These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#641 - 2013-04-09 19:36:38 UTC
As to not be rambling, let me make it concise and clear.

A ganker has no hope of getting his ship back if he agresses someone.

Period. No chance. No bet. No variable. Shoot, BOOM.

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
#642 - 2013-04-09 19:41:15 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
The ganker bets that he can blow up his victim before he gets blown up by Concord. That the victim will not survive his attack.

And that the loot fairy will be kind to him. I.e., the risk of ganking him.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Zim, I'm not going to quote your entire wall of text, but your first point would only make sense to say a gambler risks his gas to gamble at the casino.

That's the equate of a ganker and his ship.

Ignore and deflect, just like you always do when you get dumpstered. vOV

Murk Paradox wrote:
As to not be rambling, let me make it concise and clear.

A ganker has no hope of getting his ship back if he agresses someone.

Period. No chance. No bet. No variable. Shoot, BOOM.

And that's not where we're saying the risk is, the risk is whether or not he makes a profit or not. The ship is just what he bets on that gamble.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#643 - 2013-04-09 19:44:13 UTC
Don't get butthurt precious, it's ok.

You're wrong.

A ganker loses his ship 100% of the time. Regardless.

It costs him his ship EVERYTIME he TRIES to gank, regardless of outcome. Loot fairy isn't even in the picture yet.

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
#644 - 2013-04-09 19:45:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
The ganker bets that he can blow up his victim before he gets blown up by Concord. That the victim will not survive his attack.

And that the loot fairy will be kind to him. I.e., the risk of ganking him.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Zim, I'm not going to quote your entire wall of text, but your first point would only make sense to say a gambler risks his gas to gamble at the casino.

That's the equate of a ganker and his ship.

Ignore and deflect, just like you always do when you get dumpstered. vOV

Murk Paradox wrote:
As to not be rambling, let me make it concise and clear.

A ganker has no hope of getting his ship back if he agresses someone.

Period. No chance. No bet. No variable. Shoot, BOOM.

And that's not where we're saying the risk is, the risk is whether or not he makes a profit or not. The ship is just what he bets on that gamble.



If the ship is the gamble, a ganker loses everytime, as his ship gets blown up e v e r y t i m e.

But you're not saying that, right? You say a ganker risks his ship, but then say you aren't saying it. You even spent the last 2 pages doing so (so don't bother saying you didn't).

Make up your mind dude.

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
#645 - 2013-04-09 19:51:01 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
If he ship is the gamble, a ganker loses everytime, as his ship gets blown up e v e r y t i m e.


But you're not saying that, right?[/quote]
No, I'm not saying the ship's the gamble, I'm saying the ship's what he's betting on the gamble.

Which part of that is hard to fathom?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#646 - 2013-04-09 19:58:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
If he ship is the gamble, a ganker loses everytime, as his ship gets blown up e v e r y t i m e.

But you're not saying that, right?

No, I'm not saying the ship's the gamble, I'm saying the ship's what he's betting on the gamble.

Which part of that is hard to fathom?


(Fixed your quote tags)

The part where the ship gets blown up everytime.

Ok look, this circle jerk is getting tiring. I don't care why you think that is, but whatever.

To bring everything around full circle, explain to me how betting a ship on the loot fairy is proof that risk vs reward either-

A)Matters.
or
B)Doesn't matter.

And then I'll either state whether I agree with you or not.

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
#647 - 2013-04-09 20:03:35 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Ganking itself is a gamble yes. We already both have agreed on that to many points. The ship being at risk is what we argued.


So, since every type of gambling has a wager (the thing that is put at risk), what is the ganker's wager?


The ganker bets that he can blow up his victim before he gets blown up by Concord. That the victim will not survive his attack.

He isn't in any sort of agreement with the victim if that's what you mean. It's not a duel with stakes. That would be a "bet" or a "gamble" in the true sense of the word you are trying to use.


What does he bet that he can blow up his victim before being blown up?

Every type of gambling has stakes that each side offers up. What are the stakes that the ganker offers up?

"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
#648 - 2013-04-09 20:04:08 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
If he ship is the gamble, a ganker loses everytime, as his ship gets blown up e v e r y t i m e.


But you're not saying that, right?

No, I'm not saying the ship's the gamble, I'm saying the ship's what he's betting on the gamble.

Which part of that is hard to fathom?

The part where the ship gets blown up everytime.[/quote]
i.e. the part where he bets the value of the ship, and risks not getting anything in return.

