screw. But you CAN use it for that use. Even though a screwdriver would be far more efficient.

Such as Concord and any implication of protection.

So again, Concord is not a Protector. It's a concept in relation to risk versus reward in regards to following highsec's rules.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#396 - 2013-04-08 16:56:11 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Considering the rule of thumb is to assume you will get ganked 100% of the time...

Any time you are not ganked, you should count as a blessing, not depend on Concord to do what you think is their "job".

And yet, I've never gotten ganked, on any char, in hisec, and I've done a fair bit of travelling over the past 4-5 years. I guess concord must be doing a good job of protecting us.



Crime and Punishment has those relative discussions sir.


Or ask baltec1 what his success rate. He can answer how well Concord protects from that perspective.

"Don't undock what you cannot afford to lose" and all that.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#397 - 2013-04-08 16:58:42 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Murk Paradox wrote:



Much like a hammer, used to bash things, can be used to screw something in. But not what it's intended for.

And a hammer is not defined by it's ability to turn a screw. But you CAN use it for that use. Even though a screwdriver would be far more efficient.

Such as Concord and any implication of protection.

So again, Concord is not a Protector. It's a concept in relation to risk versus reward in regards to following highsec's rules.


Its protection as defined by every single government, army, police force and security sevice.


It stops us bad guys from killing everything, which is the very meaning of protecting people and like all protection it wont stop everything.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#398 - 2013-04-08 17:01:32 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord does not provide protection.

Concord being there makes hisec safer, ergo it provides protection.

Murk Paradox wrote:
YOU might generate or feel a sense of protection in knowing that Concord will blow up anyone who attacks you.

Protection through deterrence, yes.

Murk Paradox wrote:
But that won't keep you from getting blown up.

Something providing protection doesn't mean you're invulnerable. Hisec's safer with concord, hence concord provides protection.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Therefore any sense of "protection" ends up being false because you aren't protected. You then realize that Concord does not protect, they merely avenge.

Concord protects, until someone isn't deterred by concord anymore, because the risk is worth the reward. Doesn't detract from the fact that concord does provide protection through deterrence.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#399 - 2013-04-08 17:02:25 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



It's not a problem of black and white thinking Jenn, it's a matter of definition.


Relativistic thinking doesn't change the laws of nature. If you have to make up new definitiions of things to make what you want to believe "fit", thehn the problem is you, not the subject.

Quote:

Concord does not provide protection. YOU might generate or feel a sense of protection in knowing that Concord will blow up anyone who attacks you. But that won't keep you from getting blown up. Therefore any sense of "protection" ends up being false because you aren't protected. You then realize that Concord does not protect, they merely avenge.


That's black and white , "either/or"thinking right there.

What actually happens (and this is testable, but only by CCP) is that fewer people get blown up in high sec becuase of concord's existence than would otherwise get blown up. CCP could demonstrate this by turning off concord for a day. Therefore, CONCORD provides a level of protection, but not absolute protection.

Quote:

Loose use of the word to describe one thing while meaning another is where you get a "false sense of security" as pirates and highsec miscreants are known for; preying on that false sense.

And that's what Concord does. Gives you a false sense of security, because they do not protect. They do not heal, or repair, or reimburse. They will watch you die even as they assist in blowing up the person who broke Empire's law.

It's really quite simple.


It;'s quite simple that you prefer to argue definitions rather than try to understand what others are saying, in the same way that private citizen was doing to me at lunch that day. You can define it anyway you like, but the truth is,CONCORD provides a measurable level of overall "protection" through deterrent of some forms of casual aggression while not providing "absolute" protection.

This video game COULD provide absolute protection, but only video games can do that. In real life NOTHING provides protection (at least by your narrow definition). Not the gun I carry, not the Vest I wear, not my training, not the car I drive or the seatbelt I wear, nothing. Protection isn't physically possible.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#400 - 2013-04-08 17:03:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Much like a hammer, used to bash things, can be used to screw something in. But not what it's intended for.

And a hammer is not defined by it's ability to turn a screw. But you CAN use it for that use. Even though a screwdriver would be far more efficient.

Such as Concord and any implication of protection.

So again, Concord is not a Protector. It's a concept in relation to risk versus reward in regards to following highsec's rules.


Its protection as defined by every single government, army, police force and security sevice.


It stops us bad guys from killing everything, which is the very meaning of protecting people and like all protection it wont stop everything.


So simple a concept for must of us.