These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The reality of the goon freighter ganking in Uedema and neighboring systems.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#421 - 2012-09-20 22:04:17 UTC
Samahiel Sotken wrote:
Seminole Sun wrote:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the mechanics of a concord response (having never been stupid enough to carry enough in my ship to create the opportunity). I was under the impression that about 20 seconds (in 0.5) after the initial volley, concord comes and insta-gibs you. It doesn't matter if you had one ship or 200 ships, they're all going to die ~20 seconds after they first aggress. Most battlecruisers will get off two volleys in that time right? Destroyers (which don't get used anymore for this purpose as I understand) get off three. While it may be playing semantics, I'd consider two shots in 10-12 seconds to be "essentially" an alpha strike. There's almost nothing that a freighter can do in that 10-12 seconds and very little shield regen is going to happen.

I guess my point is that they wouldn't be shooting at the freighter over a matter of minutes with a bumper CONSTANTLY bumping the freighter. They might need ONE bump and then 15-20 seconds of shooting.

If I'm misunderstanding something, let me know. As I said, this is a knowledge gap I'm trying to correct.


A Neutron Blaster Cannon II with all gunnery skills at IV gets off I think 3-4 volleys before concord shows up, at which point they neut and ECM you. You are smart and have fitted and overheated ECCM so you have a couple more volleys, meanwhile your Hobgoblin IIs are ignored and continue to fire away merrily. It's more complicated then that, also gate guns, but it gets the point across. Either way you need significantly less ships if you use high DPS high ROF blasters than if you use high alpha artillery.

Note: concord is not an instant death, it's inevitable death. You will be hit with an infinite point, a heavy neut, and a lot of webs. The DPS is high, but not instantaneous.
…and for further details, see here.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#422 - 2012-09-20 22:09:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Seminole Sun wrote:
Okay... Some terms are getting thrown around and clearly there's some definitional disconnects

Cost = Expense and is NOT the same thing as Risk

Risk = uncertainty
Close, but not quite.

Cost = cost. Risk = probability × cost.
Quote:
The GANKING aspect of freighter ganking (i.e. blowing the thing up) has no uncertainty (i.e. "risk") on the cost side.
…which means that the risk = cost, since the probability is 1. A 100% certainty does not make it risk-free — quite the opposite: it makes the risk correspond to the full value of the cost. So the ganking is all risk.

The reward is also a risk, but with a negative cost, which is added to this base risk. Since the base risk is always more than 0, and the reward can be 0, there is always — unavoidably — risk in a suicide gank.
Quote:
What IS risky is the payoff. Absolutely. Both Malphilos and I concede that. But it doesn't change the equation on the cost side of things which is fixed with no "risk" associated with it.
…except that the cost side is all risk, because that's how risk is defined.
Empress BJ
Rl'yeh Interstellar Ltd.
#423 - 2012-09-20 22:09:52 UTC
The main issue with freighters is they are a one size fits all solution

I would gladly fly something intermediary sized say 200-300k m3 if I could add a fitting or two

I think they should redesign freighters so that you could fit for defense or turning but have cargo drop off dramatically as you upped your fitting.

What ends up happening most of the time is I tank an orca for those high value jobs since its much safer than a freighter.

But it would be nice to have something with dedicated cargo slightly larger that I could fit.

~E~
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#424 - 2012-09-20 22:10:58 UTC
I had something very clever to post here. Then I looked a few things up, found some facts and realized I was totally wrong.

So I shitcanned it and posted this instead.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#425 - 2012-09-20 22:17:25 UTC
Empress BJ wrote:
The main issue with freighters is they are a one size fits all solution

I would gladly fly something intermediary sized say 200-300k m3 if I could add a fitting or two

I think they should redesign freighters so that you could fit for defense or turning but have cargo drop off dramatically as you upped your fitting.

What ends up happening most of the time is I tank an orca for those high value jobs since its much safer than a freighter.

