These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#101 - 2012-11-04 20:12:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
baltec1 wrote:
Dont stuff 20 bil in the hold?


If I put 2 bil isk to Damnation nobody is going to gank it. It has way lower base EHP than freighters.

A bit funny since you can gank 600k EHP Damnation with few Nados.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#102 - 2012-11-04 20:18:25 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dont stuff 20 bil in the hold?


If I put 2 bil isk to Damnation nobody is going to gank it. It has way lower base EHP than freighters.

A bit funny since you can gank 600k EHP Damnation with few Nados.


I assume you've never heard of a thing known as resists.

You'll need atleast 40-50 tornados to gank a ship with that much EHP.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#103 - 2012-11-04 20:28:53 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
If I put 2 bil isk to Damnation nobody is going to gank it. It has way lower base EHP than freighters.

A bit funny since you can gank 600k EHP Damnation with few Nados.
No, the funny bit is how you define “a few” and how you think that base EHP is in any way relevant. It's also funny how the “if Jorma says it, it's false” hypothesis is closing in on both theory and law very very quickly.
Dave stark
#104 - 2012-11-04 20:42:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Anosha de'Cavemann wrote:
I've been playing for about 2 months, and thanks to reading the forums and *repeated* posts by the following:

baltec1
Natsett Amuinn
Tippia

Plus a lot of others, even nooby me knows to fly with WAY under 1 bil.. I've flown right past them 1 or 2 times, carrying 5-20 mil of hard earned loot, crapping my pants and …. wait for it …. no problems….

What is so hard to figure out? Right now, these are the 'rules' of the sandbox. Figure out how to change it in-game or don't complain.

Nooby-1, out.
see, this guy gets it.

don't fill your cargo full of expensive shiny stuff and the magpies will leave you alone.
…to be fair, flying past me is thoroughly risk-free, since I don't gank. I just impart the sensible approach I've picked up, which strangely enough puts me on the same side of the argument as those who do blow people up. P


it's not really as much of an argument as a brave few standing against the wave of tears.

i don't gank either and i'd love 0 risk hauling. simple fact is, it ain't going to happen and no amount of tears will change it. best to just deal with the situation and get on with whatever else you have to do.
Fieriy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#105 - 2012-11-05 01:09:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Fieriy
Tippia wrote:
Fieriy wrote:
You're somewhat ignorant of what the word risk means.
Yes, if by “ignorant” you mean “using the exact definition”, otherwise no. It means exactly that: cost × probability. I think you're confusing me with all those people who think that there risk is equivalent to uncertainty. They're not. That's part of the point of having the risk concept.

Something with 100% probability is still a risk. The value of that risk is the same as the cost.



Let me try to explain this again. What risk means is that there is also a chance the loss will not occur. There is no risk involved in the situation. Instead it is a gamble.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#106 - 2012-11-05 01:32:51 UTC
Fieriy wrote:
Let me try to explain this again. What risk means is that there is also a chance the loss will not occur. There is no risk involved in the situation. Instead it is a gamble.
No. What risk means is that there is a probability to incur a cost (or a gain). That probability can be anywhere between (and including) 0 and 1.

The risk is the anticipated (statistical) cost/gain of such an event.

There is plenty of risk in this situation, especially since it's such a gamble.
Fieriy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#107 - 2012-11-05 01:44:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Fieriy
Tippia wrote:
Fieriy wrote:
Let me try to explain this again. What risk means is that there is also a chance the loss will not occur. There is no risk involved in the situation. Instead it is a gamble.
No. What risk means is that there is a probability to incur a cost (or a gain). That probability can be anywhere between (and including) 0 and 1.

The risk is the anticipated (statistical) cost/gain of such an event.

There is plenty of risk in this situation, especially since it's such a gamble.



That's incorrect. At probabilities of 0 and 1 risk is non-existent.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#108 - 2012-11-05 01:45:48 UTC
Fieriy wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Fieriy wrote:
You're somewhat ignorant of what the word risk means.
Yes, if by “ignorant” you mean “using the exact definition”, otherwise no. It means exactly that: cost × probability. I think you're confusing me with all those people who think that there risk is equivalent to uncertainty. They're not. That's part of the point of having the risk concept.

