These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#481 - 2013-04-08 18:34:28 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
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.



A hammer can be used to turn a screw into a board.

Hence that hammer is a screwdriver.

That is what your post equates to. And is wrong.

As are 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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#482 - 2013-04-08 18:38:19 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.
In other words, according to you, a lower projected loss is a higher risk than a higher projected loss.

Unfortunately, that's not how risk works.

Risk = probability × cost.

For a cost C, a probability of 100% yields a higher risk than a probability of 50%. 1×C > 0.5×C. It's really as simple as that. Any cost can be expressed as a risk by including a probability of that cost coming true, and the loss of a ship to CONCORD is a high risk indeed… it rather has to be with that kind of probability.

If you reject the notion that ship loss is a risk, then you tacitly agree that the best way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#483 - 2013-04-08 18:40:34 UTC
RubyPorto 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.


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.



My original statement was that Concord is not a Protector by definition.

And it still isn't.

Not so strange if you keep things in perspective and stop trying to be a persecutor. Otherwise.. forum Concord will "protect" me =P.

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
#484 - 2013-04-08 18:41:55 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
My original statement was that Concord is not a Protector by definition.

Considering the fact that concord keeps hisec safer than if it wasn't, you're wrong. It is a protector.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#485 - 2013-04-08 18:46:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.
In other words, according to you, a lower projected loss is a higher risk than a higher projected loss.

Unfortunately, that's not how risk works.

Risk = probability × cost.

For a cost C, a probability of 100% yields a higher risk than a probability of 50%. 1×C > 0.5×C. It's really as simple as that. Any cost can be expressed as a risk by including a probability of that cost coming true, and the loss of a ship to CONCORD is a high risk indeed… it rather has to be with that kind of probability.

If you reject the notion that ship loss is a risk, then you tacitly agree that the best way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you?



No, I'm by far more succinct than that. I'm saying if you shoot something or someone you shouldn't, you get blown up. Any chance or risk of reward isn't relevant at that point. Whether you kill the target, or get loot, you still get blown up for trying. 100% of the time. Period.

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
#486 - 2013-04-08 18:47:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
My original statement was that Concord is not a Protector by definition.

Considering the fact that concord keeps hisec safer than if it wasn't, you're wrong. It is a protector.



Not by definition it isn't. Anything further about that you would have to take up with dictionary.com or some crap.

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.
Dave stark
#487 - 2013-04-08 18:50:32 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
My original statement was that Concord is not a Protector by definition.

Considering the fact that concord keeps hisec safer than if it wasn't, you're wrong. It is a protector.



Not by definition it isn't. Anything further about that you would have to take up with dictionary.com or some crap.


dictionary.com wrote:
to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.


so, concord does protect.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#488 - 2013-04-08 18:51:42 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
My original statement was that Concord is not a Protector by definition.

Considering the fact that concord keeps hisec safer than if it wasn't, you're wrong. It is a protector.

Not by definition it isn't. Anything further about that you would have to take up with dictionary.com or some crap.

With concord: risk/reward kicks into effect, most decide it isn't worth it, and you're safe.
Without concord: everyone shoots everyone.

Concord increases safety, thus it's a protector, by definition.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#489 - 2013-04-08 18:53:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
My original statement was that Concord is not a Protector by definition.

Considering the fact that concord keeps hisec safer than if it wasn't, you're wrong. It is a protector.



Not by definition it isn't. Anything further about that you would have to take up with dictionary.com or some crap.


dictionary.com wrote:
to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.


so, concord does protect.


Where did Concord do any of that.

Now explain how Concord would do this-


pun·ish
[puhn-ish] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal.
2.
to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft.
3.
to handle severely or roughly, as in a fight.
4.
to put to painful exertion, as a horse in racing.
5.
Informal. to make a heavy inroad on; deplete: to punish a quart of whiskey. (cocord doesn't drink in game that I know, so I'll concede this one).

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.
Dave stark
#490 - 2013-04-08 18:54:54 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Where did Concord do any of that.


any system 0.5 or higher.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#491 - 2013-04-08 18:57:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Where did Concord do any of that.


any system 0.5 or higher.



