These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#421 - 2013-04-08 17:45:00 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I can orbit Jita or Dodixie with an empty bestower all day.


Now try that somewhere without CONCORD and see what happens.



You are missing half the formula. I don't need to leave highsec to prove it. I only need to put something worth something to a ganker in the hold to render Concord a nonfactor. Barely need to undock, let alone jump anywhere else.

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.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#422 - 2013-04-08 17:47:04 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Murk Paradox wrote:
Rancer isn't highsec. This is risk versus reward. You wanting to roam around in a hauler in Rancer to which you said was a very busy and camped place, has nothing to do with Concord as it is lowsec and out of their jurisdiction.

Keep on topic please.


The topic is what service does CONCORD provide.

It is perfectly valid to compare Empire-With-CONCORD and Empire-Without-CONCORD to see what effect CONCORD has on illegal aggression.

So:
With CONCORD > You Don't get ganked in an empty hauler.
Without CONCORD > You Do get ganked in an empty hauler.

Therefore, CONCORD protects you from people who want to gank you.


Murk Paradox wrote:
You are missing half the formula. I don't need to leave highsec to prove it. I only need to put something worth something to a ganker in the hold to render Concord a nonfactor. Barely need to undock, let alone jump anywhere else.


Wrong. The fact that you have to make yourself a juicy target to get ganked is evidence that CONCORD is protecting you.

You're confusing protection with "absolute invulnerability."

"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
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#423 - 2013-04-08 17:49:10 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

Death by concord, yes. Concord protects through deterrence. Without concord, there would be no deterrence through certain death by concord, and thus no protection.

You just literally made 0 sense.

Yes, it's true you would not die by Concord if Concord wasn't there. o_O

Are you having problems reading? Because that's not what I said. What I said was that if concord wasn't there, there'd be no deterrence for the gankers

Murk Paradox wrote:
And the part of the hauler that protects is not its tank, but it's cargo hold. Anyone WILLING to gank, and lose a ship to Concord, will check and recheck and double check if it's worth it to gank that person. Be it for an idea, a payment, or a bounty.

So in short, concord provides the protection, but the cargohold provides the incentive to ignore the deterrence through punishment.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord is a cost. Any form or idea of protection is already discarded by the mind of that opportunist.

Yep, concord makes a gank cost, that's where the risk vs reward aspect of concord's protection through deterrence comes into stride. If you decide to take a chance by hauling cargo which is worth enough, the deterrence through concord's threat of punishment is invalidated, because the risk vs reward makes it an economic feasibility to gank you. The loot fairy might not agree with them, which means that there's a certain risk to ganking which means they very well might end up making absolutely nada.

Murk Paradox wrote:
I can orbit Jita or Dodixie with an empty bestower all day. You say I won't get blown up because Concord protects. I say it's because of the fact an empty bestower doesn't provide anything worth killing for. If I put just 20 plex in that bestower, how fast do you think I'd get blown up?

And the fact the bestower isn't worth blowing up is precisely because of concord's protection. If concord hadn't been there to provide that protection, you would get blown up.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#424 - 2013-04-08 17:49:41 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Rancer isn't highsec. This is risk versus reward. You wanting to roam around in a hauler in Rancer to which you said was a very busy and camped place, has nothing to do with Concord as it is lowsec and out of their jurisdiction.

Keep on topic please.


The topic is what service does CONCORD provide.

It is perfectly valid to compare Empire-With-CONCORD and Empire-Without-CONCORD to see what effect CONCORD has on illegal aggression.

So:
With CONCORD > You Don't get ganked in an empty hauler.
Without CONCORD > You Do get ganked in an empty hauler.

Therefore, CONCORD protects you from people who want to gank you.


With concord-
Empty hauler- most likely safe.
Full hauler- most likely dead.

Concord provides a risk to pirate/gank operations. Not protection.

I could be in an impairor, and if you wanted to kill me, you would. In one volley. Concord could not stop that. They could punish you, yes. But not stop it.

That's not protection.

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
#425 - 2013-04-08 17:52:17 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
With concord-
Empty hauler- most likely safe.
Full hauler- most likely dead.

You forgot "Without concord", but I'll fill in the blanks for you:

Without concord:
empty hauler: dead
full hauler: dead

Concord protects.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord provides a risk to pirate/gank operations. Not protection.

And this deterrence protects.

Murk Paradox wrote:
I could be in an impairor, and if you wanted to kill me, you would. In one volley. Concord could not stop that. They could punish you, yes. But not stop it.

That's not protection.

If the threat of concord blowing me up keeps me from blowing you up, even if the thought entered my mind, then concord just protected you.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#426 - 2013-04-08 17:52:24 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


That's not protection.


You definition of protection is wrong.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#427 - 2013-04-08 17:53:43 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Murk Paradox wrote:
With concord-
Empty hauler- most likely safe.
Full hauler- most likely dead.

Concord provides a risk to pirate/gank operations. Not protection.

I could be in an impairor, and if you wanted to kill me, you would. In one volley. Concord could not stop that. They could punish you, yes. But not stop it.

