These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Great Ice Mining Interdiction: Not so Great

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#621 - 2013-08-23 23:57:06 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
an already accepted part of the forfeiture. And also, highly unlikely and easily avoidable.

Please show me where the dictionary says an accepted risk is no longer a risk.
Also the part where a risk with a low chance of occurring ceases to be a risk.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Dave Stark
#622 - 2013-08-23 23:59:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
For 15 minutes, an already accepted part of the forfeiture. And also, highly unlikely and easily avoidable.


no, nobody expects to be podded every gank. are you actually a moron, or are you just saying moronic things? i can't tell the difference.

also, by virtue of it being "unlikely" not "impossible" does that not illustrate my point further? oh wait, it does. so you didn't "fail to see" how the ganker could be in any danger. you just ignored it because it didn't suit your argument.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#623 - 2013-08-24 00:13:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
baltec1 wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Hrm... Let me try to apply some Rogerian Argument from my English 112 clas...

Let's come to a compromise...

I'm willing to say ganking has a minimial limited risk (some but not much) compared to mining which has an exponentially greater risk.

Unless you want to say that gankers suck at what they do and miners don't have any danger mining in high sec.


So there is a 50% chance for each strip miner to fail to mine anything per cycle?

You also turn kill on sight to everyone when the ore hits your hold?

Also you get a sec rating hit when you fire up your mining lasers on the rock and get a month long killright put on your head that can be sold to anyone?


Geez. I try to throw you a bone and some sort of compromise and you tell me with a straight face that miners have less risk than gankers.

But then of course if they have less risk then gankers then that means the whole ice interdiction is failing because obviously you guys aren't doing your job and making it risky business to be out ice mining.

Thanks for the forum win.

I SHUT YOU DOWN!

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
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#624 - 2013-08-24 00:14:46 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
And also, highly unlikely

- "How risky is this procedure, doc?"
- "Only one in a thousand people randomly wake up from general anesthesia during surgery and feel the excruciating pain and one in a million go into a coma and never wake up. It's risk free!"

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#625 - 2013-08-24 00:22:58 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:

But then of course if they have less risk then gankers then that means the whole ice interdiction is failing because obviously you guys aren't doing your job and making it risky business to be out ice mining.

Thanks for the forum win.

What win?

The entire point of the interdiction is to make it more profitable to mine the ice, which then naturally outweighs the increased risks. It just makes it more risky to mine it in high than in null, lining the pockets of those who have access to it in null (and take part in the market manipulation).

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#626 - 2013-08-24 00:34:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:

But then of course if they have less risk then gankers then that means the whole ice interdiction is failing because obviously you guys aren't doing your job and making it risky business to be out ice mining.

Thanks for the forum win.

What win?

The entire point of the interdiction is to make it more profitable to mine the ice, which then naturally outweighs the increased risks. It just makes it more risky to mine it in high than in null, lining the pockets of those who have access to it in null (and take part in the market manipulation).


Look. If you got a whole alliance of people who sole purpose is to kill all the ice miners and yet somehow those miners risk less than you due to your actions, then you are doing something wrong.

I mean the whole point of the ice interdiction was to make it too risky to mine ice.

If you feel like you are risking more than those miners, then obviously you aren't doing your job right and the miners are free to keep mining ice.

Supposedly I would assume if you take 15 cheap catalysts and gank a Mack, you should only be spending about 25-75 million while the Mack loses more than 175 million. So by my math you are risking quite a lot less then the other side which I suppose would support the argument that gankers have less risk than miners.

If you want to argue that it is the opposite, then it means you are like that dude ganking ventures with a thrasher and spending hundred of millions of clone tags. Which I have to point out that the person with the venture still makes it out ahead making your efforts look dumb.

So which is it?

Are you risking less than the miners and making a profit, or all you risking more and making a loss?

I could see people say you could make more money with the ice sales from null but that has nothing to do with the risk part of the equation unless you are ganking your own ice miners.

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
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#627 - 2013-08-24 00:44:43 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:

But then of course if they have less risk then gankers then that means the whole ice interdiction is failing because obviously you guys aren't doing your job and making it risky business to be out ice mining.

Thanks for the forum win.

What win?

The entire point of the interdiction is to make it more profitable to mine the ice, which then naturally outweighs the increased risks. It just makes it more risky to mine it in high than in null, lining the pockets of those who have access to it in null (and take part in the market manipulation).


Look. If you got a whole alliance of people who sole purpose is to kill all the ice miners and yet somehow those miners risk less than you due to your actions, then you are doing something wrong.

I mean the whole point of the ice interdiction was to make it too risky to mine ice.

