These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#681 - 2013-04-09 21:25:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Murk Paradox wrote:
So by YOUR logic, if you gave me a ship in which to gank, asking for nothing in return other that I lose it to Concord by agressing someone,,,

I have risked what?

The cost of that action would be the price of the hull and the modules, and the secstatus loss.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#682 - 2013-04-09 21:29:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
So by YOUR logic, if you gave me a ship in which to gank, asking for nothing in return other that I lose it to Concord by agressing someone,,,

I have risked what?
My ire if you don't lose it to CONCORD after all (that would be the cost), multiplied by however likely it is that this will happen.

Soooo… probably around 0.9 Tippia-ires or so, I'd say.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#683 - 2013-04-09 21:31:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
So by YOUR logic, if you gave me a ship in which to gank, asking for nothing in return other that I lose it to Concord by agressing someone,,,

I have risked what?
My ire if you don't lose it to CONCORD after all (that would be the cost), multiplied by however likely it is that this will happen.



So 0 risk to me right? I mean granted I would lose some of my sec status... but is that all I would risk?

Since your formula doesn't compute, that's an interesting notion I guess.

Otherwise your formula says it's a non loss therefore 0 risk. Would that imply I could gank with 0 risk?

Which brings me back to my point.. risk vs reward is a concept some can cope with, some cannot.

There is no black and white and there is no true risk (risk assessment maybe can be argued but that's semantics) since everything comes from cost of loss.

That is pitted against potential reward and it is then ascertained whether it is a worthy endeavor to follow.

So it is a theory only, because some people don't care about the isk, they want the tears. Or they want their enemy's logistics disrupted.

"the greater good" as it were.

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
#684 - 2013-04-09 21:34:02 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
So 0 risk to me right? I mean granted I would lose some of my sec status... but is that all I would risk?

If you're given a ship by someone, for whatever reason, and use it to gank someone else, you put the cost of that hull and its modules on the line to try to get an even bigger payout than if you were to just go to market and sell the ship.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#685 - 2013-04-09 21:34:08 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
So 0 risk to me right?
No. 0.9 Tippia-ires, as mentioned.

Quote:
Since your formula doesn't compute, that's an interesting notion I guess.
How does [cost = Ire of Tippia] × [probability = 0.9] = 0.9 Tippia-ires not compute?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#686 - 2013-04-09 21:37:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
So 0 risk to me right?
No. 0.9 Tippia-ires, as mentioned.

Quote:
Since your formula doesn't compute, that's an interesting notion I guess.
How does [cost = Ire of Tippia] × [probability = 0.9] = 0.9 Tippia-ires not compute?



Hahaha fair enough! =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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#687 - 2013-04-09 21:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Hahaha fair enough! =P
Now, I'll grant you that I understand what you're trying to say: you're trying to show that we can indeed put a cost and probability to the non-loss even though I said you couldn't.

But here's the thing: we're now talking about a different scenario than getting a non-loss out of a gank. We're instead discussing an attempt to get killed by CONCORD, and there are plenty of ways to affect that — the most obvious being “don't trigger them”… because there's nothing in the terms of the deal that say you actually will. You are not an automated get-killed-by-CONCORD-without-fail mechanic the way CONCORD is an automated go-kill-gankers-without-fail mechanic, and the fact that we have that third party setting terms for the loss of the ship means that we now have invented and assigned a cost that didn't exist before.

Or, to perhaps put it more clearly:
We were (tangentially) talking about the risk of a non-loss after having triggered something that ensures loss.
Now we're talking about the risk of not fulfilling the terms of a contract.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#688 - 2013-04-09 21:48:31 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
So it is a theory only, because some people don't care about the isk, they want the tears.

In this case, they're betting the cost of their ship on the gamble that the gankee will produce said tears.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Or they want their enemy's logistics disrupted.

In this case they'd most likely wardec them or gank them in low/nullsec, but even if they were dumb and didn't, they'd probably have to bet the value of a lot more than just 1 ship on the gamble that they'd be able to "disrupt their enemies' logistics".

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

RIP Vile Rat
Alekksander Geinesa
Divine Mortals
#689 - 2013-04-09 21:56:44 UTC
Guys...

High sec, used to be a lot more dangerous. There were times where concord would not respond as fast or as hard. Times when people like "Tank CEO" and other members of M00, made living in any sec absolutely miserable, blockading and camping trade hubs for days on end. I mean I was on their side at this time, so it was fun to me... but so many tears... SO MANY TEARS! Like to this date, there has not ever been an action in a corp/alliance that has echoed so hard through eve, and caused so many tears, or on that note so many changes to eve in almost an instant. We put cruises on damn frigs, and started the whole "stealth bomber" movement. We made your lives a living hell... we destroyed everything in our sight, and when concord came we blew them up as well. We pillaged and plundered everyone, there was no where safe accept for stations, and if you where there we would just sit outside of it and smack talk you in local until there was a reason for us to leave... We charged tariff and taxes on the goods you moved from system to system, and over all we were the closest thing to old timey gangsters that eve has ever seen.