Something with 100% probability is still a risk. The value of that risk is the same as the cost.



Let me try to explain this again. What risk means is that there is also a chance the loss will not occur. There is no risk involved in the situation. Instead it is a gamble.


Fieriy--If you lined up every person on the Earth and reached a consensus that risk was defined by such and such a definition, except for Tippia, and then tried to convince Tippia that risk was defined in such a way, she would still disagree with you. Arguing with her is like shoving a red-hot poker into your eye and trying to enjoy it. Even if you succeed, you lose.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#109 - 2012-11-05 01:49:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Fieriy wrote:
At probabilities of 0, and 1 risk is said to be non-existent.
At 0, yes, because obviously that means the risk is zero as well. At 1, no, because then risk = cost.

It's all in the risk formula. The risk does not go away just because the probability is 100%. Quite the opposite…
What you are talking about is uncertainty — not risk.

Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Fieriy--If you lined up every person on the Earth and reached a consensus that risk was defined by such and such a definition, except for Tippia, and then tried to convince Tippia that risk was defined in such a way, she would still disagree with you. Arguing with her is like shoving a red-hot poker into your eye and trying to enjoy it. Even if you succeed, you lose.
As luck would have it, a consensus (of sorts) was reached on the matter.

That consensus is risk = probability × cost (or R(𝛾,𝛿) = 𝔼ᵧL(𝛾,𝛿(X)) = ∫ₓL(𝛾,𝛿(X))dPᵧ(X), if you want to be really thorough). No special cases exist for probabilities of 1 or 0 — they're just very trivial cases.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#110 - 2012-11-05 01:55:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Fieriy wrote:
At probabilities of 0, and 1 risk is said to be non-existent.
At 0, yes, because obviously that means the risk is zero as well. At 1, no, because then risk = cost.

It's all in the risk formula. The risk does not go away just because the probability is 100%. Quite the opposite…
What you are talking about is uncertainty — not risk.

Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Fieriy--If you lined up every person on the Earth and reached a consensus that risk was defined by such and such a definition, except for Tippia, and then tried to convince Tippia that risk was defined in such a way, she would still disagree with you. Arguing with her is like shoving a red-hot poker into your eye and trying to enjoy it. Even if you succeed, you lose.
As luck would have it, a consensus (of sorts) was reached on the matter.

That consensus is risk = probability × cost (or R(𝛾,𝛿) = 𝔼ᵧL(𝛾,𝛿(X)) = ∫ₓL(𝛾,𝛿(X))dPᵧ(X), if you want to be really thorough). No special cases exist for probabilities of 1 or 0 — they're just very trivial cases.


Nope.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#111 - 2012-11-05 02:00:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Nope.
Compelling argument. Take it up with the ISO board. And with every risk analysis since the concept was invented.

The fact remains: risk = probability × cost, where probability lies in the [0,1] span.
Fieriy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#112 - 2012-11-05 02:05:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Fieriy wrote:
At probabilities of 0, and 1 risk is said to be non-existent.
At 0, yes, because obviously that means the risk is zero as well. At 1, no, because then risk = cost.

It's all in the risk formula. The risk does not go away just because the probability is 100%. Quite the opposite…
What you are talking about is uncertainty — not risk.


With this you've made it somewhat easier for me to explain. What you don't get is that the word risk is only used when uncertainty is involved...
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#113 - 2012-11-05 02:07:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Nope.
Compelling argument. Take it up with the ISO board. And with every risk analysis since the concept was invented.

The fact remains: risk = probability × cost, where probability lies in the [0,1] span.



"One of the key paradigm shifts proposed in ISO 31000 is a controversial change in how risk is conceptualised. Under the ISO 31000:2009 and a consequential major revision of the terminology in ISO Guide 73, the definition of "risk" is no longer "chance or probability of loss", but "the effect of uncertainty on objectives"



Looks like you're behind the times :)

Effect of uncertainty. As in, uncertainty, as in, not a probability of 0, or 1. Clear?

