These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#521 - 2013-04-08 19:34:44 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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).


why are you defining a word we're not discussing?

oh right, true to form when proved wrong you simply change the subject.


Who's "we"?

Are you just exercising mob mentality here? You aren't really saying anything or being a part of the discussion.

And WE ARE TALKING about definitions. Defining what Concord is. Because this thread is about risk vs reward.

Concord is a hammer. Not a screwdriver.


we being me and you, it takes two people for a dialogue. or, are you not a person but a poorly coded troll bot of some kind?

we were discussing whether or not concord protects people; they do. wasn't really much of a discussion, but still.


I am a meatpopsicle.

Have a lick.

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
#522 - 2013-04-08 19:37:12 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
They will kill me if I gank someone, but nothing for me to protect me.


is that because you're like, -10 and have no understanding of how concord works?



Currently my sec standing is 2.6, I'm just being obtuse to counter your vagueness.


in that case you're just wrong; concord does protect you.



Protects me from whom, or what?

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
#523 - 2013-04-08 19:38:39 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Protects me from whom, or what?


if you're that clueless about concord, i suggest you stop trying to discuss a topic you clearly have no clue about.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#524 - 2013-04-08 19:38:41 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Protects me from whom, or what?

Everyone who decides the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#525 - 2013-04-08 19:39:43 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
No Concord does not stop me from shooting everyone I see. Or anyone.

Then what's stopping you from shooting everyone you see, or anyone?

Nothing. My choice.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.



My safety is on red for a reason.

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
#526 - 2013-04-08 19:40:13 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Protects me from whom, or what?


if you're that clueless about concord, i suggest you stop trying to discuss a topic you clearly have no clue about.



You're the one not answering the question.

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
#527 - 2013-04-08 19:42:04 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
My safety is on red for a reason.

So you can run around in hisec and not shoot someone?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#528 - 2013-04-08 19:43:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Because you said so. Otherwise I wouldn't have.
…except, of course, that I didn't, and yet you did.

Quote:
Beyond that it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Not really, no. Beyond that, it's all maths. Just like it's all maths before it as well.

Quote:
You are asking me about the thought process of someone else. I am saying I cannot answer that question.

You shoot, you die. Guaranteed.
…and by your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — 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? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?

It's a simple question. Why can't you answer it? And no, I'm not asking you about the thought process of anyone. I'm asking you if you don't find it an odd notion that lower costs and higher rewards are the same as higher risk.
Dave Stark
#529 - 2013-04-08 19:47:38 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Protects me from whom, or what?


if you're that clueless about concord, i suggest you stop trying to discuss a topic you clearly have no clue about.



You're the one not answering the question.


oh sorry i didn't think it was a serious question.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#530 - 2013-04-08 19:51:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Because you said so. Otherwise I wouldn't have.
…except, of course, that I didn't, and yet you did.

Quote:
Beyond that it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Not really, no. Beyond that, it's all maths. Just like it's all maths before it as well.

Quote:
You are asking me about the thought process of someone else. I am saying I cannot answer that question.

You shoot, you die. Guaranteed.
…and by your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — 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? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?

It's a simple question. Why can't you answer it? And no, I'm not asking you about the thought process of anyone. I'm asking you if you don't find it an odd notion that lower costs and higher rewards are the same as higher risk.



Correct, it's not a risk. You aren't risking it, you are already losing it. It's a cost assessment. There's not a chance of loss, it's already guaranteed.

And I did answer the question. There is no "best" way to increase risk for gankers. Gankers abuse a current mechanic to make a profit while allowing for a certain amount of loss.

Assessment does not equal risk.

You insinuate a gamble. A chance. That is not so. The variable is a constant positive integer. Not a chance for positive or negative.

You will lose the ship. Period. You might not get the victim blown up, but you will get blown up for trying.

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
#531 - 2013-04-08 19:54:39 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
My safety is on red for a reason.

So you can run around in hisec and not shoot someone?



So I have full control on what I want to accomplish.

I have shot people in highsec. I have podded in highsec. I have abstained from doing so as well.

I personally prefer non highsec activities. I really don't like the spam and refuse to spend time blocking people in my chat. I also hate how you cannot configure local; it's always alphabetical, so if I choose to chase someone or look for someone in highsec, it's more bother than what its worth.

If I was able to create either my own channel to include members from local, or have a filter applied by contact type, I might stay in highsec a bit more than I do.

Since neither of those exist, I detest highsec's chaos and levels of activity.

Nothing to do with 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
#532 - 2013-04-08 19:55:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Because you said so. Otherwise I wouldn't have.
…except, of course, that I didn't, and yet you did.

Quote:
Beyond that it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Not really, no. Beyond that, it's all maths. Just like it's all maths before it as well.

Quote:
You are asking me about the thought process of someone else. I am saying I cannot answer that question.

You shoot, you die. Guaranteed.
…and by your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — 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? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?

It's a simple question. Why can't you answer it? And no, I'm not asking you about the thought process of anyone. I'm asking you if you don't find it an odd notion that lower costs and higher rewards are the same as higher risk.



