These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#121 - 2012-11-05 02:28:52 UTC
Ioci wrote:
No, it's lame because it exposes EVE for what it is.

4 billion things you can't do.
Really? Between the oft-quoted 20 billion loss and the supposed 2-billion safe limit, it would rather seem like 18 billion things you can't do… Blink
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2012-11-05 02:29:02 UTC
Ioci wrote:
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.


That's not it at all - "learning the game" isn't about limiting what you can do, it's about learning it well enough to find creative ways to do things you thought you couldn't. This negativity doesn't help you learn, it just gives you an excuse to whinge. Instead of whining about the "4 billion things you can't do", which includes things like putting a "don't shoot me" sign on the side of your spaceship (making it obvious why there are things you can't do), why don't you think up something you can do?

Stop flying on autopilot. Start putting up off-grid bookmarks on stargates and stations. Start LEARNING THE GAME. I've hauled billions into and out of Jita 4-4 and never been ganked once. Albeit, I had a crack team of haulers teach me how, but that's why you join a corp, to learn from people who have done it all before.

“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

Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#123 - 2012-11-05 02:30:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
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?



Is that an ultimatum? What will you do if I refuse? Seems like a risky situation.

Your definition above is the expectation value of a risk function, taken by integrating across the domain. This is a definition of limited applicability, which you are pretending is the only possible definition, without any expectation of personal benefit. I.e., you're doing this just because there's something really wrong with you.

Here's the definition of risk agreed upon by the Stanford philosophy department, note that it includes 7-8 different definitions, one of which is the same as the one you claim is the only possible one:

"1. Defining risk

In non-technical contexts, the word “risk” refers, often rather vaguely, to situations in which it is possible but not certain that some undesirable event will occur. In technical contexts, the word has several more specialized uses and meanings. Five of these are particularly important since they are widely used across disciplines:

1. risk = an unwanted event which may or may not occur.

An example of this usage is: “Lung cancer is one of the major risks that affect smokers.”

2. risk = the cause of an unwanted event which may or may not occur.

An example of this usage is: “Smoking is by far the most important health risk in industrialized countries.” (The unwanted event implicitly referred to here is a disease caused by smoking.) Both (1) and (2) are qualitative senses of risk. The word also has quantitative senses, of which the following is the oldest one:

3. risk = the probability of an unwanted event which may or may not occur.

This usage is exemplified by the following statement: “The risk that a smoker's life is shortened by a smoking-related disease is about 50%.”

4. risk = the statistical expectation value of an unwanted event which may or may not occur.

The expectation value of a possible negative event is the product of its probability and some measure of its severity. It is common to use the number of killed persons as a measure of the severity of an accident. With this measure of severity, the “risk” (in sense 4) associated with a potential accident is equal to the statistically expected number of deaths. Other measures of severity give rise to other measures of risk.

Although expectation values have been calculated since the 17th century, the use of the term “risk” in this sense is relatively new. It was introduced into risk analysis in the influential Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400, (Rasmussen et al., 1975). Today it is the standard technical meaning of the term “risk” in many disciplines. It is regarded by some risk analysts as the only correct usage of the term.

5. risk = the fact that a decision is made under conditions of known probabilities (“decision under risk” as opposed to “decision under uncertainty”)

In addition to these five common meanings of “risk” there are several other more technical meanings, which are well-established in specialized fields of inquiry. Some of the major definitions of risk that are used in economic analysis will be introduced below in section 5."

So, if you want to argue with them, feel free to email them about how your experience with internet spaceships has taught you that all of their nonqualitative definitions are incorrect. I'm really not interested in debating with you on this subject any further, because it's impossible for you to change your mind on anything, but since I've been nice enough to post this information for you to argue against I'd say you should probably thank me all the same.

"It is regarded by some risk analysts as the only correct usage of the term." Which is a fine agreement to make between a group of people, trying to extend that agreement to cover the entire english language is where people go off the deep end. Many words are used in technical meanings different in 30-40 separate fields...if all of those fields tried to eliminate those other meanings, that would be farcical.
Elliot Vodka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#124 - 2012-11-05 02:33:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Elliot Vodka
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.




Everything in this topic is more exciting than that little bit of information that everyone already knows....

Not trying to drag you down. But its boring to read that. And your the nearest quote.

