These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Burn Jita haz a date!!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Solecist Project
#241 - 2014-04-26 23:44:56 UTC
Great.

Page 13.

Top 9 posts are blocked.


And then people ask me why I block Dave.
Nobody asks me why I block Divine, though.


Weird, isn't it?

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Dave Stark
#242 - 2014-04-26 23:44:59 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
It's only irrelevant because you choose to regard it as so since you choose to not accept that the risk is negligible enough to not be an influencing factor.

How you feel about it doesn't negate that the risk is negligible.


actually, it's because it is irrelevant.

the question was is the risk 0, or not 0. we established that it was not 0 and forced the conclusion that you were wrong. you blithering about the size of not 0 doesn't make a **** of difference. the outcome doesn't change depending on the size of not 0.

you can carry on crying about it for the next 10 pages, the fact will remain that you were wrong and ganking isn't risk free. please get over it.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#243 - 2014-04-26 23:45:22 UTC

I'll just leave this here.




☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Dave Stark
#244 - 2014-04-26 23:46:28 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:

I'll just leave this here.





oh god, my sides.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#245 - 2014-04-26 23:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Divine Entervention
Dave Stark wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
It's only irrelevant because you choose to regard it as so since you choose to not accept that the risk is negligible enough to not be an influencing factor.

How you feel about it doesn't negate that the risk is negligible.


actually, it's because it is irrelevant.

the question was is the risk 0, or not 0. we established that it was not 0 and forced the conclusion that you were wrong. you blithering about the size of not 0 doesn't make a **** of difference. the outcome doesn't change depending on the size of not 0.

you can carry on crying about it for the next 10 pages, the fact will remain that you were wrong and ganking isn't risk free. please get over it.


If you make the proper decisions you can make the risk so negligible that it's not worth considering. Because of your failure to properly plan, you create your own risk. (well you could if your motivation wasn't profit, and instead the destruction of others ships)

If you planned properly, you could avoid all realistic possibilities that would lead to your failure.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#246 - 2014-04-26 23:48:18 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:

I'll just leave this here.





oh god, my sides.


But wait... There's more!

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#247 - 2014-04-26 23:48:41 UTC
you have 10 taloses, each with 8 neutron blasters, 2 ECCM, 1 web or scram, 10mn MWD

5 falcons, each fit with 3x signal distortion amps and 2x PDP rigs, decloak as soon as your taloses engage a target, and each falcon has two assigned targets to jam with 3 jammers

let's get a little silly here and say that both sides have full infowar bonuses from a vulture and max skills

statistically, 4 of those taloses will lose their locks

now let's replace those falcons with pilgrims using TDs and this actually gets nasty: if the taloses are hugging their target, the pilgrims hit them with tracking scripts and make them miss hits; if they're at optimal, they hit them with optimal scripts and they can't hit their targets

oh, by the way: tracking disruptors and sensor dampeners do not depend on chance, they work 100% of the time and tracking disruptors in particular can easily neuter blasters

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Dave Stark
#248 - 2014-04-26 23:49:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Divine Entervention wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
It's only irrelevant because you choose to regard it as so since you choose to not accept that the risk is negligible enough to not be an influencing factor.

How you feel about it doesn't negate that the risk is negligible.


actually, it's because it is irrelevant.

the question was is the risk 0, or not 0. we established that it was not 0 and forced the conclusion that you were wrong. you blithering about the size of not 0 doesn't make a **** of difference. the outcome doesn't change depending on the size of not 0.

you can carry on crying about it for the next 10 pages, the fact will remain that you were wrong and ganking isn't risk free. please get over it.


If you make the proper decisions you can make the risk so negligible that it's not worth considering. Because of your failure to properly plan, you create your own risk.

