EVE General Discussion

i don't care SO MUCH

You are correct. When suicide ganking the ship is the expendable ammo. A risk is not a risk if the outcome is certain. A risk requires an element of chance.

So there is no risk in ganking. Just expenditure.

What are you on about? Adding a variable into any sort of optimization is extremely expensive.



Pretty sure you're just spitting out all the fancy statisticy sounding words you know at this point; your argument is that someone might forget to apply the offset?



The whole point is that something with 100% probability isn't a risk, regardless of how many semantic loops you want to jump though. You can treat it like a risk for the purposes of a calculation, but doing so it dumb - square peg, round hole, oversized computational hammer.

Hey look, that's pretty good.

No. A risk only requires an outcome (usually a cost) and a probability. Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean the risk goes away.

If there is no risk in ganking, then there is no risk in being ganked either.

Look, it's very simple. If you want to talk about the risks of ganking talk about all of them. Anything less is dishonest. “All the risks” include things that you would prefer to simply label as costs, because it suits your needs to label the whole thing as without risk, since it evokes connotations of being without [ skill | difficulty | opposition | whatever ] and being out of balance with the supposed rewards. You are trying to make something go away by virtue of its being omnipresent. That is such a twisting of the facts that it borders on the absurd, and it creates the aforementioned nonsensical conclusion that the best way to increase risk in ganking is to give CONCORD a less-than-1% chance of appearing.

If you want to make this kind of argument, use the right term. Risk isn't it. Describe at as having too low costs or some such (but realise that you will then run afoul of the standard “cost is not a balancing factor” argument), and realise that you will still have to deal with the exact same risks, only repurposed as (statistical) costs instead.

Regardless, at least be honest about what you're saying. Trying to paint something unavoidable as non-existent does not qualify.

The problem is that suicide ganking (or at least certain forms) is risk-free, highly profitable, and requires minimal investment. It's the combination that makes it unbalanced - because Eve generally balances activities around the three.

Your example generates risk, but ignores the associated increase in profit - thus the nonsensical conclusion.

Oh, knowledge gap, let me try to clarify: if you're optimizing, presumably with linear programming or something similar, the asymptotic complexity is going to be polynomial, with n being the number of variable you're optimizing over. If that still doesn't make sense, you'll have to do some supplemental reading.



No, just no.



It's not a risk, and it's not being left out.

Yeah, no, I'll stop you right there.
By virtue of being suicide ganking — no matter what form — it is not risk-free. The only way for it to be risk-free is if you do it somewhere where the “suicide” part does not apply, such as in low or nullsec, but of course, at that point, there will be other mechanisms that provide risk so it will turn out not being risk-free there either.

What you mean to say is that the projected costs are too often too easily outweighed by the projected gains. This is the point that needs to be argued by those who are upset that they packed their ships too full of valuables, and it is one that can be argued with actual facts or figures.

…and that is why you have to include all the risks — even the ones with a probability of 1 or the ones with negative costs — when talking about risk, or you end up with something that becomes patently absurd. It is not really my example; it's an example people are suggesting without understanding what it is they're saying because they misunderstand the concept of risk.

The number of variables is the same regardless of whether you treat them as costs or as risks.

Actually, yes. Very yes.
Oh, and by saying “it is not a risk”, you have just left it out. So it is indeed being arbitrarily left out.

You're somehow over simplifying the important bits and over complicating the math at the same time (I guess for the sake of homogeneity?) on top of autistic semantics. However, if it makes you happy; sure. I've been over the figures with you and they're pretty damning, are you sure you want to do them again?



If you're not treating it as a variable, you're using it as an offset/constant and simply calling it a risk for the sake of argument.



No, just no.



How bout I include it, but not as a risk because it's not a risk? Kinda like I already said.

Those points being?

So far there's been a lot of semantic silliness (which you can't logically poke holes with), a supposed counter-example which was easily dismissed, and a bunch of vague statistical buzzwords that the author clearly doesn't understand (also impossible to poke holes with).