If you feel like you are risking more than those miners, then obviously you aren't doing your job right and the miners are free to keep mining ice.

Supposedly I would assume if you take 15 cheap catalysts and gank a Mack, you should only be spending about 25-75 million while the Mack loses more than 175 million. So by my math you are risking quite a lot less then the other side which I suppose would support the argument that gankers have less risk than miners.

If you want to argue that it is the opposite, then it means you are like that dude ganking ventures with a thrasher and spending hundred of millions of clone tags. Which I have to point out that the person with the venture still makes it out ahead making your efforts look dumb.

So which is it?

Are you risking less than the miners and making a profit, or all you risking more and making a loss?

I could see people say you could make more money with the ice sales from null but that has nothing to do with the risk part of the equation unless you are ganking your own ice miners.


We're risking more and making a profit. You completely avoid mentioning that CCP has progressively made highsec safer over the lifespan of the game. You also miss the entire point of the interdiction.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#628 - 2013-08-24 00:49:47 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:

Look. If you got a whole alliance of people who sole purpose is to kill all the ice miners and yet somehow those miners risk less than you due to your actions, then you are doing something wrong.

I see your problem.

Your entire argument is based on a false assumption. Who said there is an entire alliance out to gank miners? Far as I can tell this is a source of entertainment for the interested while there's no other shooting going on, that is still providing an income source via market manipulation in the process. There is by no means a call to arms of three thousand people ganking miners 12 hours a day, every day.

Captain Tardbar wrote:
I mean the whole point of the ice interdiction was to make it too risky to mine ice.

No, it was to increase the market value of a product the goons have an ample supply of. Not to bring high sec ice mining to a dead stop as you seem to be imagining.

Captain Tardbar wrote:
If you feel like you are risking more than those miners, then obviously you aren't doing your job right and the miners are free to keep mining ice.

Supposedly I would assume if you take 15 cheap catalysts and gank a Mack, you should only be spending about 25-75 million while the Mack loses more than 175 million. So by my math you are risking quite a lot less then the other side which I suppose would support the argument that gankers have less risk than miners.

If you want to argue that it is the opposite, then it means you are like that dude ganking ventures with a thrasher and spending hundred of millions of clone tags. Which I have to point out that the person with the venture still makes it out ahead making your efforts look dumb.

So which is it?

Are you risking less than the miners and making a profit, or all you risking more and making a loss?


First of all risk means there is a chance of loss, not that you are operating at a loss. You can risk more than the miner and through correct execution make more profit than the miner at the same time.

Secondly, that mack will pay for itself if it survives for a day or two operating at a net profit. If the gankers spend 25 million and make less than 25 million from the resulting loot and market manipulation, they are operating at a loss. You are looking at raw money that departed from the immediate wallet, not the overall balance sheet of the operations.

An individual average ganker has a higher chance of not making a profit than an individual average miner does.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#629 - 2013-08-24 00:52:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
La Nariz wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:

But then of course if they have less risk then gankers then that means the whole ice interdiction is failing because obviously you guys aren't doing your job and making it risky business to be out ice mining.

Thanks for the forum win.

What win?

The entire point of the interdiction is to make it more profitable to mine the ice, which then naturally outweighs the increased risks. It just makes it more risky to mine it in high than in null, lining the pockets of those who have access to it in null (and take part in the market manipulation).


Look. If you got a whole alliance of people who sole purpose is to kill all the ice miners and yet somehow those miners risk less than you due to your actions, then you are doing something wrong.

I mean the whole point of the ice interdiction was to make it too risky to mine ice.

If you feel like you are risking more than those miners, then obviously you aren't doing your job right and the miners are free to keep mining ice.

Supposedly I would assume if you take 15 cheap catalysts and gank a Mack, you should only be spending about 25-75 million while the Mack loses more than 175 million. So by my math you are risking quite a lot less then the other side which I suppose would support the argument that gankers have less risk than miners.

If you want to argue that it is the opposite, then it means you are like that dude ganking ventures with a thrasher and spending hundred of millions of clone tags. Which I have to point out that the person with the venture still makes it out ahead making your efforts look dumb.

So which is it?

Are you risking less than the miners and making a profit, or all you risking more and making a loss?

I could see people say you could make more money with the ice sales from null but that has nothing to do with the risk part of the equation unless you are ganking your own ice miners.


We're risking more and making a profit. You completely avoid mentioning that CCP has progressively made highsec safer over the lifespan of the game. You also miss the entire point of the interdiction.



Well if you risk more then that means the value of your risk (ie your gank ships) is greater than the value of the value of the miner's ship and loot which you derive your profit from?