Murk Paradox wrote:
To bring everything around full circle, explain to me how betting a ship on the loot fairy is proof that risk vs reward either-

A)Matters.
or
B)Doesn't matter.

The reason risk vs reward matters is because if you didn't have to bet a ship on the loot fairy, i.e. if concord hadn't been the protector that it is, then there would be no reason not to try to gank literally everyone you come across (barring the ones which you know would eat you for lunch). If there was no risk, there'd be nothing to stop anyone from trying to reap the reward, be it a killmail or the ship's content. Since there is risk of ending up losing whatever it is your ship's worth, it acts as a deterrent against ganking ships which aren't going to net you any profit, and it sets a lower limit for when it becomes profitable to actually bother ganking someone.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#649 - 2013-04-09 20:05:57 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Don't get butthurt precious, it's ok.

You're wrong.

A ganker loses his ship 100% of the time. Regardless.
…and that's a risk, no matter how much you try to ignore it.

Not only does it come out of what risk is, but it also follows logically since — as you have already agreed — looking at it as no risk means that you could increase the risk to gankers by giving CONCORD a 1/10,000,000 chance of appearing, which is clearly nonsense.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#650 - 2013-04-09 20:08:51 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Ganking itself is a gamble yes. We already both have agreed on that to many points. The ship being at risk is what we argued.


So, since every type of gambling has a wager (the thing that is put at risk), what is the ganker's wager?


The ganker bets that he can blow up his victim before he gets blown up by Concord. That the victim will not survive his attack.

He isn't in any sort of agreement with the victim if that's what you mean. It's not a duel with stakes. That would be a "bet" or a "gamble" in the true sense of the word you are trying to use.


What does he bet that he can blow up his victim before being blown up?

Every type of gambling has stakes that each side offers up. What are the stakes that the ganker offers up?



His wreck I guess but if you want to get literal I'd say that instead of "gamble" I'd use "chance" as the word, such as you're trying to focus on "wager" as the word.

The "gamble" isn't a bet, it's a chance he is taking. "Ganking itself is a chance" if you want an edit.

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
#651 - 2013-04-09 20:09:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Don't get butthurt precious, it's ok.

You're wrong.

A ganker loses his ship 100% of the time. Regardless.
…and that's a risk, no matter how much you try to ignore it.

Not only does it come out of what risk is, but it also follows logically since — as you have already agreed — looking at it as no risk means that you could increase the risk to gankers by giving CONCORD a 1/10,000,000 chance of appearing, which is clearly nonsense.



That's the same thing as saying you risk pos fuel for your pos. It's an expenditure as there is 0 chance Concord will let you get away.

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
#652 - 2013-04-09 20:11:18 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
That's the same thing as saying you risk pos fuel for your pos.
…which you do.
When you put the fuel in, you're hoping that it will pay off and keep the POS going for a month (or whatever). There's a distinct possibility that it won't.

Cost × probability = risk.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#653 - 2013-04-09 20:18:14 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

The reason risk vs reward matters is because if you didn't have to bet a ship on the loot fairy, i.e. if concord hadn't been the protector that it is, then there would be no reason not to try to gank literally everyone you come across (barring the ones which you know would eat you for lunch). If there was no risk, there'd be nothing to stop anyone from trying to reap the reward, be it a killmail or the ship's content. Since there is risk of ending up losing whatever it is your ship's worth, it acts as a deterrent against ganking ships which aren't going to net you any profit, and it sets a lower limit for when it becomes profitable to actually bother ganking someone.


As risk lends to a chance you might come away without losing your ship I can't agree with that sentiment.

See, I see risk vs reward as cost, whether it takes a bigger alpha dps ship to accomplish your goal of ganking that target, or more than 1 smaller ship and split the net worth with your fleet.

The ship factor is only value of cost to accomplish that goal. You risk not getting anything, but the cost of your ships is still a loss regardless of outcome.

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
#654 - 2013-04-09 20:19:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
That's the same thing as saying you risk pos fuel for your pos.
…which you do.
When you put the fuel in, you're hoping that it will pay off and keep the POS going for a month (or whatever). There's a distinct possibility that it won't.

Cost × probability = risk.



I consider that fuel already spent as cost with no hope of getting it back except the dream I'll make enough profit to cover the already considered loss.

I don't assume any of that fuel will be leftover.

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
#655 - 2013-04-09 20:23:05 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
As risk lends to a chance you might come away without losing your ship I can't agree with that sentiment.