If you need to put 1 gallon of gas in your car, and gas cost's $4 per gallon.. you don't RISK losing 4 dollars. You know exactly where it's going; in your gas tank.

You risk taking a chance that the $4 will be enough, but you know you are going to be that $4 poorer.

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
#533 - 2013-04-08 19:56:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Correct, it's not a risk. You aren't risking it, you are already losing it. It's a cost assessment. There's not a chance of loss, it's already guaranteed.
In other words, there's a 100% chance of loss, and you can include that risk in your overall risk assessment.

Quote:
And I did answer the question. There is no "best" way to increase risk for gankers.
Ok. Fair enough, I'll remove the “best” bit since it's completely inconsequential.

I'll try again: by your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — one 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? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?

It's a yes/no question, and you haven't answered it.

Quote:
You insinuate a gamble.
No. I'm talking about risk assessments, which you perform by combining costs (including negative ones) and probabilities.

Quote:
If you need to put 1 gallon of gas in your car, and gas cost's $4 per gallon.. you don't RISK losing 4 dollars.
Of course not. You risk, probably, something along the lines of 0.004¢.

Cost of gas ($4) × probability of loss (I'm going with 0.001% here, but I'll admit that I've pulled that number out of my lower back since I don't know the fault rate on petrol pumps or the chance that some nasty evildoer has filled the tank with Pepsi instead).
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#534 - 2013-04-08 19:56:46 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I have abstained from doing so as well.

Why?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#535 - 2013-04-08 20:00:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Correct, it's not a risk. You aren't risking it, you are already losing it. It's a cost assessment. There's not a chance of loss, it's already guaranteed.
In other words, there's a 100% chance of loss, and you can include that risk in your overall risk assessment.


No, in those words. Not "other".

Quote:
And I did answer the question. There is no "best" way to increase risk for gankers.
Ok. Fair enough, I'll remove the “best” bit since it's completely inconsequential.

I'll try again: by your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — one 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? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?

It's a yes/no question, and you haven't answered it.

Quote:
You insinuate a gamble.
No. I'm talking about risk assessments, which you perform by combining costs (including negative ones) and probabilities.[/quote]


I think having to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes. I also do not think highsec should be as powerful as it is, but I understand why it is.

As opposed to it being a contradiction... I don't give it enough thought. I simply do not care. I know the rules. If I shoot someone I'm not supposed to I forfeit my ship regardless of the outcome.

That's as simple as a math as it can get.

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
#536 - 2013-04-08 20:02:09 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I have abstained from doing so as well.

Why?



Why what? WTF are you on about. Stop trolling. Ask a direct question or move the **** 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
#537 - 2013-04-08 20:02:45 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I have abstained from doing so as well.

Why?

Why what? WTF are you on about. Stop trolling. Ask a direct question or move the **** on.

You abstained from ganking. Why?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#538 - 2013-04-08 20:07:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
No, in those words. Not "other".
“There's not a chance of a loss” are other words than “there's a 100% chance of a loss”. In more other words, there's a risk, since we have a probability and a cost, and we can combine the two…

Now, I'll grant you that, if we read that literally — that you are saying that there is no chance of a loss; that the chance of loss is 0% — then yes, there is no risk, since we have an arbitrary cost multiplied with a zero probability, which yields zero risk… but the problem then becomes that it's simply not the case that the chance of loss is 0%.

Quote:
I think having to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes.
That wasn't the question, though. So, again: by your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — one 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? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#539 - 2013-04-08 20:08:35 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I have abstained from doing so as well.

Why?

Why what? WTF are you on about. Stop trolling. Ask a direct question or move the **** on.

You abstained from ganking. Why?



I don't have a need to kill anything and everything in my sights. Sometimes I have a different goal in mind. Such as transporting. Or exploring. Sometimes I do go on gank sprees though.

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
#540 - 2013-04-08 20:13:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
No, in those words. Not "other".
“There's not a chance of a loss” are other words than “there's a 100% chance of a loss”. In more other words, there's a risk, since we have a probability and a cost, and we can combine the two…

Now, I'll grant you that, if we read that literally — that you are saying that there is no chance of a loss; that the chance of loss is 0% — then yes, there is no risk, since we have an arbitrary cost multiplied with a zero probability, which yields zero risk… but the problem then becomes that it's simply not the case that the chance of loss is 0%.

Quote:
I think having to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes.
That wasn't the question, though. So, again: by your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — one 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? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction:



You have 3 questions, 1 station which is an assumption, and you are claiming I haven't answered your question.

I have answered multiple things in multiple ways and gave enough information to how I believe and what I can accept, everytime you have repeated the same thing.

You are going to have to re ask the question, expand it, or stop being an incompetent.

Question 1- Doesn't that seem odd to you?
I think having to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes. I also do not think highsec should be as powerful as it is, but I understand why it is.

Question 2- Doesn't that seem like a contradiction:
As opposed to it being a contradiction... I don't give it enough thought. I simply do not care. I know the rules. If I shoot someone I'm not supposed to I forfeit my ship regardless of the outcome.

Question 3- that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?
I think having to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes. I also do not think highsec should be as powerful as it is, but I understand why it is. Repetitive answer, but still fits.

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.