EVE General Discussion

If a patch "removed" mining from the game and someone said to you "eve has plenty of other activities" and if you don't like it 'play theme park game", what you say to that person?

I enjoy sandbox mmo's, my favorite game ever is UO (before Trammel), i don't like theme park games. EvE Is the last true old school sandbox mmo. It's sad to see it go the Trammel way.

Your comparision is just stupid and perfectly follows rules of fallacy. Mining is a profesion implemented in eve. Your "profesional can stealing" is just your point of view that it is proffesion.

For example I like orbiting statues. now if ccp remove those statues, should i cry on formus that CCP destroyed my" profesional statue orbiting"? Should any change in the EvE be the reason for crying that it destroyed "LoL proffesion" no matter how stupid? (they retextured vindicator. Now i cannot hide in blackness of space, they removed my "profesional hiding career")

And im repeating to you that they didnt removed it. They just make it harder for you.

So you're saying that Russian Roulette with 6 chambers full is has a lower risk than Russian Roulette with only one chamber full? Good to know.

Risk and Uncertainty are not the same thing, no matter how much you want them to be.



So Russian Roulette with 6 chambers loaded instead of 1 is less risky. Gotcha.

By the way, Miners sacrifice their ship with some probability X in order to gain some profit. Just because the probability of loss for the ganker is 1 doesn't mean that they don't use the same equation for calculating risk.

Risk and Uncertainty are not the same thing.



So you're saying that a significant, across the board EHP buff did not reduce the number of profitable targets? Industrialized ganking is the only thing that has ever provided any significant risk loss to miners who didn't jetcan. Industrialized ganking was obsoleted by CCP's catering to the least competent pilots in EVE.

What significant risk do miners face?
Let's say that a "significant risk" has an expected cost of 2m an hour (a tenth of the risk involved in Suicide ganking). A Mackinaw costs about 250m. Does the average Mackinaw (run with no active protection measures*) survive more or less than 125hrs of mining in HS? If it's more, than Suicide ganking doesn't pose a significant risk. And guess what, it most certainly is more than that. The HS mining fleet is far too vast for the small number of gankers able to gank at a loss to put any kind of significant dent in it.

*Aligning, etc.

What cookies are you munching on? Russian roulette with six barrels loaded is not a risk. If you pull the trigger. You eat a bullet.
Risk and Guarenteed are not the same thing. No matter how much you want them to be


Undocking, no matter the ship, carries the same risks. You risk losing your ship. This applies to ANY ship. As it is a "Risk" and not guarenteed, how the hell can you compare it to a fully loaded Russion roulette barrel?


Oh come now. Are you comparing risk to the time you can keep a ship? seriously? I can undock in a Brand spanking new Drake minutes old and see it go bang in a puff of smoke. Lets take Gankers too. Apparently finding targets is all but impossible. This must mean that it reduces the loss of ships per hour. So using your own arguement. This means ganking is less risky too.


No, I am not saying a significant increased EHP has not decreased Gankable Targets. I'm saying that the risk to miners has finally been brought closer into line with everyone else.
Again you are argueing Risk over the amount of time you can keep a ship. Ganking for profit as an arguement has been invalidated by CCP stating it was never their intention for it to be profitable.

So? They prefer tank+ore hold(macks) instead of yeld/minute and jetcans (hulks). Miners has finaly evolved. Situation before miner rebalance? Hulk or GTFO. Miners have a choice now. Tank or yeld.

A better quote from Wikipedia would have been: "In statistical decision theory, the risk function is defined as the expected value of a given loss function as a function of the decision rule used to make decisions in the face of uncertainty."

Your function gives the expected value of the loss function, and is one reasonable, simple, definition for the word risk. However, his point, that uncertainty is needed for a situation to be reasonably termed risky, is definitely valid. Applying the loss function to situations without uncertainty still gives the expected value of the loss function, but no reasonable human being could term that 'risk'. That is then simply the 'cost'--and using a framework of a loss function across a probability distribution would then be a ridiculous model, as the domain of such a distibution would be a single point. Russian roulette with a gun in good working order and all chambers loaded isn't russian roulette, it's just suicide.

Most simply put, risk requires a situation where there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of potential undesirable consequences. Where those consequences can be assigned a loss function with monetary values, then one can integrate/sum the loss function to find the expected value(depending on whether the loss function is continuous or discrete), which gives the formula you are using for risk. If the consequences can't be given an agreed-upon monetary value, then your formula is inapplicable. If there is no uncertainty to begin with, then the situation was never 'risk' in the first place, although something looking exactly like your formula would still give the expected value, if the certain outcome of the situation under discussion has an agreed-upon monetary impact. In essence, your argument is equivocal and misleading, and uncertainty is always necessary for a situation to be termed risky. The foundation of this equivocation is that in ganking, there is uncertainty as to the result of the gank, even after concord has been invoked, on the positive side of the ledger, so it's reasonable to construct a probability distribution to model the results. However, the destruction of one's own ship at that point is 100%, save exploit, so if you're only looking at that particular cost, talking about the larger situation's distribution and using the language of risk and uncertainty is a sophisticated form of deception.

Yes, that's certainly true. Obviously ganking miners post-barge/exhumer buff is no longer what it was, and gankers now face both a fixed large cost per gank and the risk that the gank will fail.

Pre-buff if you wanted riskfree mining you could just mine in a rock-containing combat mission far from warpin. Post-barge-buff you can still mine with risk, in a wh. It's still all out there, but the 'default' case of afk-ish mining in hisec belts is obviously much different. I'm not sure I see the point of a discussion about how 'risky' that default case is, when the real disagreement seems to be on how risky it SHOULD be. (not to mention procurer vs. retriever vs mack vs hulk making both those discussions multi-case)

It certainly bring it closer to the risk profile of running lvl4 missions, or manufacturing t1 ammo, which is probably what he had in mind as common hisec activities, and that's probably a fairly accurate picture as to how CCP chose to rebalance the barges, actually...that is to say, they compared it to running lvl4's and made it equally risk-free, unless you fly a tankless hulk or an officer-fit tengu, and then it's only a little risky.

"You can't have a productive discussion on how risky an activity should be when many of the participants are profoundly ignorant of how to calculate that risk (when discussing comparative risks, no other definition but Loss*Probability makes any sense) and what order of magnitude that risk has."

'many of the participants are profoundly ignorant'--by which you mean you quoted one person out of context to make him look like a fool, when his perspective was perfectly self-consistent though limited. I'm sure there may have been some person in this thread who thinks that hi-sec pvp is less risky than hisec pve, which is crazy, but that's not the majority view by any means.