If you planned properly, you could avoid all realistic possibilities that would lead to your failure.


changing the subject doesn't make you less wrong.
edit: actually, it might make you less wrong... but you're still wrong.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#249 - 2014-04-26 23:52:16 UTC
Andski wrote:
you have 10 taloses, each with 8 neutron blasters, 2 ECCM, 1 web or scram, 10mn MWD

5 falcons, each fit with 3x signal distortion amps and 2x PDP rigs, decloak as soon as your taloses engage a target, and each falcon has two assigned targets to jam with 3 jammers

let's get a little silly here and say that both sides have full infowar bonuses from a vulture and max skills

statistically, 4 of those taloses will lose their locks

now let's replace those falcons with pilgrims using TDs and this actually gets nasty: if the taloses are hugging their target, the pilgrims hit them with tracking scripts and make them miss hits; if they're at optimal, they hit them with optimal scripts and they can't hit their targets

oh, by the way: tracking disruptors and sensor dampeners do not depend on chance, they work 100% of the time and tracking disruptors in particular can easily neuter blasters


You know, every time I see someone whining about ECM, I think to myself that they must have never seen anyone who is good at damps and TDs, because those are just so much worse.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#250 - 2014-04-26 23:53:23 UTC
also before you say "just fit a tracking computer" remember that 1) we're already countering potential ECM and 2) tracking computers don't do a damn thing when you're getting hit by infowar bonused tracking disruptors

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#251 - 2014-04-26 23:54:02 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
It's only irrelevant because you choose to regard it as so since you choose to not accept that the risk is negligible enough to not be an influencing factor.

How you feel about it doesn't negate that the risk is negligible.


actually, it's because it is irrelevant.

the question was is the risk 0, or not 0. we established that it was not 0 and forced the conclusion that you were wrong. you blithering about the size of not 0 doesn't make a **** of difference. the outcome doesn't change depending on the size of not 0.

you can carry on crying about it for the next 10 pages, the fact will remain that you were wrong and ganking isn't risk free. please get over it.


If you make the proper decisions you can make the risk so negligible that it's not worth considering. Because of your failure to properly plan, you create your own risk.

If you planned properly, you could avoid all realistic possibilities that would lead to your failure.


changing the subject doesn't make you less wrong.
edit: actually, it might make you less wrong... but you're still wrong.


Nothing you've said negates the fact that you could plan your operations in a manner that ensure success(if the measure of success were the destruction of the ship instead of profiting in isk through it's destruction).

considering that it will never be possible to reach a 100%, choosing the plan that is 99.99999% effective is the best you can hope for, which means in the realm of reality, it's risk-free.
Dave Stark
#252 - 2014-04-26 23:54:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Divine Entervention wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
It's only irrelevant because you choose to regard it as so since you choose to not accept that the risk is negligible enough to not be an influencing factor.

How you feel about it doesn't negate that the risk is negligible.


actually, it's because it is irrelevant.

the question was is the risk 0, or not 0. we established that it was not 0 and forced the conclusion that you were wrong. you blithering about the size of not 0 doesn't make a **** of difference. the outcome doesn't change depending on the size of not 0.

you can carry on crying about it for the next 10 pages, the fact will remain that you were wrong and ganking isn't risk free. please get over it.


If you make the proper decisions you can make the risk so negligible that it's not worth considering. Because of your failure to properly plan, you create your own risk.

If you planned properly, you could avoid all realistic possibilities that would lead to your failure.


changing the subject doesn't make you less wrong.
edit: actually, it might make you less wrong... but you're still wrong.


Nothing you've said negates the fact that you could plan your operations in a manner that ensure success(if the measure of success were the destruction of the ship instead of profiting in isk through it's destruction).

considering that it will never be possible to reach a 100%, choosing the plan that is 99.99999% effective is the best you can hope for, which means in the realm of reality, it's risk-free.

actually, the very fact that you can't ensure success as we've proven several times negates it.
Solecist Project
#253 - 2014-04-26 23:57:49 UTC
lol Doc Fury won page 13!

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#254 - 2014-04-26 23:57:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Divine Entervention wrote:
considering that it will never be possible to reach a 100%, choosing the plan that is 99.99999% effective is the best you can hope for, which means in the realm of reality, it's risk-free.


But you can't get anywhere near a 99.99999% chance of success because you can't discount the possibility that you'll run into skilled anti-gankers who ruin your gank. If profit is your goal, you can't avoid the 50% loot chance.

