These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#441 - 2013-04-08 18:05:21 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


What do those dictionaries say about the term "partial protection"? Under your narrow definition, that' cannot exist right.

How about insurance protection? How about laws, don' they provide "protection", and yet you can still be murdered despite the law, peopel speed despite speed limits etc etc.

Liek i said, viewing your forum posts, your main problem is black and white thinking. That kind of thinking is intellectually lazy, because the world (both digital and real) involves lots of "grey".

The way most English speakers use the word protection allows for "levels" of protection, your definition does not and is thus, wrong.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#442 - 2013-04-08 18:05:45 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Murk Paradox wrote:
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?


You are claiming that CONCORD provides less deterrence to ganking than the 50% drop rate because the ganker is guaranteed to lose their ship.

The logical extension of this claim is that you think CONCORD blowing up the ganker's ship only 50% of the time would provide a greater deterrent effect than it currently does.

"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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#443 - 2013-04-08 18:09:20 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

He's asking you whether you think a 50% chance of losing your ship to CONCORD provides a greater or smaller risk for the ganker than if there is a 100% chance of losing your ship to CONCORD.

Hint: Risk = Probability × Cost.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#444 - 2013-04-08 18:09:23 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
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 CONCORD Battleship defended the gate tanked hauler 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.)


fixed lol..

This is what happened during the failed gank on me, were it not for CONCORD, my ship would be dead. Even with Murks ridiculously narrow definition, CONCORD protected me.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#445 - 2013-04-08 18:09:37 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Sure it is. If I wanted to gank you in highsec I could.

Yes, you can. You won't, though, because the threat of death by concord is keeping you from doing so.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord would not stop me.

Not unless you completely suck at it and can't kill me before they arrive, no. But they will prevent a lot of ganks, and as such make hisec safer. Because they protect. Protect doesn't mean prevent or make impossible.

Murk Paradox wrote:
They would punish me for doing so.

And there's the reason for the protection, they would punish you for doing so, you would weigh risk vs reward, and if the risk vs reward calculation doesn't say "yes", or you just don't give a ****, then concord have just protected me from you.

Murk Paradox wrote:
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 not protection, that's disallowing/preventing.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#446 - 2013-04-08 18:10:04 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
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. (concord does not do this)

pre·vent [pri-vent] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to keep from occurring; avert; hinder: (concord does not do this either)

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.(concord also does not do this)

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.)



a·venge
/əˈvenj/
Verb

Inflict harm in return for (an injury or wrong done to oneself or another): "his determination to avenge the murder of his brother".
Inflict such harm on behalf of (oneself or someone else previously wronged or harmed): "we must avenge our dead".

Synonyms
revenge - retaliate - requite

Concord does this.

Definition of PUNISH
transitive verb
1
a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation
b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation
2
a : to deal with roughly or harshly
b : to inflict injury on : hurt
intransitive verb
: to inflict punishment

Concord also does this.

pro·tect
/prəˈtekt/
Verb

Keep safe from harm or injury: "he protected her from the attack"; "certain vitamins may protect against heart disease".
Aim to preserve (a threatened plant or animal species) by legislating against collecting or hunting.

Synonyms
defend - guard - safeguard - shelter - shield - preserve

Punish or avenge is not in here.

Which one do you think best describes Concord.

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
#447 - 2013-04-08 18:12:13 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


What do those dictionaries say about the term "partial protection"? Under your narrow definition, that' cannot exist right.

How about insurance protection? How about laws, don' they provide "protection", and yet you can still be murdered despite the law, peopel speed despite speed limits etc etc.

Liek i said, viewing your forum posts, your main problem is black and white thinking. That kind of thinking is intellectually lazy, because the world (both digital and real) involves lots of "grey".

The way most English speakers use the word protection allows for "levels" of protection, your definition does not and is thus, wrong.



You will have to do your own research. Sorry.

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
#448 - 2013-04-08 18:12:29 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Which one do you think best describes Concord.

A protector, because they keep you safe from harm or injury. They're not perfect, so they can't protect you against everything, but they can protect you against the vast majority of other players. And they do. If they didn't, the instant you undock from jita 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
#449 - 2013-04-08 18:13:28 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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?


You are claiming that CONCORD provides less deterrence to ganking than the 50% drop rate because the ganker is guaranteed to lose their ship.

The logical extension of this claim is that you think CONCORD blowing up the ganker's ship only 50% of the time would provide a greater deterrent effect than it currently does.



Just ask a direct question. Don't assume.

I'm saying Concord does not protect. It punishes. My choices in cargo provide a better deterrent to would be gankers than Concord does.

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
#450 - 2013-04-08 18:14:30 UTC

pro·tec·tion
[pruh-tek-shuhn] Show IPA

noun
1.
the act of protecting or the state of being protected; preservation from injury or harm.

2.
a thing, person, or group that protects: This vaccine is a protection against disease.


That covers what concord does. It protects us from the bad guys.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#451 - 2013-04-08 18:15:26 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



Just ask a direct question. Don't assume.

I'm saying Concord does not protect. It punishes. My choices in cargo provide a better deterrent to would be gankers than Concord does.


