These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High sec cargo gank... Whats the hate? Solutions?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#241 - 2012-11-05 12:38:46 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:

Ok 2 frieghters fly into a system.
One has 4 billion in one contract the other 4 billion value of 50 items. 50 chances for stuff to drop as opposed to one chance for everything to drop.
The ganker has only enough ships on hand to kill one of them.
Which does he choose?


depends if he likes to gamble or is rather a conservative person, which however doesnt affect the fact thats its actually the same from the statistical point of view. For a pro ganker it wouldnt matter which one he picks.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#242 - 2012-11-05 12:40:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:

Ok 2 frieghters fly into a system.
One has 4 billion in one contract the other 4 billion value of 50 items. 50 chances for stuff to drop as opposed to one chance for everything to drop.
The ganker has only enough ships on hand to kill one of them.
Which does he choose?


If you assume that each cargo is small and liquid, then the choice would depend on whether this hypothetical ganker was risk-seeking, risk-averse, or risk-neutral. Most people are risk-averse, but one would presume a ganker might possibly be more likely to be a risk-seeker or risk-neutral--edit: just like robert said above 10 seconds prior to me ~_~
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#243 - 2012-11-05 12:41:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
If physically testing a claim isn't standing by a claim, then I don't even want to stand by a claim.
“Physical testing” would be to provide the quotes you supposedly paraphrased. Unfortunately, they don't exist as physical entities, and I'm not interested in print-outs. So just the text and, preferably, some kind of paragraph reference will do.

Oh, and if you want to test your claims and believe in them, then you can use your own money. It should be risk-free for you, right?
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#244 - 2012-11-05 12:55:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
If physically testing a claim isn't standing by a claim, then I don't even want to stand by a claim.
“Physical testing” would be to provide the quotes you supposedly paraphrased. Unfortunately, they don't exist as physical entities, and I'm not interested in print-outs. So just the text and, preferably, some kind of paragraph reference will do.


Okkkkay.

"Risk probability nonzero, risk value zero, in the formula we know and love."

--
"Anything super valuable has always died."

Rereading the article more closely, like one would have to actually quote from it, he says he remembers one gank that went wrong that got away at 7% structure, and possibly others he doesn't remember.


"sounds like we can ditch the technical definition of risk"

This is a small snippet from a paraphrase, this particular snippet isn't a claim at all. It's just an obvious fact. There's nothing in our heads preventing us from ditching the technical definition of risk, so we can.

The quote which the entire sentence you took this small snippet from was paraphrasing was : ""It's like a scratch-off lottery ticket. You know what you could win, you just don't know what you will win. Our guys do this because they make money every gank and they get free ships to gank with. They don't have to rat, mission, or otherwise carebear for income."

So, they're provided, now I expect 50B in my wallet from you to start the test.
Dave Stark
#245 - 2012-11-05 13:00:02 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:

The quote which the entire sentence you took this small snippet from was paraphrasing was : ""It's like a scratch-off lottery ticket. You know what you could win, you just don't know what you will win. Our guys do this because they make money every gank and they get free ships to gank with. They don't have to rat, mission, or otherwise carebear for income."

So, they're provided, now I expect 50B in my wallet from you to start the test.


i've already pointed out that this quote has been taken out of context and has nothing to do with the risk of ganking, and everything to do with the structure of their operation.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#246 - 2012-11-05 13:01:41 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:

The quote which the entire sentence you took this small snippet from was paraphrasing was : ""It's like a scratch-off lottery ticket. You know what you could win, you just don't know what you will win. Our guys do this because they make money every gank and they get free ships to gank with. They don't have to rat, mission, or otherwise carebear for income."

So, they're provided, now I expect 50B in my wallet from you to start the test.


i've already pointed out that this quote has been taken out of context and has nothing to do with the risk of ganking, and everything to do with the structure of their operation.