Citation needed please. I've seen Concord punish, avenge and all that. But never seen them repair or shield or help cover any loss.

I've even seen Concord blow someone up for shooting a rock.

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#492 - 2013-04-08 18:58:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
No, I'm by far more succinct than that.
Yes. I'm merely explaining to you what your succinctness entails: a contradiction.

Quote:
I'm saying if you shoot something or someone you shouldn't, you get blown up. Any chance or risk of reward isn't relevant at that point. Whether you kill the target, or get loot, you still get blown up for trying. 100% of the time. Period.
…and that doesn't preclude it from being a risk. It also means that you tacitly agree that the best way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?

Quote:
Citation needed please. I've seen Concord punish, avenge and all that. But never seen them repair or shield or help cover any loss.
As luck would have it, none of that is needed to protect someone.
Dave stark
#493 - 2013-04-08 19:01:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Where did Concord do any of that.


any system 0.5 or higher.



Citation needed please. I've seen Concord punish, avenge and all that. But never seen them repair or shield or help cover any loss.

I've even seen Concord blow someone up for shooting a rock.


citation needed? you need to proof that concord exists in 0.5 or higher systems?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#494 - 2013-04-08 19:09:02 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


dictionary.com wrote:
to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.


so, concord does protect.


Where did Concord do any of that.



The last time I went through high sec.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#495 - 2013-04-08 19:10:49 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
dictionary.com wrote:
to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.

so, concord does protect.

Where did Concord do any of that.

Every time someone goes "I could gank you, but I won't, because I don't want my ship to blow up for nothing", then concord has "defended or guarded from attack" etc.

In other words, every time you undock in hisec.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#496 - 2013-04-08 19:12:06 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
No, I'm by far more succinct than that.
Yes. I'm merely explaining to you what your succinctness entails: a contradiction.

Quote:
I'm saying if you shoot something or someone you shouldn't, you get blown up. Any chance or risk of reward isn't relevant at that point. Whether you kill the target, or get loot, you still get blown up for trying. 100% of the time. Period.
…and that doesn't preclude it from being a risk. It also means that you tacitly agree that the best way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?

Quote:
Citation needed please. I've seen Concord punish, avenge and all that. But never seen them repair or shield or help cover any loss.
As luck would have it, none of that is needed to protect someone.



You losing your ship to concord is not a contradiction. There is no chance you'll lose your ship. You will lose your ship. 0 chance. 100% certainty.

You shoot at someone, you will get blown up. Doesn't matter if you succeed in killing or not.

Not much contradiction there doll.

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
#497 - 2013-04-08 19:13:23 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Where did Concord do any of that.


any system 0.5 or higher.



Citation needed please. I've seen Concord punish, avenge and all that. But never seen them repair or shield or help cover any loss.

I've even seen Concord blow someone up for shooting a rock.


citation needed? you need to proof that concord exists in 0.5 or higher systems?


I need proof that Concord has protected versus avenged, yes.

Because Concord is not a Protector, they are Executioners.

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.
Dave stark
#498 - 2013-04-08 19:15:17 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Where did Concord do any of that.


any system 0.5 or higher.



Citation needed please. I've seen Concord punish, avenge and all that. But never seen them repair or shield or help cover any loss.

I've even seen Concord blow someone up for shooting a rock.


citation needed? you need to proof that concord exists in 0.5 or higher systems?


I need proof that Concord has protected versus avenged, yes.

Because Concord is not a Protector, they are Executioners.


some one shot me once, concord protected me.

there you go. citation provided.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#499 - 2013-04-08 19:15:45 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I need proof that Concord has protected versus avenged, yes.

Undock in a hauler in jita, and sit there for 24 hours. If you don't get blown up, concord protected you from getting blown up.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Because Concord is not a Protector, they are Executioners.

They protect through deterrence.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#500 - 2013-04-08 19:16:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


dictionary.com wrote:
to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.


so, concord does protect.


Where did Concord do any of that.



The last time I went through high sec.



See Concord never does anything for me. They will kill me if I gank someone, but nothing for me to protect me.

I also learned early on to not risk what you can't afford to lose.

So I guess I'm not one of the "self entitled" types.

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.