These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page2728293031Next pageLast page

Why risk versus reward doesn't matter
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#561 - 2013-04-08 21:01:15 UTC | Edited by: Murk Paradox

Tippia wrote:

Ai Shun wrote:

Ship loss is guaranteed; so that is a cost in the equation.

No. The ship cost is the cost in the equation. The guarantee is the probability. Multiply the two together and you get the risk — in this case the full value of the ship. So, naturally, if we reduce the probability, the risk will go down.

But what Murk is desperately trying to avoid admitting is that if we treat the guarantee as meaning there is no risk, we get the following contradiction: losing the full value of the ship is a lower risk than losing, say, half the value of the ship.

Quote:

If you are going down the "lose less and earn more" path though you'd have to focus on a single event, wouldn't you? E.g. one encounter. You could increase risk by adding further punishment in the future.

No, we're talking statistics here.

Again, assuming the odd “non-risk” interpretation of 100% loss, over 10 ganks, you'd lose 10 ships.
To add more risk (more than “none”), we reduce the probability to only 50% so that there is a risk, and over 10 ganks, you'd lose 5 ships. By losing fewer ships and thus earning bigger profits, you apparently risk more because you have “a risk” rather than “no risk”.

So what happens if I use a destroyer I got as a reward to gank someone in highsec? What did I risk? a security hit? a free ship? All known as cost already and calculated. Those WILL happen the second I pull the trigger. There is no gamble, only calculation.

Beyond that it does not matter what COULD happen, the fact remains I will lose my ship to Concord whether my victim loses anything, or nothing.

Period.

WTF "half" of a ship would I lose? The bottom half? The front half? Concord will take it all in a firey ball. The risk would be IF I could regain any of the lost loot in my own wreck, which would have been written off as loss before I even began, and any salvage from that point would be a bonus, not a risk.

Assume 100% loss and you will never be disappointed.

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

#562 - 2013-04-08 21:05:01 UTC

Dave Stark wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:

Tippia, let me ask you something....

What's the risk factor in shooting someone in highsec that is based on chance?

You keep saying risk, like there's a chance you wouldn't lose your ship by shooting someone.

Are you insinuating that you can maybe get away without retribution from Concord?

you're ignoring the fact that probability of 1 is still a probability.

100% is complete. You aren't risking it if you already know there is 0% chance of saving it.

I've never seen Concord miss.

Gallente Federation 2,451
Lord Zim Gallente Federation Likes received: 2,451	#563 - 2013-04-08 21:08:44 UTC So we've moved on from ignoring the fact concord works as a hisec protector, and on to ignoring what the actual risk in ganking is? Okay, then. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat

Ai Shun

Likes received: 1,200

#564 - 2013-04-08 21:11:05 UTC

Tippia wrote:

Okay, that is a better phrasing of it. The probability is 1 though - there is no reduction possible; which to my mind makes it a meaningless part of the equation. The only risk I see is that you may not earn any ISK from the transaction. Admittedly, I'm doped up on flu medication so my brain is half functional at best Big smile

Tippia wrote:

To add more risk (more than “none”), we reduce the probability to only 50% so that there is a risk, and over 10 ganks, you'd lose 5 ships. By losing fewer ships and thus earning bigger profits, you apparently risk more because you have “a risk” rather than “no risk”.

That would be asinine. I did not read that into anything that Murk wrote; rather - it seems to be a viewpoint somebody is trying to paint him with against what is common sense.

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#565 - 2013-04-08 21:11:11 UTC

Murk Paradox wrote:

So what happens if I use a destroyer I got as a reward to gank someone in highsec? What did I risk?

A destroyer. Its fittings (a separate risk calculation). If you want to see it as a cost, your sec rating.

Quote:

100% is complete. You aren't risking it if you already know there is 0% chance of saving it.

100% means you have a risk equal to the value of the ship.

7,950
Dave Stark Likes received: 7,950	#566 - 2013-04-08 21:12:40 UTC Lord Zim wrote: So we've moved on from ignoring the fact concord works as a hisec protector, and on to ignoring what the actual risk in ganking is? Okay, then. casually ignoring a fact when it gets in the way of murk's point is the way it works when you're conversing with him.

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#567 - 2013-04-08 21:14:38 UTC

Tippia wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:

So what happens if I use a destroyer I got as a reward to gank someone in highsec? What did I risk?

A destroyer. Its fittings (a separate risk calculation). If you want to see it as a cost, your sec rating.

Quote:

100% is complete. You aren't risking it if you already know there is 0% chance of saving it.

100% means you have a risk equal to the value of the ship.

100% means no chance of any other outcome.

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#568 - 2013-04-08 21:17:08 UTC | Edited by: Murk Paradox

Dave Stark wrote:

Lord Zim wrote:

So we've moved on from ignoring the fact concord works as a hisec protector, and on to ignoring what the actual risk in ganking is?

Okay, then.

casually ignoring a fact when it gets in the way of murk's point is the way it works when you're conversing with him.

I have no problem addressing anything you might bring up. Feel free to ask away.

This is a risk vs reward conversation, I merely brought it back on point.

You have until 5p central btw.

And please try to keep the flaming/trolling to a minimum if you can manage it.