But it would be nice to have something with dedicated cargo slightly larger that I could fit.
Just get a JF. You still can't fit it, but it's more sturdy, faster, more agile… and it carries 300k:ish m³.
Empress BJ
Rl'yeh Interstellar Ltd.
#426 - 2012-09-20 22:21:17 UTC
A JF is on the shopping list but it's a 7B$$$ isk target.

I am thinking of a solution for the masses .... think station wagon/mini van vs High end BMW SUV

~E~
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#427 - 2012-09-20 22:26:01 UTC
Empress BJ wrote:
A JF is on the shopping list but it's a 7B$$$ isk target.

I am thinking of a solution for the masses .... think station wagon/mini van vs High end BMW SUV
Weeell… doesn't that lead us right back to the Freighter (mini-van) vs. JF (Chelsea Tractor)? P
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians
#428 - 2012-09-20 22:26:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Seminole Sun wrote:
Okay... Some terms are getting thrown around and clearly there's some definitional disconnects

Cost = Expense and is NOT the same thing as Risk

Risk = uncertainty
Close, but not quite.

Cost = cost. Risk = probability × cost.


I refer you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk

I'm in the process of an ERM implementation. I can tell you that things that are 100% probability of occuring are NOT put in the risk bucket nor are they even included in most of our models. They are simply expensed (in most cases GAAP actually mandates this). Probability x cost is the Expected Value (EV). For most risk managers, Risk is defined as the range of reasonable variations of costs and/or rewards.

So flipping 100 coins and assigning heads = 1 and tails = -1. You'd have an EV of 0. You'd establish what your risk tolerance is (if it's a "bet the bank" type of risk, you're probably looking out two or even three standard deviations... if it's a simple investment decision, it's probably more like 1 or even 1/2 standard deviation). You price the deal to be ~ breakeven at that risk level recognizing that there's tail risk involved (for some definition of tail).

What has been referred to as "risk" for the gankers is, on the cost side, not anything that a risk manager would worry about. They're going to chalk up the entire fleet as a lost the moment they pull the trigger. The "risk" comes on the revenue side with what the EVE RNG gods decide to drop as loot.

More risk averse people would take a flyer on that hypothetical 5.5B implant over the 5billion in assorted minerals. Less risk averse people would not.

It's an interesting exercise and it's a type of mentality that tells you alot about null-sec vs. hi-sec dwellers. My gut is that most null-sec pirates would pull the trigger on the single implant. Most "carebear pirates" (if there is such a thing) would pass on it despite it having a higher EV they look at it as a (significantly) riskier proposition.

tl;dr I agree that ganking is "risky". I was quibbling with some people further back that were going very far afield and making confusing statements because of a poor understanding of the terminology.
Buck Futz
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#429 - 2012-09-20 22:31:13 UTC
Vojk wrote:
Malphilos wrote:


Your wisdom smells funny, kinda like yesterday's lunch.



Personally I find that a well made Lamb Vindaloo tastes, and smells much better 24 hours after purchase. Not so 24 hours after consuming, however.


I'm still sore about that thread getting locked so soon. It was a work of art.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#430 - 2012-09-20 22:34:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Seminole Sun wrote:
Okay... Some terms are getting thrown around and clearly there's some definitional disconnects

Cost = Expense and is NOT the same thing as Risk

Risk = uncertainty
Close, but not quite.

Cost = cost. Risk = probability × cost.
Quote:
The GANKING aspect of freighter ganking (i.e. blowing the thing up) has no uncertainty (i.e. "risk") on the cost side.
…which means that the risk = cost, since the probability is 1. A 100% certainty does not make it risk-free — quite the opposite: it makes the risk correspond to the full value of the cost. So the ganking is all risk.