If anything at least mix it up and say you should keep learning because mastering eve is utilizing the knowledge of its universe or something new and creative. <3

Why is it that people think this game is for everyone?A better question would be "Why do some people think this game is only for them?"

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#125 - 2012-11-05 02:38:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Your definition above is the expectation value of a risk function, taken by integrating across the domain. This is a definition of limited applicability, which you are pretending is the only possible definition, without any expectation of personal benefit.
I'm not pretending anything. It's the formula for quantitative risk analysis, which is what we're talking about here.

Quote:
So, if you want to argue with them, feel free to email them about how your experience with internet spaceships has taught you that all of their nonqualitative definitions are incorrect.
Actually, it's my experience with risk analyses that have taught me about the quantitative definition. If you want to argue that we need a qualitative one when calculating the cost of ship losses, drop rates, drop values, odds of disruptive events etc. then go right ahead. I'd very much like to hear how (and why) we should use qualitative analyses of these quantities…

Yes, the victim might not perceive any risks from his subjective p.o.v., but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and the fact that we can quantify many of them means that their cries of “there's no risk” seem quite hollow and uninformed.
Fieriy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#126 - 2012-11-05 02:39:04 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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?


Risk versus uncertainty

In his seminal work Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Frank Knight (1921) established the distinction between risk and uncertainty.
“ ... Uncertainty must be taken in a sense radically distinct from the familiar notion of Risk, from which it has never been properly separated. The term "risk," as loosely used in everyday speech and in economic discussion, really covers two things which, functionally at least, in their causal relations to the phenomena of economic organization, are categorically different. ... The essential fact is that "risk" means in some cases a quantity susceptible of measurement, while at other times it is something distinctly not of this character; and there are far-reaching and crucial differences in the bearings of the phenomenon depending on which of the two is really present and operating. ... It will appear that a measurable uncertainty, or "risk" proper, as we shall use the term, is so far different from an unmeasurable one that it is not in effect an uncertainty at all. We ... accordingly restrict the term "uncertainty" to cases of the non-quantitive type.:[38] ”

Thus, Knightian uncertainty is immeasurable, not possible to calculate, while in the Knightian sense risk is measurable.

Another distinction between risk and uncertainty is proposed in How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business and The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It by Doug Hubbard:[39][40]

Uncertainty: The lack of complete certainty, that is, the existence of more than one possibility. The "true" outcome/state/result/value is not known.

Measurement of uncertainty: A set of probabilities assigned to a set of possibilities. Example: "There is a 60% chance this market will double in five years"

Risk: A state of uncertainty where some of the possibilities involve a loss, catastrophe, or other undesirable outcome

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#127 - 2012-11-05 02:42:53 UTC
Fieriy wrote:
Risk versus uncertainty [etc]
Yes. Notice how neither 0 or 1 are disallowed in any of that.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#128 - 2012-11-05 02:44:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Your definition above is the expectation value of a risk function, taken by integrating across the domain. This is a definition of limited applicability, which you are pretending is the only possible definition, without any expectation of personal benefit.
I'm not pretending anything. It's the formula for quantitative risk analysis, which is what we're talking about here.


Indeed we are not.

Quote:
So, if you want to argue with them, feel free to email them about how your experience with internet spaceships has taught you that all of their nonqualitative definitions are incorrect.
Actually, it's my experience with risk analyses that have taught me about the quantitative definition. If you want to argue that we need a qualitative one when calculating the cost of ship losses, drop rates, drop values, odds of disruptive events etc. then go right ahead. I'd very much like to hear how (and why) we should use qualitative analyses of these quantities…
[/quote]

Which risk analyses in the real world did you do where you did long analyses of the risks of situations with probabilities 1 or 0? You must have been paid well for those. If you can link me to a long quantitative risk analysis you did of a situation with the probability 1 or 0, then I'll repay you with loud and prolonged laughter.
Fieriy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#129 - 2012-11-05 02:46:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Fieriy
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Your definition above is the expectation value of a risk function, taken by integrating across the domain. This is a definition of limited applicability, which you are pretending is the only possible definition, without any expectation of personal benefit.
I'm not pretending anything. It's the formula for quantitative risk analysis, which is what we're talking about here.


Indeed we are not.