I could go into how the ISO's definition is all about reductionist numerization of a concept, risk, which predates the iso which treats it only in a business related way, and even there in a short-sighted way which treats known unknowns while ignoring unknown unknowns (see black swan theory)...but that's not necessary, as your supposed authority doesn't support your ideas anyway.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#114 - 2012-11-05 02:12:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Fieriy wrote:
With this you've made it somewhat easier for me to explain. What you don't get is that the word risk is only used when uncertainty is involved...
…and what you don't get is that the risk concept makes no such distinction — it allows for probabilities of 0 and 1 just fine. Something with probability 1 is still a risk, which comes in handy if you want to combine it with a total risk that involves several factors (such as, say, a gank).

Vanyr Andrard wrote:
"One of the key paradigm shifts proposed in ISO 31000 is a controversial change in how risk is conceptualised. Under the ISO 31000:2009 and a consequential major revision of the terminology in ISO Guide 73, the definition of "risk" is no longer "chance or probability of loss", but "the effect of uncertainty on objectives"

Looks like you're behind the times :)
Nope. I'm just using the common way it's used. The update simply allows for gains to be included as well as costs, since everyone was using the same formula for that anyway (either by counting gains as negative costs or by changing the signs and seeing risk as something innately positive instead).

The uncertainty in question still allows for 0 and 1, and they're still merely trivial cases.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#115 - 2012-11-05 02:14:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
"One of the key paradigm shifts proposed in ISO 31000 is a controversial change in how risk is conceptualised. Under the ISO 31000:2009 and a consequential major revision of the terminology in ISO Guide 73, the definition of "risk" is no longer "chance or probability of loss", but "the effect of uncertainty on objectives"

Looks like you're behind the times :)
Nope. I'm just using the common way it's used. The update simply allows for gains to be included as well as costs, since everyone was using the same formula for that anyway (either by counting gains as negative costs or by changing the signs and seeing risk as something innately positive instead).

The uncertainty in question still allows for 0 and 1, and they're still merely trivial cases.



You're calling probabilities of 0 and 1 uncertainties? Cuckoo.

Like I said fieriy, impossible to have a reasonable debate with her.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#116 - 2012-11-05 02:15:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
You're calling probabilities of 0 and 1 uncertainties?
No. I'm calling them probabilities, as does the risk formula. The semantics doesn't change the maths, and the maths still defines the risk.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#117 - 2012-11-05 02:15:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
You're calling probabilities of 0 and 1 uncertainties?
No. I'm calling them probabilities, as does the risk formula.



Now you believe that the risk formula has achieved sentience. Really, I'm surprised you're allowed on the internet.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#118 - 2012-11-05 02:17:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Now you believe that the risk formula has achieved sentience.
No. I believe that the risk formula uses algebraic expressions — each variable and parameter is called something.

You are confusing the form of agency involved — predicates do not denote sentience, fyi.

The fact remains: risk = probability × cost.
Probability lies in the [0,1] span.
Do you want to argue semantics or do you want to dispute this fact?
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2012-11-05 02:19:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Elliot Vodka wrote:

Solutions dont include learn the game. Thats old and lame. Post something exciting.


Perhaps the reason why "learn the game" is "old and lame" is because it applies to almost every whinge about it, and is therefore used frequently. This might come as a shock to you, but people who "learn the game" well often do well at it themselves.

You have to adapt to survive - you can't stop a storm bearing down on New York City, you prepare for its arrival.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#120 - 2012-11-05 02:23:42 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Elliot Vodka wrote:

Solutions dont include learn the game. Thats old and lame. Post something exciting.


Perhaps the reason why "learn the game" is "old and lame" is because it applies to almost every whinge about it, and is therefore used frequently. This might come as a shock to you, but people who "learn the game" well often do well at it themselves.

You have to adapt to survive - you can't stop a storm bearing down on New York City, you prepare for its arrival.


No, it's lame because it exposes EVE for what it is.

4 billion things you can't do.

R.I.P. Vile Rat