These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Communication Center » EVE General Discussion » Why risk versus reward doesn't matter

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page2223242526Next pageLast page

Why risk versus reward doesn't matter
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Lord Zim

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,451

#461 - 2013-04-08 18:20:40 UTC

Murk Paradox wrote:

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 no sense.

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

RIP Vile Rat

RubyPorto

RubysRhymes

Likes received: 5,663

#462 - 2013-04-08 18:20:45 UTC

Murk Paradox wrote:

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.

So you're saying that a 50% chance of something bad is a higher risk than a 100% chance of that same bad outcome?

"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

Likes received: 27,526

#463 - 2013-04-08 18:21:08 UTC

Murk Paradox wrote:

There is no 50% chance to losing your ship to Concord. It's 100%.

…and supposedly, being 100% means that there is no risk.

That raises the question that, if it weren't 100% but rather, say, 50%, would it then be a risk? In other words, would the risk be greater (i.e. a risk, rather than no risk) if the chance of losing your ship to CONCORD was 50% rather than 100%.

Quote:

The risk comes from the loot I may or may not drop in my wreck.

…and if we added in the “increased” risk from having a 50% chance of ship loss rather than a 100% chance of ship loss, that risk would be greater, no?

If not, maybe there might be something wrong with the notion that a 100% chance of loss is not a risk…
After all, risk = probability × cost. Plug in a probability of 100% and what do we get?

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#464 - 2013-04-08 18:21:09 UTC

Lord Zim wrote:

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.

If I had loot in my cargo hold, that's what they'd be killing me for.

Hammers are not screwdrivers.

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

Likes received: 760

#465 - 2013-04-08 18:21:39 UTC

Lord Zim wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:

Lord Zim wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:

Which one do you think best describes Concord.

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

This post no sense.

Then stop butchering posts. Use complete sentences please.

baltec1

Bat Country

Pandemic Horde

Likes received: 19,001

#466 - 2013-04-08 18:22:00 UTC

Murk Paradox wrote:

Same holds true WITH Concord notso?

No.

There was a time when concord could be tanked. M0o set up gate camps in high sec and killed everything. Todays concord means I cannot inflict the kind of destruction M0o enjoyed.

With no concord I could literally wipe out jita with 30 guys and kill thousands of ships. Concord stops me from doing this. They protect everyone in high sec from me.

Lord Zim

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,451

#467 - 2013-04-08 18:22:59 UTC

Murk Paradox wrote:

Concord doesn't decide for me what I choose to do or not.

It doesn't decide for you, no, because it doesn't prevent, it provides protection.

Murk Paradox wrote:

It's not a "cost" if the ship is free.

No ship is free.

Murk Paradox wrote:

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.

Sit on jita undock, lock someone who undocks, shoot. Man, what effort.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#468 - 2013-04-08 18:23:04 UTC

RubyPorto wrote:

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.

You mean like the shields or armor on your hull?


Lord Zim Gallente Federation Likes received: 2,451	#469 - 2013-04-08 18:24:09 UTC Murk Paradox wrote: If I had loot in my cargo hold, that's what they'd be killing me for. With concord, yes. Without concord, no. Without concord, there'd be nothing deterring them from shooting anything that moves. Hence, concord protects. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#470 - 2013-04-08 18:24:46 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.

There's no risk if there's no cost. It's free to gank in highsec. CCP provides everything to do it. 0 isk lost.

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#471 - 2013-04-08 18:25:51 UTC

RubyPorto wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:

So you're saying that a 50% chance of something bad is a higher risk than a 100% chance of that same bad outcome?

Again, I'm not sure on the 50%. All (100%) gankers get blown up by Concord. Period. Everytime. Whether loot fairy is friendly, or not.

Lord Zim

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,451

#472 - 2013-04-08 18:26:55 UTC

Murk Paradox wrote:

There's no risk if there's no cost. It's free to gank in highsec. CCP provides everything to do it. 0 isk lost.

If concord's not there, there's no cost. If concord's there, there's a cost, and this deters a vast majority of players from trying to gank you. Hence, you're protected.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#473 - 2013-04-08 18:27:30 UTC

Tippia wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:

There is no 50% chance to losing your ship to Concord. It's 100%.

Quote:

The risk comes from the loot I may or may not drop in my wreck.

Yes, I am saying there is no risk. It's a cost. You won't MAYBE not have your gankship blown up. You WILL get it blown up.

If Concord had a CHANCE to show up, then yes, that would be a risk.

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#474 - 2013-04-08 18:28:55 UTC

baltec1 wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:

Same holds true WITH Concord notso?

Everyone but 1 you mean.

7,950
Dave stark Likes received: 7,950	#475 - 2013-04-08 18:29:48 UTC i have to hand it to him, he might be a complete moron but he's also brilliant troll.

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#476 - 2013-04-08 18:29:57 UTC

Lord Zim wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:

Concord doesn't decide for me what I choose to do or not.

It doesn't decide for you, no, because it doesn't prevent, it provides protection.

Murk Paradox wrote:

It's not a "cost" if the ship is free.

No ship is free.

Murk Paradox wrote:

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.

Sit on jita undock, lock someone who undocks, shoot. Man, what effort.

I suggest you try some tutorials if you think there aren't any free ships. Or hell, even try docking in a pod in a new station.

baltec1

Bat Country

Pandemic Horde

Likes received: 19,001

#477 - 2013-04-08 18:31:15 UTC

Murk Paradox wrote:

baltec1 wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:

Same holds true WITH Concord notso?

Everyone but 1 you mean.

What?


baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Horde Likes received: 19,001	#478 - 2013-04-08 18:31:51 UTC Dave Stark wrote: i have to hand it to him, he might be a complete moron but he's also brilliant troll. Nobody can be this stupid.

Lord Zim

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,451

#479 - 2013-04-08 18:32:16 UTC

Murk Paradox wrote:

Yes, I am saying there is no risk. It's a cost.

Actually, there's a risk that the loot fairy won't be kind to you, and that you've wasted that ship for no return.

Murk Paradox wrote:

I suggest you try some tutorials if you think there aren't any free ships. Or hell, even try docking in a pod in a new station.

My time is free.

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

RIP Vile Rat


Dave stark Likes received: 7,950	#480 - 2013-04-08 18:32:54 UTC \| Edited by: Dave Stark baltec1 wrote: Dave Stark wrote: i have to hand it to him, he might be a complete moron but he's also brilliant troll. Nobody can be this stupid. you give people too much credit. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

First pagePrevious page2223242526Next pageLast page