Quote:
So, if you want to argue with them, feel free to email them about how your experience with internet spaceships has taught you that all of their nonqualitative definitions are incorrect.
Actually, it's my experience with risk analyses that have taught me about the quantitative definition. If you want to argue that we need a qualitative one when calculating the cost of ship losses, drop rates, drop values, odds of disruptive events etc. then go right ahead. I'd very much like to hear how (and why) we should use qualitative analyses of these quantities…


Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Which risk analyses in the real world did you do where you did long analyses of the risks of situations with probabilities 1 or 0? You must have been paid well for those. If you can link me to a long quantitative risk analysis you did of a situation with the probability 1 or 0, then I'll repay you with loud and prolonged laughter.


ROFL
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#130 - 2012-11-05 02:48:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Indeed we are not.
Indeed we are, since the whole debate started with the claim that the quantity known as ship loss and the probability of said loss could be combined to (quantitatively) calculate a risk.

So again, why should we use qualitative methods to analyse a quantitative risk?

Quote:
Which risk analyses in the real world did you do where you did long analyses of the risks of situations with probabilities 1 or 0?
Doesn't matter. Like I said, they're trivial cases. That doesn't mean we can't calculate them as risks. In fact, in some instances, coming to the conclusion that the probability really is 1 (or 0) is immensely valuable. Nice ad hominem, though. Too bad fallacies are… well… fallacious.

…oh, and for the record, the probability we're actually discussing here — CONCORD response — is not 1.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#131 - 2012-11-05 02:55:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Indeed we are not.
Indeed we are, since the whole debate started with the claim that the quantity known as ship loss and the probability of said loss could be combined to (quantitatively) calculate a risk.

Quote:
Which risk analyses in the real world did you do where you did long analyses of the risks of situations with probabilities 1 or 0?
Doesn't matter. Like I said, they're trivial cases. That doesn't mean we can't calculate them as risks. In fact, in some instances, coming to the conclusion that the probability really is 1 (or 0) is immensely valuable.

…oh, and for the record, the probability we're actually discussing here — CONCORD response — is not 1.


No one ever said you couldn't put them in the formula as if they were risks. That ...'doesn't matter', as you so awkwardly put it .

"In fact, in some instances, coming to the conclusion that the probability really is 1 (or 0) is immensely valuable."

Agreed! It is indeed immensely valuable...so you now disagree with your earlier characterization that these are trivial cases(in the mathematical sense of course they're still 'trivial' cases, but we all know that 'trivial' cases in the mathematical sense are more often than not the opposite of trivial in practice) ? It appears that you've now conceded the argument, then. Good try, chap.
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#132 - 2012-11-05 02:57:59 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Ioci wrote:
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.


That's not it at all - "learning the game" isn't about limiting what you can do, it's about learning it well enough to find creative ways to do things you thought you couldn't. This negativity doesn't help you learn, it just gives you an excuse to whinge. Instead of whining about the "4 billion things you can't do", which includes things like putting a "don't shoot me" sign on the side of your spaceship (making it obvious why there are things you can't do), why don't you think up something you can do?

Stop flying on autopilot. Start putting up off-grid bookmarks on stargates and stations. Start LEARNING THE GAME. I've hauled billions into and out of Jita 4-4 and never been ganked once. Albeit, I had a crack team of haulers teach me how, but that's why you join a corp, to learn from people who have done it all before.


You are an expert at dragging stuff to Jita.

Only in EVE.

R.I.P. Vile Rat

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#133 - 2012-11-05 03:00:39 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
No one ever said you couldn't put them in the formula as if they were risks.
Actually, that's pretty much what they said: “Willingly having your ship blown up isn't a risk.”
If we put them into our formula as a risk they are… well… a risk.

Quote:
Agreed! It is indeed immensely valuable...so you now disagree with your earlier characterization that these are trivial cases(in the mathematical sense of course they're still 'trivial' cases, but we all know that 'trivial' cases in the mathematical sense are more often than not the opposite of trivial in practice) ?
Indeed, they are still trivial — they vastly simplify the calculation — so why should I disagree with my earlier characterisation of them being just that?
Elliot Vodka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#134 - 2012-11-05 03:05:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Elliot Vodka
Things are getting crazy now, so im going to put in something... less complicated... Try to ease the minds of... whoever.


Ok lets create a scenario.

I have 1 dallar. And look, there is a grabber machine that i can play for 25 cents.
I have decided i want to play this game, and spend 25 cents, i know there is no getting this quarter back... no chance... no risk?