And all of your mitigation strategies are what you'd hear from those with no experience in suicide ganking. "Increase your sensor strength" is fine and dandy if you're expecting ECM, but others (i.e. bring more ships) are not realistic because suicide ganking is not a zero-sum game.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#255 - 2014-04-27 00:00:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Divine Entervention wrote:
If you make the proper decisions you can make the risk so negligible that it's not worth considering. Because of your failure to properly plan, you create your own risk. (well you could if your motivation wasn't profit, and instead the destruction of others ships)

If you planned properly, you could avoid all realistic possibilities that would lead to your failure.
i acually totally agree with this statement.

If an industrial, mining or other juicy gank target acted this way, the bulk of the risk would be managed and they could ensure the gankers failure, if only more of them thought this way and made "proper decisions" that increased their chance of survival.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#256 - 2014-04-27 00:05:44 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:

actually, the very fact that you can't ensure success as we've proven several times negates it.


No, because your "proof" rests in an absolute which is impossible, while my suggestions are based in reality.

Your demanding absolutes cripples your argument, because there are no absolutes, and since there are no absolutes, addressing them as a method of proof pertaining to reality is a fallacious demand because it's impossible.

By your logic, you should not be pressing the keys on your keyboard, or using your computer because it may get angry and attack you, zapping you with electricity and smashing you over your head with the keyboard and mouse. You demand absolute proof? Absolutely prove that your computer will not do that. You can't absolutely prove it, but you can, within the realm of reality, accept that the likely hood of it happening is so negligible, that you do not consider it as a determining factor regarding your choice to use it.
Dave Stark
#257 - 2014-04-27 00:09:54 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

actually, the very fact that you can't ensure success as we've proven several times negates it.


No, because your "proof" rests in an absolute which is impossible, while my suggestions are based in reality.

Your demanding absolutes cripples your argument, because there are no absolutes, and since there are no absolutes, addressing them as a method of proof pertaining to reality is a fallacious demand because it's impossible.

By your logic, you should not be pressing the keys on your keyboard, or using your computer because it may get angry and attack you, zapping you with electricity and smashing you over your head with the keyboard and mouse. You demand absolute proof? Absolutely prove that your computer will not do that. You can't absolutely prove it, but you can, within the realm of reality, accept that the likely hood of it happening is so negligible, that you do not consider it as a determining factor regarding your choice to use it.



no, my proof is basic mathematics. which you seem to have an issue grasping.

also your absurd and ******** hypothetical doesn't follow my logic at all.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#258 - 2014-04-27 00:11:17 UTC
The idea that an activity is risk-free because the risks can be mitigated is ludicrously false. That would make basically everything in EVE risk-free, except perhaps for, ironically, for-profit ganking (because of the hardcoded 50% loot chance) and invention (because of invention chance for which some items cannot be 100%)

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Qmamoto Kansuke
Killing with pink power
Penguins with lasorz
#259 - 2014-04-27 00:15:06 UTC
Whats the point of killing freighters carrying crap like this

https://zkillboard.com/kill/38453830/

I don't get itUgh
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#260 - 2014-04-27 00:16:45 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

actually, the very fact that you can't ensure success as we've proven several times negates it.


No, because your "proof" rests in an absolute which is impossible, while my suggestions are based in reality.

Your demanding absolutes cripples your argument, because there are no absolutes, and since there are no absolutes, addressing them as a method of proof pertaining to reality is a fallacious demand because it's impossible.

By your logic, you should not be pressing the keys on your keyboard, or using your computer because it may get angry and attack you, zapping you with electricity and smashing you over your head with the keyboard and mouse. You demand absolute proof? Absolutely prove that your computer will not do that. You can't absolutely prove it, but you can, within the realm of reality, accept that the likely hood of it happening is so negligible, that you do not consider it as a determining factor regarding your choice to use it.



no, my proof is basic mathematics. which you seem to have an issue grasping.

also your absurd and ******** hypothetical doesn't follow my logic at all.


O no, my hypothetical fits quite well. You've constantly demanded an absolute 0% risk suggestion, which is impossible, just like you can't prove that your computer attacking you is 0%.

It may be highly unlikely, yes. So unlikely that you shouldn't waste time considering that it's a real possibility, definitely. Yet you will hypocritically demand an absolute from someone else.