You guys cry out, make high sec less safe, and I chuckle in your face. Most of you have never once seen what it was like when high sec was not high sec. You would be right back here posting in mass to make high sec safer.

The Reverend
Lord Zap
J0rt
Mikhail
Ywev
Stavros
Tekforce
Gauss
Tank CEO

These people would make your life miserable, and we would have enjoyed every moment of it. You have not seen grieving... you do not know grieving.. THIS IS FREAKING SPARTA! *SPACE KICK*


I agree with their being a serious issue with risk vrs reward, and I feel like it should be more expensive to live in high sec then it is in low sec. However, it should not be "less dangerous" Those were hectic and chaotic times, that made a lot of people say "screw this game".
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#690 - 2013-04-09 22:01:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Hahaha fair enough! =P
Now, I'll grant you that I understand what you're trying to say: you're trying to show that we can indeed put a cost and probability to the non-loss even though I said you couldn't.

But here's the thing: we're now talking about a different scenario than getting a non-loss out of a gank. We're instead discussing an attempt to get killed by CONCORD, and there are plenty of ways to affect that — the most obvious being “don't trigger them”… because there's nothing in the terms of the deal that say you actually will. You are not an automated get-killed-by-CONCORD-without-fail mechanic the way CONCORD is an automated go-kill-gankers-without-fail mechanic, and the fact that we have that third party setting terms for the loss of the ship means that we now have invented and assigned a cost that didn't exist before.

Or, to perhaps put it more clearly:
We were (tangentially) talking about the risk of a non-loss after having triggered something that ensures loss.
Now we're talking about the risk of not fulfilling the terms of a contract.



So you're saying the devil is in the details? I'm saying the details don't matter because regardless of which you lose the ship.

Whether you gave it to me to suicide gank a miner, a freighter, or I chose to sell the damned thing. YOU see the ship as loss regardless.

If that scenario was not true, and I bought a ship, and suicide ganked a miner, I already know, through design, that I'm losing the ship for a specific course of action.

I don't see that defined as "risk" because I know that ship is getting blown up. I define that as cost because of the 100% certainty of that ship getting blown up.

To me, it is fuel in a pos. Be it maple syrup or gasoline =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.
Alekksander Geinesa
Divine Mortals
#691 - 2013-04-09 22:05:04 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Hahaha fair enough! =P
Now, I'll grant you that I understand what you're trying to say: you're trying to show that we can indeed put a cost and probability to the non-loss even though I said you couldn't.

But here's the thing: we're now talking about a different scenario than getting a non-loss out of a gank. We're instead discussing an attempt to get killed by CONCORD, and there are plenty of ways to affect that — the most obvious being “don't trigger them”… because there's nothing in the terms of the deal that say you actually will. You are not an automated get-killed-by-CONCORD-without-fail mechanic the way CONCORD is an automated go-kill-gankers-without-fail mechanic, and the fact that we have that third party setting terms for the loss of the ship means that we now have invented and assigned a cost that didn't exist before.

Or, to perhaps put it more clearly:
We were (tangentially) talking about the risk of a non-loss after having triggered something that ensures loss.
Now we're talking about the risk of not fulfilling the terms of a contract.



So you're saying the devil is in the details? I'm saying the details don't matter because regardless of which you lose the ship.

Whether you gave it to me to suicide gank a miner, a freighter, or I chose to sell the damned thing. YOU see the ship as loss regardless.

If that scenario was not true, and I bought a ship, and suicide ganked a miner, I already know, through design, that I'm losing the ship for a specific course of action.

I don't see that defined as "risk" because I know that ship is getting blown up. I define that as cost because of the 100% certainty of that ship getting blown up.

To me, it is fuel in a pos. Be it maple syrup or gasoline =P



He is correct...

You risk stuff if there is a chance to NOT loose it......


You loose stuff if it goes away..


However on a flip side of the coin, you are also risking ISK when you by a ship even if you know its going to get destoryed because you hope to profit off your ISK investment.. AKA your RISK!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#692 - 2013-04-09 22:10:57 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
So you're saying the devil is in the details? I'm saying the details don't matter because regardless of which you lose the ship.
Actually, what I'm saying is that even ensured losses are risks because to call them anything else opens up for the “ganking nerf” of making CONCORD as common in highsec as officer spawns…

I'm also saying that these losses will slot very neatly into our risk assessment of the gank in its entirety if we convert them to risks — after all, being able to do that is the entire point of the risk concept, so it would be somewhere between wasteful and dishonest not to.

Only then can we actually start discussing what are the differnet risks; what are the tactics we can use to modify them; what are the tactic we can use to mitigate those that can't be modified (or can't be modified enough? Either way, cutting out a huge portion of the process of ganking and then essentially exclaiming that “if we ignore all the things I don't want to include because it would ruin my point, there are no risks”, just makes the whole thing meaningless and false.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#693 - 2013-04-09 22:11:42 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
If that scenario was not true, and I bought a ship, and suicide ganked a miner, I already know, through design, that I'm losing the ship for a specific course of action.