Now in this game there are balls... with prizes inside them, most look alike, all contents are hidden. BUT, you know in all of these balls have either, money, objects, or nothing at all.

Up to the point of spending the 25 cents there is no risk because i know its going to happen.

So at least we have established there is no risk up to this point...

Does risk become a factor when the ball could slip out of the grabbers hand? Resulting in nothing gained?

Is it a risk or is it simply a bonus if i get it? Is it perspective?

It seems like this is become about perspective more than anything.

One guy may think, ive lost 0.25 for this opportunity. The worst that can happen is that i walk away without that 25 cents.

Someone else may think. I spent 25 cents to win something better... I risked 25 cent for this opportunity...

Im alone starting to lose the point of the whole argument with people trying to prove what a risk is?

(I missed a few post while writing this, dont hate.)

Why is it that people think this game is for everyone?A better question would be "Why do some people think this game is only for them?"

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#135 - 2012-11-05 03:11:31 UTC
Elliot Vodka wrote:
Ok lets create a scenario.

Your total risk is ≤25¢ - ∑[probability of getting any specific item] × [value of that item], where that first 25¢ is simply [probability of having to pay] × [the cost of paying]. It's not necessarily 1×25¢, since there's always the chance that someone paid and forgot to collect…
Elliot Vodka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#136 - 2012-11-05 03:13:59 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Elliot Vodka wrote:
Ok lets create a scenario.

Your total risk is ≤25¢ - ∑[probability of getting any specific item] × [value of that item], where that first 25¢ is simply [probability of having to pay] × [the cost of paying]. It's not necessarily 1×25¢, since there's always the chance that someone paid and forgot to collect…


I absolutely love... how anal that was...

+1

Why is it that people think this game is for everyone?A better question would be "Why do some people think this game is only for them?"

Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#137 - 2012-11-05 03:25:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
No one ever said you couldn't put them in the formula as if they were risks.
Actually, that's pretty much what they said: “Willingly having your ship blown up isn't a risk.”
If we put them into our formula as a risk they are… well… a risk.



so in your insane universe, the fact that equations for things with masses work even with the mass at zero, means that things with zero mass are 'masses', because they can be put into the formula as a mass? Objects with zero charge are "charges" because they fit into the equation for charge? etc.

Sorry, but that's way too nuts for me to deal with. I'm going to pretend the thread ended with your previous post, where you seemed to concede the argument peacefully and without digressing into paradoxland.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#138 - 2012-11-05 03:25:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Elliot Vodka wrote:
Ok lets create a scenario.

Your total risk is ≤25¢ - ∑[probability of getting any specific item] × [value of that item], where that first 25¢ is simply [probability of having to pay] × [the cost of paying]. It's not necessarily 1×25¢, since there's always the chance that someone paid and forgot to collect…


That was just perfect.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#139 - 2012-11-05 03:42:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
so in your insane universe, the fact that equations for things with masses work even with the mass at zero, means that things with zero mass are 'masses', because they can be put into the formula as a mass?
No. They are objects of zero mass, just like in this case, they would be events with zero probability. We can still see them as risks if we like, which becomes important since, if we're dealing with a compound risk, they can have consequences on the total risk involving other events. The same will not be the case with masses (at least not in any way I can think of off the top of my head… well, maybe when we start dealing with momentum of massless particles and all that).

For instance, let's look at the risk of the loot drop.

It'll look like ∑ [probability of item dropping] × [value of item], but that assumes that a drop event actually takes place to begin with and we have to compensate for this. Now, we could include that probability in the [probability of item dropping] parameter, but that would mean a lot of needless repetition of something that must be the same for all items involved. So it's far neater to extract that as its own parameter: risk = [probability of drop event] × ∑ [probability of item dropping] × [value of item]

…and then when we debug our code or process every detail in the scenario, we notice that, oops, the probability of the drop event is zero for some reason. Thus, even though the risk for the items being dropped is some interesting value, the total risk turns out to be zero. A non-zero risk is compounded with a zero risk to make our prognosis very bleak.
SevenBitBrian
Doomheim
#140 - 2012-11-05 03:50:27 UTC
Everyone wants these new and inventive ways to get away from gankers but the game already has one in. Fit a tank and fly with some escorts, fighters and a logi. They'll stop trying to gank you I promise. Anything less than that and you are opening yourself up to the possibility of loss, and that's on you, not on CCP to make it easier.

It's your choice.

7bitworld.org