That's not protection.


Again, you're trying to claim that the only way to provide protection is to perfectly prevent all things that could hurt you.

Which means that, according to your definition of protection:
Police don't provide any form of protection
Helmets don't provide any form of protection
Protective Equipment doesn't provide any form of protection
Condoms do not provide any form of protection
Seatbelts don't provide any form of protection
and so on

"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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#428 - 2013-04-08 17:55:42 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

Death by concord, yes. Concord protects through deterrence. Without concord, there would be no deterrence through certain death by concord, and thus no protection.

You just literally made 0 sense.

Yes, it's true you would not die by Concord if Concord wasn't there. o_O

Are you having problems reading? Because that's not what I said. What I said was that if concord wasn't there, there'd be no deterrence for the gankers



How can you ask if I can read when I quoted your words and you said that's not what you said? Are you high?

You DID say that without concord there is no threat of imminent death by concord. That's ******** (sorry but it is). Of course something NOT there won't kill you.

And my empty hold, by making me less attractive of a target, is a far greater deterrent than Concord. Concord is an absolute. Not a risk. Not a chance. Loot fairies, me surviving through logi, or speed or tank is a risk. A chance.

Concord doesn't effect any of those. Any gank has already considered their ship loss in accord.

I understand what you are trying to say. It's the fact you are saying a hammer is a screwdriver because it can turn a bolt is what I'm having odds with.

Stop calling a hammer a screwdriver.

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
#429 - 2013-04-08 17:56:32 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
With concord-
Empty hauler- most likely safe.
Full hauler- most likely dead.

Concord provides a risk to pirate/gank operations. Not protection.

I could be in an impairor, and if you wanted to kill me, you would. In one volley. Concord could not stop that. They could punish you, yes. But not stop it.

That's not protection.


Again, you're trying to claim that the only way to provide protection is to perfectly prevent all things that could hurt you.

Which means that, according to your definition of protection:
Police don't provide any form of protection
Helmets don't provide any form of protection
Protective Equipment doesn't provide any form of protection
Condoms do not provide any form of protection
Seatbelts don't provide any form of protection
and so on



Go reread Ruby. A few pages back there was a few posts about dictionary terms.

Not MY definition.

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.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#430 - 2013-04-08 17:57:55 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
And my empty hold, by making me less attractive of a target, is a far greater deterrent than Concord. Concord is an absolute. Not a risk. Not a chance. Loot fairies, me surviving through logi, or speed or tank is a risk. A chance.


So you're saying that CONCORD would provide a greater deterrence if there was a 50% chance of losing your ship in a gank instead of a 100% chance?

"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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#431 - 2013-04-08 17:58:12 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


That's not protection.


You definition of protection is wrong.



Again, there's a few pages filled with links from a dictionary.

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.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#432 - 2013-04-08 17:58:25 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
With concord-
Empty hauler- most likely safe.
Full hauler- most likely dead.

Concord provides a risk to pirate/gank operations. Not protection.

I could be in an impairor, and if you wanted to kill me, you would. In one volley. Concord could not stop that. They could punish you, yes. But not stop it.

That's not protection.


Again, you're trying to claim that the only way to provide protection is to perfectly prevent all things that could hurt you.

Which means that, according to your definition of protection:
Police don't provide any form of protection
Helmets don't provide any form of protection
Protective Equipment doesn't provide any form of protection
Condoms do not provide any form of protection
Seatbelts don't provide any form of protection
and so on


I highlighted the part that won't get across to Murk. To him protection is either/or-black/white, their is no in between. You'll never convince him otherwise as he simply likes to argue for no reason.

We know what protection means, that's enough I think.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#433 - 2013-04-08 18:01:00 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
And my empty hold, by making me less attractive of a target, is a far greater deterrent than Concord. Concord is an absolute. Not a risk. Not a chance. Loot fairies, me surviving through logi, or speed or tank is a risk. A chance.


So you're saying that CONCORD would provide a greater deterrence if there was a 50% chance of losing your ship in a gank instead of a 100% chance?



I don't understand the question. Are you saying highsec and lowsec should be the same? Or do you want me to agree they are different?

Let's keep on topic here instead of trying to again derailing it.

This thread is about risk vs reward.

So far, we have been focusing on highsec, and Concord. A lack of Concord is a nonfactor. If you want to talk about risk vs reward in areas not involving Concord, we can. But we will have to a)create a new thread, or b)finish the present conversation.

I am facing a conversation on multiple fronts. So you can either make the others wait, or you can wait.

But 1 topic at a time please.

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
#434 - 2013-04-08 18:01:11 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
And my empty hold, by making me less attractive of a target, is a far greater deterrent than Concord.

Except if there's no concord, then you being an empty hauler doesn't matter, all that'd matter is that you're a flying killmail waiting to be harvested.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord is an absolute. Not a risk. Not a chance. Loot fairies, me surviving through logi, or speed or tank is a risk. A chance.

Concord doesn't effect any of those. Any gank has already considered their ship loss in accord.