I don't see that defined as "risk" because I know that ship is getting blown up. I define that as cost because of the 100% certainty of that ship getting blown up.

The fact you're losing your ship isn't the risk aspect of it, it's whether or not you reach your goal, be it profit, tears or some sort of denial of service.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#694 - 2013-04-09 22:22:10 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
So 0 risk to me right? I mean granted I would lose some of my sec status... but is that all I would risk?

If you're given a ship by someone, for whatever reason, and use it to gank someone else, you put the cost of that hull and its modules on the line to try to get an even bigger payout than if you were to just go to market and sell the ship.


Hrm.... I think we are talking about theoretical opportunity costs. If someone were to give you a ship to go ganking, you could sell it, but then you'd lose out on the opportunity to gank someone.

By that I mean you lose out on the joy of seeing someone elses day ruined.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Alekksander Geinesa
Divine Mortals
#695 - 2013-04-09 22:23:37 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
So 0 risk to me right? I mean granted I would lose some of my sec status... but is that all I would risk?

If you're given a ship by someone, for whatever reason, and use it to gank someone else, you put the cost of that hull and its modules on the line to try to get an even bigger payout than if you were to just go to market and sell the ship.


Hrm.... I think we are talking about theoretical opportunity costs. If someone were to give you a ship to go ganking, you could sell it, but then you'd lose out on the opportunity to gank someone.

By that I mean you lose out on the joy of seeing someone elses day ruined.



you dont miss out on this opportunity.. unless of course that one ship that was given to you was the only ship in eve....


This entire conversation is more then comical.. please guys go on.. Id love to listen more to the grasp that you do not have.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#696 - 2013-04-09 22:27:13 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Hrm.... I think we are talking about theoretical opportunity costs. If someone were to give you a ship to go ganking, you could sell it, but then you'd lose out on the opportunity to gank someone.

By that I mean you lose out on the joy of seeing someone elses day ruined.

But you'd have the isk. Instead, you choose to risk that isk on the gamble that you get a bigger payday.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#697 - 2013-04-09 22:40:17 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Hrm.... I think we are talking about theoretical opportunity costs. If someone were to give you a ship to go ganking, you could sell it, but then you'd lose out on the opportunity to gank someone.

By that I mean you lose out on the joy of seeing someone elses day ruined.

But you'd have the isk. Instead, you choose to risk that isk on the gamble that you get a bigger payday.


What if isk is no matter. I could use 500 million isk ship to gank a miner. Sure I could have the 500 million if I sold it, but I know there is no risk in me not ganking the target (unless I am being dumb about it).

I mean I know there is no risk, because the outcome is certain. I will die, but so will he. Will there be a payout? Not enough to replace a 500 million isk ship.

My reward?

Hopefully tears in local. I suppose there is the risk that he won't say anything, but deep down I know that doesn't matter.

My point is that ganking usually has no such thing as risk and always a reward. You already know what you are going to lose. That is not really risk. That is a acceptable loss.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#698 - 2013-04-09 22:43:06 UTC
But there's a risk he won't whine in local, or send you angry emails, or sperg to CCP about how evil you are and how they should totally reimburse him his ship.

And "payday" isn't necessarily just isk, although that's the most common definition.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#699 - 2013-04-09 22:50:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Lord Zim wrote:
But there's a risk he won't whine in local, or send you angry emails, or sperg to CCP about how evil you are and how they should totally reimburse him his ship.

And "payday" isn't necessarily just isk, although that's the most common definition.


I said, there is the risk there won't be tears in local. But there is always the reward you know that you caused a loss.

Unless you utterly fail at ganking, then the loss is a 100% certain fact.

I suppose the whole risk versus reward thing is objective.

You can always obtain self congradulating rewards for little or no risk.

[edit]

Kind of like posting on the forums.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Alekksander Geinesa
Divine Mortals
#700 - 2013-04-09 22:54:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekksander Geinesa
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
But there's a risk he won't whine in local, or send you angry emails, or sperg to CCP about how evil you are and how they should totally reimburse him his ship.

And "payday" isn't necessarily just isk, although that's the most common definition.


I said, there is the risk there won't be tears in local. But there is always the reward you know that you caused a loss.

Unless you utterly fail at ganking, then the loss is a 100% certain fact.

I suppose the whole risk versus reward thing is objective.

You can always obtain self congradulating rewards for little or no risk.

[edit]

Kind of like posting on the forums.



Agreed...


but let me attempt to define:

Risk is the cost you have to pay if you fail. Regardless of what your reward is, risk is always the cost of failing.

The cost of an attempt at failing, is just the investment.

In high sec ganking your cost is the ship you want to use to gank, the risk is not getting your "payday" and your reward is your "payday"

However you define the words in " " is up to you.. some times you feel like a nut some times you don't