These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why risk versus reward doesn't matter
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#541 - 2013-04-08 20:18:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
You have 3 questions, 1 station which is an assumption, and you are claiming I haven't answered your question.
I'm claiming that you haven't answered my question because you haven't answered my question. And no, it's only one. I restate it slightly rephrased for rhetoric effect. I suppose you could try to separate the two, but then I'd like to hear a good explanation for how it's odd, but not a contradiction, or vice versa.

Anyway, here you go:

By your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — one way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses and higher profits mean more risk?

Yes or no.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#542 - 2013-04-08 20:27:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You have 3 questions, 1 station which is an assumption, and you are claiming I haven't answered your question.
I'm claiming that you haven't answered my question because you haven't answered my question. And no, it's only one. I restate it slightly rephrased for rhetoric effect. I suppose you could try to separate the two, but then I'd like to hear a good explanation for how it's odd, but not a contradiction, or vice versa.

Anyway, here you go:

By your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — one way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses and higher profits mean more risk?

Yes or no.



To which? Here's something for you, as I know you like math.

Count the question marks. Is it more than 1? Yes or no?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#543 - 2013-04-08 20:29:41 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I don't have a need to kill anything and everything in my sights. Sometimes I have a different goal in mind. Such as transporting. Or exploring. Sometimes I do go on gank sprees though.

Mind showing us some of these "gank sprees"? All I see, in hisec, appears to be circumventing concord.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#544 - 2013-04-08 20:32:23 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
To which?
To the one question in the post. The one I wanted to be so clear to you that I asked it twice.

A simple yes or no will do, thank you.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#545 - 2013-04-08 20:33:03 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I don't have a need to kill anything and everything in my sights. Sometimes I have a different goal in mind. Such as transporting. Or exploring. Sometimes I do go on gank sprees though.

Mind showing us some of these "gank sprees"? All I see, in hisec, appears to be circumventing concord.



Sure, it's in whatever system I'm in in highsec when I decide to shoot someone.

Feel free to visit minerbumping.com for a list of videos etc.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Dave Stark
#546 - 2013-04-08 20:34:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
To which?
To the one question in the post. The one I wanted to be so clear to you that I asked it twice.

A simple yes or no will do, thank you.


expecting murk to actually answer a question.

silly tippia.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#547 - 2013-04-08 20:35:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
To which?
To the one question in the post. The one I wanted to be so clear to you that I asked it twice.

A simple yes or no will do, thank you.



Question 1- Doesn't that seem odd to you?
I think having to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes. I also do not think highsec should be as powerful as it is, but I understand why it is.

Question 2- Doesn't that seem like a contradiction:
As opposed to it being a contradiction... I don't give it enough thought. I simply do not care. I know the rules. If I shoot someone I'm not supposed to I forfeit my ship regardless of the outcome.

Question 3- that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?
I think having to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes. I also do not think highsec should be as powerful as it is, but I understand why it is. Repetitive answer, but still fits.

Which of those are the "one question"?

You can't even tell how many questions you ask? Seriously? I figured you were smarter than that.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#548 - 2013-04-08 20:35:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Dave Stark wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
To which?
To the one question in the post. The one I wanted to be so clear to you that I asked it twice.

A simple yes or no will do, thank you.


expecting murk to actually answer a question.

silly tippia.



Yea, a whole page ago. And I answered it. Strange indeed!

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#549 - 2013-04-08 20:43:11 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Sure, it's in whatever system I'm in in highsec when I decide to shoot someone.

Feel free to visit minerbumping.com for a list of videos etc.

Not seeing any videos, and I don't believe that you're "james 315".

Murk Paradox wrote:
ng to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes.

Hisec is high security, not perfect security. Worrying about risk assessment and piracy while in hisec seems perfectly acceptable and normal to me. If there hadn't been any need for risk assessment, then it wouldn't be called hisec, but perfsec.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#550 - 2013-04-08 20:44:30 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
[Question 1- Doesn't that seem odd to you?
I think having to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes.
That wasn't the question, though.

Quote:
Question 2- Doesn't that seem like a contradiction:
As opposed to it being a contradiction...
…nor is that “question 2.”

Quote:
Question 3- that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?
…and that is not “question 3.”

Quote:
I think having to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes.
That still wasn't the question.

Quote:
Which of those are the "one question"?
This one:
By your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — one way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses and higher profits mean more risk?

Yes or no.

Any further evasions or other stupidity will be interpreted in the only way it can: as a “yes”; as you knowing full well that the ship loss represents a risk and that reducing that risk will not somehow actually increase the risk. Last chance.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#551 - 2013-04-08 20:44:58 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Sure, it's in whatever system I'm in in highsec when I decide to shoot someone.

Feel free to visit minerbumping.com for a list of videos etc.

Not seeing any videos, and I don't believe that you're "james 315".

Murk Paradox wrote:
ng to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes.

Hisec is high security, not perfect security. Worrying about risk assessment and piracy while in hisec seems perfectly acceptable and normal to me. If there hadn't been any need for risk assessment, then it wouldn't be called hisec, but perfsec.



That would take the creative genius of the developers to determine. And as you don't think I'm James315 (I'm not), I do not think you are a developer either.

But if you do some more searching on his blog, I'm sure you'll find a link, or 3, to some highsec ganking.