The reward is also a risk, but with a negative cost, which is added to this base risk. Since the base risk is always more than 0, and the reward can be 0, there is always — unavoidably — risk in a suicide gank.
Quote:
What IS risky is the payoff. Absolutely. Both Malphilos and I concede that. But it doesn't change the equation on the cost side of things which is fixed with no "risk" associated with it.
…except that the cost side is all risk, because that's how risk is defined.

Nothing like breaking down a plain old gank into demonstrations of numeracy and literary prowess is there?


"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#431 - 2012-09-20 22:38:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Seminole Sun wrote:
I refer you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk
“Risk is the potential that a chosen action or activity (including the choice of inaction) will lead to a loss (an undesirable outcome).”

and

“In statistics, the notion of risk is often modelled as the expected value of an undesirable outcome. This combines the probabilities of various possible events and some assessment of the corresponding harm into a single value. See also Expected utility. The simplest case is a binary possibility of Accident or No accident. The associated formula for calculating risk is then:

Risk = (probability of the accident occurring) × (expected loss in case of an accident)”

So yeah… risk = probability × cost. If probability = 1, then risk = cost.
Quote:
I'm in the process of an ERM implementation. I can tell you that things that are 100% probability of occuring are NOT put in the risk bucket nor are they even included in most of our models.
That's your problem. It's still a risk — just one that you can count on for certain. If you want to move it to a different column to make the spreadsheet cleaner and to compare it to other values, then that's fine, but it is still a bona fide risk.

Quote:
What has been referred to as "risk" for the gankers is, on the cost side, not anything that a risk manager would worry about.
…and that's because it's too trivial a risk to have to model and makes the risk manager look unnecessary. Blink
It doesn't make it any less of a risk. In particular, when you want to balance it against the risk of a positive outcome, it's handy to be able to just slap in in there and have it all be one formula.

Ganking is risky. To say that it is not means that if you at any point afterwards say that ganking should have more risk, you're advocating that CONCORD should have, say, a 50% chance of killing a criminal rather than a 100% chance, and that this much lower probability of losing your ship means the risk is higher… which is obviously just nonsense.
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians
#432 - 2012-09-20 22:39:02 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:

Nothing like breaking down a plain old gank into demonstrations of numeracy and literary prowess is there?


It wouldn't be EVE if there wasn't a spreadsheet involved! I wonder if I should buy and sell Microsoft stock based on the daily logins of EVE users ;)
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians
#433 - 2012-09-20 22:47:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:


blahblahblah, stuff in which we agree to disagree and both cite a wikipedia article that supports and hurts our respective positions



We're arguing over stupidly nuanced semantics. The broad point was that the cost is fairly well known in a gank and the revenue is where you can focus your attention (which I think we can both agree is where the largest uncertainty in the whole equation comes in).

I think if Concord had a 50/50 shot at killing you, you'd see ganking evolve to be more risky. Because now there IS uncertainty on the cost side. If everyone took the exact same ships that they used to take (in number and fitting) and they made the target threshold exactly the same as it used to, you're right, the risk (in the colloquial sense) would decline. But they wouldn't. They'd take fewer ships (though not half) and they'd fire at slightly less wealthy targets (again, not half). And I'm predicting (as much as you can predict something that will never happen) that their Risk Adjusted Rate of Return (i.e. their EV) would actually be HIGHER then it is now because of that increased uncertainty.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#434 - 2012-09-20 23:10:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Seminole Sun wrote:
blahblahblah, stuff in which we agree to disagree and both cite a wikipedia article that supports and hurts our respective positions
Hey, you picked it, not me. It's not my problem if the first thing it says is what I'm saying…

Quote:
The broad point was that the cost is fairly well known in a gank and the revenue is where you can focus your attention (which I think we can both agree is where the largest uncertainty in the whole equation comes in).
…and my point is that the whole “no risk” argument is nonsensical because there is that known cost and known probability, and that claiming that there is no risk leads to the absurd and nonsensical conclusion that lower chance of death would mean higher risk.