How can this mathematically be?

I suppose you could include clone loss, but I really doubt most gankers run around with 1 billion worth of implants in their heads, but the same could be said about the miners having also 1 billion worth of implants so it evens out the argument.

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
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#630 - 2013-08-24 00:58:35 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:

Well if you risk more then that means the value of your risk (ie your gank ships) is greater than the value of the value of the miner's ship and loot which you derive your profit from?

How can this mathematically be?

Because that's not how risk assessment and net profit works.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#631 - 2013-08-24 01:00:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Georgina Parmala wrote:

I see your problem.

Your entire argument is based on a false assumption. Who said there is an entire alliance out to gank miners? Far as I can tell this is a source of entertainment for the interested while there's no other shooting going on, that is still providing an income source via market manipulation in the process. There is by no means a call to arms of three thousand people ganking miners 12 hours a day, every day.

No, it was to increase the market value of a product the goons have an ample supply of. Not to bring high sec ice mining to a dead stop as you seem to be imagining.

First of all risk means there is a chance of loss, not that you are operating at a loss. You can risk more than the miner and through correct execution make more profit than the miner at the same time.

Secondly, that mack will pay for itself if it survives for a day or two operating at a net profit. If the gankers spend 25 million and make less than 25 million from the resulting loot and market manipulation, they are operating at a loss. You are looking at raw money that departed from the immediate wallet, not the overall balance sheet of the operations.

An individual average ganker has a higher chance of not making a profit than an individual average miner does.


Ok. I accept your point. The interiction isn't as big as it was made out to be. Its only a small subsection of your alliance doing this.

Which they aren't doing a great job. The moving average (5d) of white glaze is actually dropping despite the threat of ganking. The increase of it was just hype.

The belts are still being mined out and the price is not spiking and is now going back down. The whole operation is not as a big as it was made out to be and profits from it will not be as great as they thought they were going to be.

Secondly, if you want to include the fact miners actually make money and the gankers don't is really a false assumption because chances are that gankers are on other characters making money through other means (I even bet some of them mine).

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
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#632 - 2013-08-24 01:11:09 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:

But then of course if they have less risk then gankers then that means the whole ice interdiction is failing because obviously you guys aren't doing your job and making it risky business to be out ice mining.

Thanks for the forum win.

What win?

The entire point of the interdiction is to make it more profitable to mine the ice, which then naturally outweighs the increased risks. It just makes it more risky to mine it in high than in null, lining the pockets of those who have access to it in null (and take part in the market manipulation).


Look. If you got a whole alliance of people who sole purpose is to kill all the ice miners and yet somehow those miners risk less than you due to your actions, then you are doing something wrong.

I mean the whole point of the ice interdiction was to make it too risky to mine ice.

If you feel like you are risking more than those miners, then obviously you aren't doing your job right and the miners are free to keep mining ice.

Supposedly I would assume if you take 15 cheap catalysts and gank a Mack, you should only be spending about 25-75 million while the Mack loses more than 175 million. So by my math you are risking quite a lot less then the other side which I suppose would support the argument that gankers have less risk than miners.

If you want to argue that it is the opposite, then it means you are like that dude ganking ventures with a thrasher and spending hundred of millions of clone tags. Which I have to point out that the person with the venture still makes it out ahead making your efforts look dumb.

So which is it?

Are you risking less than the miners and making a profit, or all you risking more and making a loss?

I could see people say you could make more money with the ice sales from null but that has nothing to do with the risk part of the equation unless you are ganking your own ice miners.


We're risking more and making a profit. You completely avoid mentioning that CCP has progressively made highsec safer over the lifespan of the game. You also miss the entire point of the interdiction.



Well if you risk more then that means the value of your risk (ie your gank ships) is greater than the value of the value of the miner's ship and loot which you derive your profit from?

How can this mathematically be?

I suppose you could include clone loss, but I really doubt most gankers run around with 1 billion worth of implants in their heads, but the same could be said about the miners having also 1 billion worth of implants so it evens out the argument.


I'll leave it as an exercise to yourself to figure out how a profit can be generated from ganking miners when the risk to the ganker is greater than the risk to the miner. As a hint I highly recommend you read what that other npc alt poster is posting.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#633 - 2013-08-24 01:21:42 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:

Which they aren't doing a great job. The moving average (5d) of white glaze is actually dropping despite the threat of ganking. The increase of it was just hype.

It's almost like someone deliberately threatened a long term thing and cashed in after a week of speculation price spike. Meanwhile those hoping this will take off to a larger degree later, hoard their purchased supplies preventing the high-price dump from crashing the market completely.