Enjoy.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Ai Shun
#552 - 2013-04-08 20:45:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Ai Shun
Tippia wrote:
If you reject the notion that ship loss is a risk, then you tacitly agree that the best way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?


Ship loss is guaranteed; so that is a cost in the equation. A bit like buying your next card in a game of Hold'em. The benefit is calculated and the attack happens. Then things go over to chance as you may get a bad RNG; etc. and not pop what you're trying to kill. Of course knowledge changes the level of risk there, but there is still an element of chance. You're basically risking covering your costs and potentially making a profit; but you're never going to escape the fact that you paid for that card. That money is in the pot.

If you are going down the "lose less and earn more" path though you'd have to focus on a single event, wouldn't you? E.g. one encounter. You could increase risk by adding further punishment in the future. For (stupid) example:

There is a 1 in 10 chance that a CONCORD police captain decides you're the scum of the universe and instead of the normal security gains; you've got a personal CONCORD vendetta against you for 1d10 days.

That would be a risk where you had the potential to lose more; wouldn't it? Of course, not a part of the current system but I've not read enough to know if we're dealing in hypothetical world or in the current world only.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#553 - 2013-04-08 20:50:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
Which of those are the "one question"?
This one:
By your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — one way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses and higher profits mean more risk?

Yes or no.

Any further evasions or other stupidity will be interpreted in the only way it can: as a “yes”; as you knowing full well that the ship loss represents a risk and that reducing that risk will not somehow actually increase the risk. Last chance.



You may interpret anything you are of a mind to, I don't much care =).

You can ask a direct single parted question, or you can accept what answers you have received. Up to you. You ask more than one question, you will get more than 1 answer.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#554 - 2013-04-08 20:50:56 UTC
I didn't ask for "some hisec ganking", I asked for yours. But I'll just assume that there aren't any, then. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#555 - 2013-04-08 20:54:25 UTC
Tippia, let me ask you something....

What's the risk factor in shooting someone in highsec that is based on chance?

You keep saying risk, like there's a chance you wouldn't lose your ship by shooting someone.

Are you insinuating that you can maybe get away without retribution from Concord?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#556 - 2013-04-08 20:55:06 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
I didn't ask for "some hisec ganking", I asked for yours. But I'll just assume that there aren't any, then. vOv



You seem to think they are different. Feel free to assume what you like. The answer is in the question.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#557 - 2013-04-08 20:58:32 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
Ship loss is guaranteed; so that is a cost in the equation.
No. The ship cost is the cost in the equation. The guarantee is the probability. Multiply the two together and you get the risk — in this case the full value of the ship. So, naturally, if we reduce the probability, the risk will go down.

But what Murk is desperately trying to avoid admitting is that if we treat the guarantee as meaning there is no risk, we get the following contradiction: losing the full value of the ship is a lower risk than losing, say, half the value of the ship.

Quote:
If you are going down the "lose less and earn more" path though you'd have to focus on a single event, wouldn't you? E.g. one encounter. You could increase risk by adding further punishment in the future.
No, we're talking statistics here.

Again, assuming the odd “non-risk” interpretation of 100% loss, over 10 ganks, you'd lose 10 ships.
To add more risk (more than “none”), we reduce the probability to only 50% so that there is a risk, and over 10 ganks, you'd lose 5 ships. By losing fewer ships and thus earning bigger profits, you apparently risk more because you have “a risk” rather than “no risk”.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#558 - 2013-04-08 20:58:34 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Tippia, let me ask you something....

What's the risk factor in shooting someone in highsec that is based on chance?

You keep saying risk, like there's a chance you wouldn't lose your ship by shooting someone.

Are you insinuating that you can maybe get away without retribution from Concord?

Losing your ship's a certainty, the risk is whether or not
1) the ships tankier than you expect
2) the cargo is valuable enough
3) enough of the cargo actually drops

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Dave Stark
#559 - 2013-04-08 20:59:28 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Tippia, let me ask you something....

What's the risk factor in shooting someone in highsec that is based on chance?

You keep saying risk, like there's a chance you wouldn't lose your ship by shooting someone.

Are you insinuating that you can maybe get away without retribution from Concord?


you're ignoring the fact that probability of 1 is still a probability.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#560 - 2013-04-08 21:00:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Which of those are the "one question"?
This one:
By your reckoning — by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk — one way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses and higher profits mean more risk?

Yes or no.

Any further evasions or other stupidity will be interpreted in the only way it can: as a “yes”; as you knowing full well that the ship loss represents a risk and that reducing that risk will not somehow actually increase the risk. Last chance.

You may interpret anything you are of a mind to, I don't much care =).

You can ask a direct single parted question, or you can accept what answers you have received. Up to you. You ask more than one question, you will get more than 1 answer.
Yes
Good, then that's settled.

You agree that the whole notion that 100% chance of ship loss = no risk is nonsense.


Murk Paradox wrote:
What's the risk factor in shooting someone in highsec that is based on chance?
The risk factors are:
Probability: 1
Cost: the value of your ship.

Quote:
You keep saying risk, like there's a chance you wouldn't lose your ship by shooting someone.
No. I keep saying risk as if there is a probability of ship loss. There is. The probability is 1.

Risk = probability × cost. As a result, the risk is the value of your ship.

…of course, that's for the attack itself. We'll then have to add in the risks for loot and bounty and salvage and all the other forms of payout that might occur.