Risk leads to a chance you might come away from the gank in the hole.

Murk Paradox wrote:
The ship factor is only value of cost to accomplish that goal. You risk not getting anything

And therein lies the risk vs reward factor of the gamble.

Murk Paradox wrote:
but the cost of your ships is still a loss regardless of outcome.

Except for when you manage to gank him and the loot fairy is kind to you and drops most of the cargo/the most valuable cargo, in which case you've made money.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#656 - 2013-04-09 20:29:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I consider that fuel already spent as cost with no hope of getting it back except the dream I'll make enough profit to cover the already considered loss.
…and whether you get it back or not is irrelevant. What matters is that you assume you get a month of fuel out of your fuel, and that there's both a probability and a cost that we can attach to this outcome.

More to the point, it doesn't matter if the probability is 1 or 0 or anything in-between — it's still a risk that can be calculated and slotted into your overall risk assessment for the totality of activities you're looking to evaluate.

Risk = cost × probability.
Total risk = For all activities x, ∑ (cost × probability)ₓ

Each of those factors is a risk in and of themselves, as long as they can be expressed as a combination of cost and probability. The values of either don't matter (1 and 0 are just very trivial cases), and cost, in particular, doesn't even have to be a positive number.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#657 - 2013-04-09 20:32:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:


Murk Paradox wrote:
but the cost of your ships is still a loss regardless of outcome.

Except for when you manage to gank him and the loot fairy is kind to you and drops most of the cargo/the most valuable cargo, in which case you've made money.



No! There is no "except". You lose your ship period. Concord blows you up regardless. It is a mechanic certainty. "Except for when you manage to gank him" implies you won't lose it if you succeed. This is not true.

Whether you made money or not has ZERO to do with the fact you lost that ship. It's a wreck. Now, you MIGHT get some of your OWN loot back, that could be a chance/risk willing to take. But that's betting against the loot fairy isn't it? Or rather, betting that if you don't succeed, the victim doesn't take your loot.

But you still lose your ship. 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
#658 - 2013-04-09 20:33:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I consider that fuel already spent as cost with no hope of getting it back except the dream I'll make enough profit to cover the already considered loss.
…and whether you get it back or not is irrelevant. What matters is that you assume you get a month of fuel out of your fuel, and that there's both a probability and a cost that we can attach to this outcome.

More to the point, it doesn't matter if the probability is 1 or 0 or anything in-between — it's still a risk that can be calculated and slotted into your overall risk assessment for the totality of activities you're looking to evaluate.

Risk = cost × probability.
Total risk = For all activities x, ∑ (cost × probability)ₓ

Each of those factors is a risk in and of themselves, as long as they can be expressed as a combination of cost and probability. The values of either don't matter (1 and 0 are just very trivial cases), and cost, in particular, doesn't even have to be a positive number.



Whether you get it back or not, is the point. That's how you define risk. Using a formula is how you quantify it's value, not whether it exists or not.

It's a COST, not a risk. Because regardless of it's outcome it's gone. There's no chance it won't not be.

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
#659 - 2013-04-09 20:38:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Whether you get it back or not is the point. That's how you define risk. Using a formula is how you quantify it's value, not whether it exists or not.
The only way for a risk not to exist is if its value is 0 or if one of the factors — cost or probability — don't exist. With a nonzero cost and a non-zero probability, the value is not zero, and both factors obviously exist. Thus, it is a risk.

Quote:
It's a COST, not a risk.
Close, but completely wrong.
It's a cost, and therefore a risk.

You're setting up a dichotomy that does not exist, and which cannot exist without completely redefine risk.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#660 - 2013-04-09 20:38:49 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Except for when you manage to gank him and the loot fairy is kind to you and drops most of the cargo/the most valuable cargo, in which case you've made money.

No! There is no "except". You lose your ship period. Concord blows you up regardless. It is a mechanic certainty.

And?

Murk Paradox wrote:
Whether you made money or not has ZERO to do with the fact you lost that ship.

Except if you made money, then you got more out of the gank than you put in, i.e. the gamble paid off.

Murk Paradox wrote:
It's a wreck. Now, you MIGHT get some of your OWN loot back, that could be a chance/risk willing to take. But that's betting against the loot fairy isn't it? Or rather, betting that if you don't succeed, the victim doesn't take your loot.

This makes no sense.

Murk Paradox wrote:
But you still lose your ship. Period.

And?

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

RIP Vile Rat