And you were already answered :)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#247 - 2012-11-05 13:04:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
"Anything super valuable has always died."

Rereading the article more closely, like one would have to actually quote from it, he says he remembers one gank that went wrong that got away at 7% structure, and possibly others he doesn't remember.
…and based on that, you conclude that the risk value is zero… how, exactly?
Hint: if the risk value were zero, they wouldn't waste their time ganking and they certainly wouldn't be making claims like the one in your second quote.

Quote:
"sounds like we can ditch the technical definition of risk"

This is a small snippet from a paraphrase, this particular snippet isn't a claim at all. It's just an obvious fact. There's nothing in our heads preventing us from ditching the technical definition of risk.
…aside from the whole thing being a matter of risk and (pseudo)random chance rather than any kind of fixed gains and costs.

Quote:
"It's like a scratch-off lottery ticket. You know what you could win, you just don't know what you will win. Our guys do this because they make money every gank and they get free ships to gank with. They don't have to rat, mission, or otherwise carebear for income."
…and from this you conclude that we can abandon risk calculations… how, exactly?
Hint: there is a reason why they make money on every gank, and it's not because they have chucked out risk.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#248 - 2012-11-05 13:06:22 UTC
Dave stark wrote:

on a bad luck streak lately? :P


The other day I gankined an iteron. Everything dropped aside from one thing. So I ended up with an entire fitting for a hulk but no hulk Sad
Dave Stark
#249 - 2012-11-05 13:07:54 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
And you were already answered :)

yes, with "i'll read what i want from the article".

baltec1 wrote:
Dave stark wrote:

on a bad luck streak lately? :P


The other day I gankined an iteron. Everything dropped aside from one thing. So I ended up with an entire fitting for a hulk but no hulk Sad


on the bright side, if you were only using a catalyst that's almost profitable.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#250 - 2012-11-05 13:08:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
"Anything super valuable has always died."

Rereading the article more closely, like one would have to actually quote from it, he says he remembers one gank that went wrong that got away at 7% structure, and possibly others he doesn't remember.
…and based on that, you conclude that the risk value is zero… how, exactly?


well...i hadn't read the article for a month. If you wish for me to read the articles for you, I will read them diligently and accurately, but then I will expect 100 bill ISK in my inbox, not 50b.



Quote:
and from this you conclude that we can abandon risk calculations… how, exactly?


Well, to be honest, I know that there's nothing in my brain preventing me from abandoning risk calculations. I have what pure humans quaintly call "Freedom of thought", the one freedom you can maintain even in prison. I don't actually know about you...you might have some kind of chip preventing you from thinking certain thoughts. I can check for you, but that will be, yes you guessed it, yet another 50 Bill.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#251 - 2012-11-05 13:10:23 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
well...i hadn't read the article for a month.
Poor evasion. I take it you can't actually come to that conclusion, then.

Quote:
Well, to be honest, I know that there's nothing in my brain preventing me from abandoning risk calculations.
Poor evasion. I take it you can't actually come to that conclusion either, then.

0/2. Poor show.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#252 - 2012-11-05 13:11:45 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dave stark wrote:


on the bright side, if you were only using a catalyst that's almost profitable.


I made a mil Big smile
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#253 - 2012-11-05 13:12:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
well...i hadn't read the article for a month.
Poor evasion. I take it you can't actually come to that conclusion, then.


that's not an evasion, I straight out admitted it was a bad paraphrase in that instance--although it was only 1 word from being correct.

Quote:
Well, to be honest, I know that there's nothing in my brain preventing me from abandoning risk calculations.
Poor evasion. I take it you can't actually come to that conclusion either, then.[/quote]

Still waiting for that 50B
Dave Stark
#254 - 2012-11-05 13:18:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dave stark wrote:


on the bright side, if you were only using a catalyst that's almost profitable.