Without concord, nothing you could do would stop me from destroying whatever you undock. Its happened before.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#452 - 2013-04-08 18:15:35 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
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. (concord does not do this)

pre·vent [pri-vent] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to keep from occurring; avert; hinder: (concord does not do this either)

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.(concord also does not do this)

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.)



a·venge
/əˈvenj/
Verb

Inflict harm in return for (an injury or wrong done to oneself or another): "his determination to avenge the murder of his brother".
Inflict such harm on behalf of (oneself or someone else previously wronged or harmed): "we must avenge our dead".

Synonyms
revenge - retaliate - requite

Concord does this.

Definition of PUNISH
transitive verb
1
a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation
b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation
2
a : to deal with roughly or harshly
b : to inflict injury on : hurt
intransitive verb
: to inflict punishment

Concord also does this.

pro·tect
/prəˈtekt/
Verb

Keep safe from harm or injury: "he protected her from the attack"; "certain vitamins may protect against heart disease".
Aim to preserve (a threatened plant or animal species) by legislating against collecting or hunting.

Synonyms
defend - guard - safeguard - shelter - shield - preserve

Punish or avenge is not in here.

Which one do you think best describes Concord.


Nobody is saying that CONCORD does not Punish gankers.

We are saying that the deterrent effect that that punishment provides protects every ship in HS. It is not perfect protection (which you seem to think is the only type), but it is protection.

By the way:
Defend
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.

The Sentry did not prevent the gate from being attacked, and the success or failure of his defense isn't relevant to the fact that he mounted one.

"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
#453 - 2013-04-08 18:15:38 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm saying Concord does not protect.

And you're wrong.

Murk Paradox wrote:
My choices in cargo provide a better deterrent to would be gankers than Concord does.

The only reason the cargo plays a role in determining whether or not to gank you, is because concord offers protection through deterrence. If concord weren't there to offer protection through deterrence, they'd kill you just because.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Dave Stark
#454 - 2013-04-08 18:16:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Just ask a direct question. Don't assume.

I'm saying Concord does not protect. It punishes. My choices in cargo provide a better deterrent to would be gankers than Concord does.


Without concord, nothing you could do would stop me from destroying whatever you undock. Its happened before.


beat me to it.

people need to stop thinking they can look at individual mechanics in isolation, it's stupid.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#455 - 2013-04-08 18:16:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.

He's asking you whether you think a 50% chance of losing your ship to CONCORD provides a greater or smaller risk for the ganker than if there is a 100% chance of losing your ship to CONCORD.

Hint: Risk = Probability × Cost.



Please continue reading past the part I quoted. I expanded on it. There is no 50% chance to losing your ship to Concord. It's 100%. If you fire on me in highsec (without any sort of wardec or flag bypassing that rule) Concord will blow you up. Hence why it isn't seen as a risk. It's a guarantee. It's a cost. The risk comes from the loot I may or may not drop in my wreck.



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
#456 - 2013-04-08 18:17:13 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Which one do you think best describes Concord.

A protector, because they keep you safe from harm or injury. They're not perfect, so they can't protect you against everything, but they can protect you against the vast majority of other players. And they do. If they didn't, the instant you undock from jita you would get blown up.



Use the comparison in terms please. And explain why you think "protect" better describes "avenge".

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
#457 - 2013-04-08 18:17:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Just ask a direct question. Don't assume.

I'm saying Concord does not protect. It punishes. My choices in cargo provide a better deterrent to would be gankers than Concord does.


Without concord, nothing you could do would stop me from destroying whatever you undock. Its happened before.



Same holds true WITH Concord notso?

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
#458 - 2013-04-08 18:18:59 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Sure it is. If I wanted to gank you in highsec I could.

Yes, you can. You won't, though, because the threat of death by concord is keeping you from doing so.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Concord would not stop me.

Not unless you completely suck at it and can't kill me before they arrive, no. But they will prevent a lot of ganks, and as such make hisec safer. Because they protect. Protect doesn't mean prevent or make impossible.

Murk Paradox wrote:
They would punish me for doing so.

And there's the reason for the protection, they would punish you for doing so, you would weigh risk vs reward, and if the risk vs reward calculation doesn't say "yes", or you just don't give a ****, then concord have just protected me from you.

Murk Paradox wrote:
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 not protection, that's disallowing/preventing.



Concord doesn't decide for me what I choose to do or not. It's not a "cost" if the ship is free. Now, my efforts to find you, engage you, and try to kill you... that would be a deterrent. That's a bit of effort for nothing.

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
#459 - 2013-04-08 18:19:23 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Just ask a direct question. Don't assume.

I'm saying Concord does not protect. It punishes. My choices in cargo provide a better deterrent to would be gankers than Concord does.


What provides the best protection is not the question. The question is, and always has been "What service does CONCORD provide?" Since Services are generally defined in terms of the beneficiary (which is clearly not the ganker), what service does CONCORD provide to the potential gank Target? Answer: Protection.

That's strange, even you think CONCORD provides protection:

Murk Paradox wrote:
Protection comes as a by product, but does not define what Concord is.

"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
#460 - 2013-04-08 18:20:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Just ask a direct question. Don't assume.

I'm saying Concord does not protect. It punishes. My choices in cargo provide a better deterrent to would be gankers than Concord does.


Without concord, nothing you could do would stop me from destroying whatever you undock. Its happened before.



I don't think you've ever shot me. With or without Concord.

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.