Lord Zim

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,451

#569 - 2013-04-08 21:18:03 UTC

Ai Shun wrote:

The probability is 1 though - there is no reduction possible; which to my mind makes it a meaningless part of the equation. The only risk I see is that you may not earn any ISK from the transaction. Admittedly, I'm doped up on flu medication so my brain is half functional at best Big smile

The risk is that the higher the isk cost, the higher the chance is that you won't make a profit or even get the isk back, for various reasons.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#570 - 2013-04-08 21:18:37 UTC | Edited by: Tippia

Murk Paradox wrote:

100% means no chance of any other outcome.

…which means that the risk is the full value of the cost.

Ai Shun wrote:

The ability to reduce it doesn't matter much. It would be exactly as impossible to reduce if it was a hard-coded 50% rather than 100%. What we can do, though, is mitigate it, usually by counterbalancing it with a decent-size risk of a flipping great payout from all the loot we'll be able to scoop (btw, that risk has the exact same “issue”: a hard-coded, unalterable probability of 50%… or some such, I'm not sure they've ever actually released the number).

Quote:

That would be asinine. I did not read that into anything that Murk wrote; rather - it seems to be a viewpoint somebody is trying to paint him with against what is common sense.

Indeed it is asinine, but it is also what you effectively say if you claim that guaranteed ship loss is not a risk.

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#571 - 2013-04-08 21:21:22 UTC | Edited by: Murk Paradox

Ship loss being a cost of chancing a pay out is not an asinine idea.

You already know you aren't walking away from your wreck unscathed. To pretend otherwise is asinine.

But atleast you admit to being asinine.


Lord Zim Gallente Federation Likes received: 2,451	#572 - 2013-04-08 21:23:43 UTC The only one pretending the ship isn't a part of the risk calculation, is you. 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

#573 - 2013-04-08 21:24:10 UTC

How can you mitigate 100% ship loss?

You would have to win that payout first.

Horse before the cart and all that.

Take the losses, get a payout, INVEST the payout into future attempts.

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#574 - 2013-04-08 21:24:34 UTC | Edited by: Tippia

Murk Paradox wrote:

Ship loss being a cost of chancing a pay out is not an asinine idea.

…and as luck would have it, no-one has claimed that it is.

What's asinine is to say that by reducing losses and increasing profits, you've increased the risk. You know, the thing you did by claiming that a guaranteed loss was the same as no risk, before you admitted that it was a rather silly position to hold.

Quote:

How can you mitigate 100% ship loss?

By adding a suitably large risk of loot to the equation.

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#575 - 2013-04-08 21:24:52 UTC

Lord Zim wrote:

The only one pretending the ship isn't a part of the risk calculation, is you.

It's a cost ffs. You don't "risk" it as it doesn't come back. It's godamn fuel =P

Ai Shun

Likes received: 1,200

#576 - 2013-04-08 21:26:38 UTC

Lord Zim wrote:

Ai Shun wrote:

The risk is that the higher the isk cost, the higher the chance is that you won't make a profit or even get the isk back, for various reasons.

I can agree with that. I think the main point for me is - you do not risk your ship. That is a cost and it's going to happen - the whole 100% chance / 1p. You're risking the value of that ship against the payout and that is the bit that involves knowledge, RNG, understanding how you can mitigate the cost of losing that ship, the sec-hit, etc.


Lord Zim Gallente Federation Likes received: 2,451	#577 - 2013-04-08 21:27:03 UTC Murk Paradox wrote: It's a cost ffs. You don't "risk" it as it doesn't come back. It's godamn fuel =P If you go and put a coin on a slot machine and pull the arm, what have you done? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat


Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops Likes received: 27,526	#578 - 2013-04-08 21:27:20 UTC Murk Paradox wrote: It's a cost ffs. It's a cost with a probability of occurring — aka a risk. Quote: You don't "risk" it as it doesn't come back. Things coming back are not a requirement for it being a risk. Oh, and we've already explained the risk of fuel.

Murk Paradox

Ministry of War

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 760

#579 - 2013-04-08 21:27:35 UTC | Edited by: Murk Paradox

Tippia wrote:

Murk Paradox wrote:

Ship loss being a cost of chancing a pay out is not an asinine idea.

Quote:

How can you mitigate 100% ship loss?

By adding a suitably large risk of loot to the equation.

As luck WOULD indeeeed have it, you did in fact insinuate that.

Quote:

Indeed it is asinine, but it is also what you effectively say if you claim that guaranteed ship loss is not a risk.

Cost is not a risk. It's a cost!

Take PI for example.. you know it's going to cost fuel for it work and stay online. Doesn't matter what anyone does to it, or if it brings income or not. That's the RISK. That it will generate money.

What is NOT a risk, is that it will take fuel to run. That's a cost.

Just like losing your ship is a COST Paid to Concord in order to take a chance at getting a wreck and some loot.

The RISK involved in that, would be if you can get back to that wreck quick enough to scoop it before someone else RISKS a suspect flag to loot/scoot and dock up first.

But you still lose your ship no matter what.


Dave Stark Likes received: 7,950	#580 - 2013-04-08 21:28:31 UTC Murk Paradox wrote: Lord Zim wrote: The only one pretending the ship isn't a part of the risk calculation, is you. It's a cost ffs. You don't "risk" it as it doesn't come back. It's godamn fuel =P Tippia wrote: Hint: Risk = Probability × Cost. risk = 1 * cost risk = cost. cost is risk.

First pagePrevious page2728293031Next pageLast page