What concord affects is the probability of someone trying to gank you. If concord isn't there, that probability is 100%. If concord is there, and you're empty, that probability is negiligible. If you're flying around with a few billion isk worth of cargo, that probability goes up.

Concord still makes it so it's not a 100% certainty.

Murk Paradox wrote:
I understand what you are trying to say.

No, you don't.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#435 - 2013-04-08 18:01:45 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
With concord-
Empty hauler- most likely safe.
Full hauler- most likely dead.

Concord provides a risk to pirate/gank operations. Not protection.

I could be in an impairor, and if you wanted to kill me, you would. In one volley. Concord could not stop that. They could punish you, yes. But not stop it.

That's not protection.


Again, you're trying to claim that the only way to provide protection is to perfectly prevent all things that could hurt you.

Which means that, according to your definition of protection:
Police don't provide any form of protection
Helmets don't provide any form of protection
Protective Equipment doesn't provide any form of protection
Condoms do not provide any form of protection
Seatbelts don't provide any form of protection
and so on


I highlighted the part that won't get across to Murk. To him protection is either/or-black/white, their is no in between. You'll never convince him otherwise as he simply likes to argue for no reason.

We know what protection means, that's enough I think.


Hammers are not screwdrivers Jenn. Sorry you think otherwise (pats head) it's ok.

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
#436 - 2013-04-08 18:02:24 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
And my empty hold, by making me less attractive of a target, is a far greater deterrent than Concord.

Except if there's no concord, then you being an empty hauler doesn't matter, all that'd matter is that you're a flying killmail waiting to be harvested.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord is an absolute. Not a risk. Not a chance. Loot fairies, me surviving through logi, or speed or tank is a risk. A chance.

Concord doesn't effect any of those. Any gank has already considered their ship loss in accord.

What concord affects is the probability of someone trying to gank you. If concord isn't there, that probability is 100%. If concord is there, and you're empty, that probability is negiligible. If you're flying around with a few billion isk worth of cargo, that probability goes up.

Concord still makes it so it's not a 100% certainty.

Murk Paradox wrote:
I understand what you are trying to say.

No, you don't.



Yes I do, you are saying a hammer can be called a screwdriver because it can turn a screw.

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
#437 - 2013-04-08 18:02:56 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
So far, we have been focusing on highsec, and Concord. A lack of Concord is a nonfactor.

Except concord being present turns the risk of getting ganked from near as makes no difference 100%, to ... much, much less. Again, considering I've flown around in hisec for 4 years, and never gotten ganked, concord is not a "nonfactor", no matter how much you want it to be.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#438 - 2013-04-08 18:03:35 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
And my empty hold, by making me less attractive of a target, is a far greater deterrent than Concord.

Except if there's no concord, then you being an empty hauler doesn't matter, all that'd matter is that you're a flying killmail waiting to be harvested.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord is an absolute. Not a risk. Not a chance. Loot fairies, me surviving through logi, or speed or tank is a risk. A chance.

Concord doesn't effect any of those. Any gank has already considered their ship loss in accord.

What concord affects is the probability of someone trying to gank you. If concord isn't there, that probability is 100%. If concord is there, and you're empty, that probability is negiligible. If you're flying around with a few billion isk worth of cargo, that probability goes up.

Concord still makes it so it's not a 100% certainty.

Murk Paradox wrote:
I understand what you are trying to say.

No, you don't.



Again, if you wish to get involved in a discussion not involving Concord, such as lowsec or null and the properties of risk vs reward, I'd be happy to oblige, but the same rules that apply to Ruby, apply to you.

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.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#439 - 2013-04-08 18:03:37 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Go reread Ruby. A few pages back there was a few posts about dictionary terms.

Not MY definition.


pro·tect [pruh-tekt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.

pre·vent [pri-vent] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to keep from occurring; avert; hinder:

If you notice, these are two different words with different meanings (and even different spellings and pronunciations), and yet you keep trying to conflate them.

By the way, if we want to go back down this rabbit hole:

de·fend [dih-fend] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury (usually followed by from or against ): The sentry defended the gate against sudden attack.

If you notice the example sentence, the sentry did not, in any way, prevent the attack against the gate from occurring, and there;s no indication whether the attack succeeded (meaning that the success of the attack is irrelevant to the question of whether a defense was undertaken, and if a defense was undertaken, clearly someone provided protection to something.)

"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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#440 - 2013-04-08 18:05:05 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
So far, we have been focusing on highsec, and Concord. A lack of Concord is a nonfactor.

Except concord being present turns the risk of getting ganked from near as makes no difference 100%, to ... much, much less. Again, considering I've flown around in hisec for 4 years, and never gotten ganked, concord is not a "nonfactor", no matter how much you want it to be.



Sure it is. If I wanted to gank you in highsec I could. Concord would not stop me. They would punish me for doing so.

If they protected you, they would not allow it. But they do allow it. They allow anyone to shoot anyone. They then punish them for it.

That's the mechanic. That's the design. That's the hammer.

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.