I made a mil Big smile


every win's a win!
shame you didn't get the hulk though. maybe next time?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#255 - 2012-11-05 13:22:38 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
that's not an evasion
Yes it is. Saying that you haven't read the article evades the question of how you draw the conclusion form the article, and does so poorly. In fact, it only raises more questions, such as how you can even claim to draw any conclusion from it.

Quote:
Now you're just off the deep end again.
No. Saying that you can imagine how to ignore how things work evades the question of how you draw a conclusion from the article… even more so in light of your new claim not having read it recently enough to remember things properly. It's just as poor an evasion as the previous one.

So at this point, based on your answers and your inability to demonstrate how you managed to come to your conclusions from the passages you quoted, we rather seem to be closing in on a different conclusion: you pulled those supposed conclusions out of your nether region.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#256 - 2012-11-05 13:27:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
that's not an evasion
Yes it is. Saying that you haven't read the article evades the question of how you draw the conclusion form the article, and does so poorly. In fact, it only raises more questions, such as how you can even claim to draw any conclusion from it.

Quote:
Now you're just off the deep end again.
No. Saying that you can imagine how to ignore how things work evades the question of how you draw a conclusion from the article… even more so in light of your new claim not having read it recently enough to remember things properly. It's just as poor an evasion as the previous one.

So at this point, based on your answers and your inability to demonstrate how you managed to come to your conclusions from the passages you quoted, we rather seem to be closing in on a different conclusion: you pulled those supposed conclusions out of your nether region.


The only evasion I see here is you evading the topic of the thread, baldly lying, and making invasive personal statements. I'd advise you to reconsider continuing with this course of discussion. You ask a lot of odd questions, and my experience is that answering those questions gets a bunch of my posts deleted, and possibly worse. Stop wasting time.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#257 - 2012-11-05 13:47:34 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
The only evasion I see here is you evading the topic of the thread,
…you mean by discussing the topic of whether highsec ganks are a problem or not or if it's just a construction from ignorance about the full scope of what's going on; about what works and what doesn't; and why it does or doesn't work? No, that's pretty much on topic.

Quote:
baldly lying, and making invasive personal statements.
…both of which you can exemplify, I suppose?

Quote:
I'd advise you to reconsider continuing with this course of discussion.
Sure. As soon as you stop injecting unfounded nonsense as if it were fact, thereby making me check whether you have any basis for what you're saying or whether it's just more of the same. By the way, one reason why you get posts deleted might be that they get reported as being off-topic trolling…
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
#258 - 2012-11-06 00:31:08 UTC
I would settle for simply a less accurate cargo scanner. I am thinking something along the lines of giving.more abstract information about volume and density of the cargo versus a de facto cargo manifest that it now gives. This would add some uncertainty back into the formula such that gankers are not able to manage their risk using only the ingame calculator...
LuckyQuarter
Eden Dominion Coalition
Scary Wormhole People
#259 - 2012-11-06 03:17:06 UTC  |  Edited by: LuckyQuarter
I think the game would be simpler/fairer if we just got rid of cargo scanners all together.

Orca's are getting a slight nerf with the scannable/dropable fleet bay.
Freighters have now proven to be reasonably gankable by any decently organized fleet.

As it is, gankers have minimal risk if they can limit their attacks to the most profitable targets. If we get rid of cargo scanners, it should all balance out.

It's never made much sense to me in the first place why scanning shouldn't be a hostile/aggro event...it's like the one thing you can activate on a non-fleet member and not get marked hostile for.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#260 - 2012-11-06 05:22:18 UTC
Shizuken wrote:
I would settle for simply a less accurate cargo scanner. I am thinking something along the lines of giving.more abstract information about volume and density of the cargo versus a de facto cargo manifest that it now gives. This would add some uncertainty back into the formula such that gankers are not able to manage their risk using only the ingame calculator...
Maybe have their scanning time depend on the cargohold volume scanned? Sure, a freighter takes half a minute to get into warp, but if it also takes almost half a minute scan all that volume…