Quote:
I think if Concord had a 50/50 shot at killing you, you'd see ganking evolve to be more risky.
Sorry, no. If the cost remains the same and the probability goes down, the risk goes down. There are no two ways about it. Just because there is now uncertainty where previously there was none does not mean that there is less risk — it means there is more uncertainty, which is something completely different. You are arguing about how the rewards would go down, but that is not what I'm referring to — I'm referring to those who make the ridiculous claim that since death is certain, there is no risk (they don't even consider the reward part of the calculation), which leads to the aforementioned contradiction.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#435 - 2012-09-20 23:20:23 UTC
20 pages on someone got GANKED in Eve...

inkredibull.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Seminole Sun
Hell's Librarians
#436 - 2012-09-20 23:29:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Seminole Sun wrote:
blahblahblah, stuff in which we agree to disagree and both cite a wikipedia article that supports and hurts our respective positions
Hey, you picked it, not me. It's not my problem if the first thing it says is what I'm saying…

[/quote]

ehh... I was going to respond to this but this mini-threadnought has sufficiently sapped my will to live as well as sucking far too much time from my employer (maybe I need to put that on the client's risk register, "Risk that employees get sucked down the rabbit hole of internet forums" :)
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#437 - 2012-09-21 00:07:40 UTC
Samahiel Sotken wrote:
Seminole Sun wrote:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the mechanics of a concord response (having never been stupid enough to carry enough in my ship to create the opportunity). I was under the impression that about 20 seconds (in 0.5) after the initial volley, concord comes and insta-gibs you. It doesn't matter if you had one ship or 200 ships, they're all going to die ~20 seconds after they first aggress. Most battlecruisers will get off two volleys in that time right? Destroyers (which don't get used anymore for this purpose as I understand) get off three. While it may be playing semantics, I'd consider two shots in 10-12 seconds to be "essentially" an alpha strike. There's almost nothing that a freighter can do in that 10-12 seconds and very little shield regen is going to happen.

I guess my point is that they wouldn't be shooting at the freighter over a matter of minutes with a bumper CONSTANTLY bumping the freighter. They might need ONE bump and then 15-20 seconds of shooting.

If I'm misunderstanding something, let me know. As I said, this is a knowledge gap I'm trying to correct.


A Neutron Blaster Cannon II with all gunnery skills at IV gets off I think 3-4 volleys before concord shows up, at which point they neut and ECM you. You are smart and have fitted and overheated ECCM so you have a couple more volleys, meanwhile your Hobgoblin IIs are ignored and continue to fire away merrily. It's more complicated then that, also gate guns, but it gets the point across. Either way you need significantly less ships if you use high DPS high ROF blasters than if you use high alpha artillery.

Note: concord is not an instant death, it's inevitable death. You will be hit with an infinite point, a heavy neut, and a lot of webs. The DPS is high, but not instantaneous.


Could it be done with lets say a Naga instead of a Talos for someone trained in caldari racial ship or is the talos used because it's THAT much better?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#438 - 2012-09-21 00:26:44 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Could it be done with lets say a Naga instead of a Talos for someone trained in caldari racial ship or is the talos used because it's THAT much better?


The Talos has two more low slots and a hull bonus for hybrid damage to boot.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#439 - 2012-09-21 00:36:52 UTC
Andski wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Could it be done with lets say a Naga instead of a Talos for someone trained in caldari racial ship or is the talos used because it's THAT much better?


The Talos has two more low slots and a hull bonus for hybrid damage to boot.


Same dmg bonus on naga. I guess tracking bonus is better than optimal range for ganking and low slots beats meds too.
Anosha de'Cavemann
Perkone
#440 - 2012-09-21 13:58:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Anosha de'Cavemann
As an uber-noob player, this thread as been extremely informative.

  1. Lot's of what not to do's
  2. Lot's of game mechanics I wasn't aware of.
  3. Lot's of things to further research.
  4. How lively these forums can be.

Thanks to all.

EvE, it's all about tear managment.