EVE General Discussion

The risk in ganking is that the target lives. We minimise that risk by knowing what we are doing, but it doesn't mean the risk isn't there. Just yesterday someone jumped the gun and nearly got us all rapidly killed before out target dropped. We literally got it just as the last ship popped. I've seen many less experienced gank squads fail to execute a gank, or get blapped off the field too quickly to finish it. I've also seen ECM ships suppress a gank enough to save the target ship.
If you fail a gank, you are stuck with a blown up ship and a GCC with a failed objective. That's the risk.

And it's no different from the mining risk. I've NEVER had a miner ganked in high sec, even though I've run many a mining operation. Careful choices of location and a keep eye out for gankers and scouts can minimise the risk there too.

So the long and short of it is, don't mistake well performed actions with risk purposely minimised as being inherently risk free activities.

I can see how you might think that, given all the fancy words she's throw out haphazardly. However, I found her preferred source:



Also, your example is inappropriate since we're talking about the same thing and quibbling over semantics whereas Creationists dispute events.



You tried that one already; doesn't apply.

I'm not. Anyway, if an international standard for risk is not your cup of tea, just look at the wiki summary, which a bit further down provides the quantitative analysis version, which is just risk = cost × probability.

The shocking part of the ISO standard these days is that it does away with the word “cost” or “loss” in exchange for “outcome” so it doesn't sound as negative, and so that it's easier to conceptualise negative outcomes (gains, if viewed from a loss perspective, losses, if viewed from a gains perspective).

They're no more (or less) associated with probabilities than costs are. Common language use has just taught you to “don't count your chickens” and to equate “risk” with “uncertainty”, which has led you to think of both all positive outcomes and all risks as being uncertain, when neither is strictly true.

Meanwhile, how about this for a gank risk assessment:

∑ cₓpₓ - (∑ cᵢpᵢqᵢ)׃(σₓ)

…where cₓ is the cost of the ship and fittings, pₓ is the probability that they're lost in the process, cᵢ is the cost of the item, pᵢ is the probability that the item survives, qᵢ is the probability that the item is not stolen, and ƒ(σₓ) is the probability of the gank succeeding as a function of all the ships involved. All these probabilities are <1, by the way so in the end, it doesn't even matter if you reject p=1 as qualifying as risks.

That's how you calculate it (or at least the standard version), but formulas aren't always applicable.



It's more an issue with timing. I consider the decision made when the cost is paid, making that certain. The outcome/profit, a future event, is never certain - at least not from our frame of reference.



I'd simplify out pₓ if you're letting it equal 1; also the item can't be stolen if it doesn't drop, making pᵢ and qᵢ dependent so you can't multiply them.

In any case, you've lost a lot of information by simply extracting the expectation; information that's important in balancing activities.

Actually, it is in fact not, especially once you start going into actual, traditional gangks.

Exactly: risk is not the same thing as chance, which is why risks are still risks even when the outcome is certain.

Again, risk = cost × probability, and that cost does not have to actually be a loss, and the probability doesn't have to be <1.

…but pₓ isn't 1, so that would be an incorrect simplification.

…which is why it measures “not stolen” as opposed to “stolen”. If you wanted to simplify anything, it would be pᵢqᵢ into p[actually getting the goods]. Then again, that part is admittedly timing-based — I suppose we could complicate it further with the odds of the pick-up ship being (counter)ganked, which means we have a pₓ for x=hauler in there as well.

Still dependent (unless you have some weird definition that's not = 1-P[stolen]); have no problem with P[actually getting the goods] though.

Yes but lets be realistic here. When the probability falls so low its not a discernible factor there is little to no risk to the person ganking. But if you like than I'll say

"The risk experienced by suicide gankers blowing up miners in barges and so on is so low it could be considered non-existent for anyone not super pedantic".

Does that satisfy you?

Good answer.

I disagree. I have done it too. The reward is having killed someone and made them rage. This is probably the most rewarding thing you can get in EvE in my experience.

I bet going to the grocery store with Tippia is an absolute hoot.