Captain Tardbar wrote:
The belts are still being mined out and the price is not spiking and is now going back down. The whole operation is not as a big as it was made out to be and profits from it will not be as great as they thought they were going to be.

Profit already made? Check. Troops who don't want to go rat entertained? Check.

Captain Tardbar wrote:
Secondly, if you want to include the fact miners actually make money and the gankers don't is really a false assumption because chances are that gankers are on other characters making money through other means (I even bet some of them mine).


That's neither here nor there, as it still ties up an account that could be doing something else for profit at the time. The miners are also probably doing something else on another account at the same time. They might even be mining or ganking competition while they mine.

For that matter, who said those people you see regularly mine out the ice unopposed are not goon alts themselves? And don't forget some of the ice that gets mined out of these belts you watch goes to the loot fairy while other bits change hands in transport and line goon pockets when it hits market.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#634 - 2013-08-24 01:29:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
La Nariz wrote:
I'll leave it as an exercise to yourself to figure out how a profit can be generated from ganking miners when the risk to the ganker is greater than the risk to the miner. As a hint I highly recommend you read what that other npc alt poster is posting.


Its all hogwash. We aren't talking about opportunity costs... We are talking about the exact value of what someone risks when they commit an action.

If you use a 20 million isk ship to gank a 100 million ship, your risk is lower because you risk less isk.

By saying this is not the case, you refute logic and reason.

You are trying to spin this by using extranalities that have nothing to do with the actual risk of the gank itself.

Really. You people are only trying to inflate your egos and set yourself up as a superior players and call the other players your lessers by claiming you risk more.

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
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#635 - 2013-08-24 01:48:35 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:

Its all hogwash. We aren't talking about opportunity costs... We are talking about the exact value of what someone risks when they commit an action.

And the time committed to that action is one of the things at risk.

Captain Tardbar wrote:

If you use a 20 million isk ship to gank a 100 million ship, your risk is lower because you risk less isk.

20 million isk in, value of loot out (which could be as little as 0 if you derp or get unlucky, resulting in -20).
100 mil in, 100's of mil out guaranteed over the life span of the ship if you know how to fit and use it properly.

Which one has the higher risk of running a deficit over time?

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#636 - 2013-08-24 02:08:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:

Its all hogwash. We aren't talking about opportunity costs... We are talking about the exact value of what someone risks when they commit an action.

And the time committed to that action is one of the things at risk.

Captain Tardbar wrote:

If you use a 20 million isk ship to gank a 100 million ship, your risk is lower because you risk less isk.

20 million isk in, value of loot out (which could be as little as 0 if you derp or get unlucky, resulting in -20).
100 mil in, 100's of mil out guaranteed over the life span of the ship if you know how to fit and use it properly.

Which one has the higher risk of running a deficit over time?


If I told you that I mine so that I can gank people, how would you measure my risk?

In my view, the two activies are seperate. I could simply fuel my ganking activities by buying plex. I don't really care about making money through ganking. Its not the point of it in my view.

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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#637 - 2013-08-24 02:17:21 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


The ACT OF GANKING requires you TO KILL YOUR TARGET.
that ACT is not a GUARANTEED SUCCESS.
THAT IS WHERE THERE IS RISK.

Thus. SUICIDE GANKING as an ACT has RISK
The costs are obviously costs, the same as ANY OTHER COST.



noun: risk; plural noun: risks

a situation involving exposure to danger:

Since the Ganker has accepted the foregone conclusion that his ship will be lost, he is not risking his ship. He is voluntarily forfeiting it.

Therefore, I fail to see how the Ganker could in any way be put into "danger" within the mechanics of EVE, from the completely unarmed mining ship.

And don't be so idiotic as to deny the Oxford English Dictionary.

I won't, however I'll point out that it also says:
"the possibility that something unpleasant or unwelcome will happen"
The target surviving is unpleasant and unwelcome.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#638 - 2013-08-24 02:25:54 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
In my view, the two activies are seperate. I could simply fuel my ganking activities by buying plex. I don't really care about making money through ganking. Its not the point of it in my view.


Your view is irrelevant, a lot of players fund their PvP through piracy.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#639 - 2013-08-24 02:42:11 UTC
Andski wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
In my view, the two activies are seperate. I could simply fuel my ganking activities by buying plex. I don't really care about making money through ganking. Its not the point of it in my view.


Your view is irrelevant, a lot of players fund their PvP through piracy.


Yep. There it is again with everyone saying "Players who don't play like me are inferior and are my lessers."

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
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#640 - 2013-08-24 03:00:31 UTC
lalalalala

nerf gankers

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?