These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dave Stark
#601 - 2013-04-08 21:53:06 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Risk implies a chance of 2 different outcomes. Cost does not.


actual point of the discussion aside.

i love how you use the dictionary definition of a word when it suits, and random implications associated with a word when the actual use of the word goes against you.



You mean when it's apparent that I need to use a fact to cite my reasoning? Yes, it's called a debate.


no i mean by sidestepping an issue when it's obvious you're wrong.

don't mistake this for me having a go or anything, i think you're an excellent troll.



Finally someone noticed I only post when I'm at work =P

Doesn't make me wrong however.


oh i noticed a while ago, the multiboxing/eula thread. hours of fun arguing with you. enjoyable, thoroughly.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#602 - 2013-04-08 21:53:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
And based on that factual find of "risk" cost of ship loss when known is going to be 100% loss, cannot be defined by risk, but as cost. Expecting any other outcome is foolhardy.

Gamblers putting money on the table or in the machine, according to your definition, aren't taking risks.


Oh nono, don't derail.

I don't think anyone who undocks a ship they know is gonna die in a gank attempt considers they might not lose the ship.

Call it a "suicide fleet" if you need to, but the fact remains it is still entry into whatever fun you're trying.

You know.. like a cost.

If you want to derail the thread, say something like you "risk" paying to enter a themepark or some such.

Then you'd be rockin hard.

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
#603 - 2013-04-08 21:56:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
And based on that factual find of "risk" cost of ship loss when known is going to be 100% loss, cannot be defined by risk, but as cost.
…except, of course, that any cost cna be defined in terms of a risk by including a probability. Thus the risk for the gank part is the value of the ship.

Quote:
Doesn't make me wrong however.
Of course not. What makes you wrong are things like insisting that lower probability leads to higher risk, that 100% chance is the same as no chance, and that costs can't be seen as risks.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#604 - 2013-04-08 21:56:27 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Oh nono, don't derail.

It's not a derail.

Murk Paradox wrote:
I don't think anyone who undocks a ship they know is gonna die in a gank attempt considers they might not lose the ship.

Nobody who's putting money on the table, or coin in the machine, aren't thinking they might not lose that coin/money. The instant they've bet it, they've sunk that cost. So according to you, they're not risking anything.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#605 - 2013-04-08 22:00:08 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Oh nono, don't derail.

It's not a derail.

Murk Paradox wrote:
I don't think anyone who undocks a ship they know is gonna die in a gank attempt considers they might not lose the ship.

Nobody who's putting money on the table, or coin in the machine, aren't thinking they might not lose that coin/money. The instant they've bet it, they've sunk that cost. So according to you, they're not risking anything.



I don't gamble in Eve. Didn't like the websites they use.

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
#606 - 2013-04-08 22:01:49 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I don't gamble in Eve. Didn't like the websites they use.

"I got nothin', so I'm gonna derail instead"

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

RIP Vile Rat
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#607 - 2013-04-08 23:24:13 UTC
So I am glad someone brought up costs. That is what is missing in hi sec, the cost of doing business (bizness for the cool kids). Opportunity costs remain, the choice between activities, but there are minimal to no cost to cover the protection provided by Concord. Who covers their overhead? The Jove?

Not that their is a lot of overhead to cover one hit time to quit kills, but still I am sure Concord isn't manned by volunteers. Concord needs to get paid!

I believe costs are the X factor in balance between lo/hi/null.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#608 - 2013-04-08 23:25:29 UTC
NO DON'T TALK ABOUT ADDING/INCREASING COSTS IN HISEC YOU'LL BE NERFING IT INTO THE GROUND EVEN IF THE CHANGES ARE MINISCULE

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#609 - 2013-04-08 23:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Nexus Day wrote:
So I am glad someone brought up costs. That is what is missing in hi sec, the cost of doing business (bizness for the cool kids). Opportunity costs remain, the choice between activities, but there are minimal to no cost to cover the protection provided by Concord. Who covers their overhead? The Jove?

Not that their is a lot of overhead to cover one hit time to quit kills, but still I am sure Concord isn't manned by volunteers. Concord needs to get paid!

I believe costs are the X factor in balance between lo/hi/null.

You want to NERF Hi-sec

You ******* bastard.

You expect me to pay more without receiving 10 times the amount back

Rot in Hell, you obvious Null Sec alt

Lol

Edit: I forgot, The usual "I will Unsub" and "EvE will die" comments. My mistake.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#610 - 2013-04-09 13:02:19 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I don't gamble in Eve. Didn't like the websites they use.

"I got nothin', so I'm gonna derail instead"



Is that why you keep bringing up inane metaphors that don't belong?

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
#611 - 2013-04-09 13:14:51 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Is that why you keep bringing up inane metaphors that don't belong?

Which metaphors?

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

RIP Vile Rat
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#612 - 2013-04-09 13:34:23 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Nexus Day wrote:
So I am glad someone brought up costs. That is what is missing in hi sec, the cost of doing business (bizness for the cool kids). Opportunity costs remain, the choice between activities, but there are minimal to no cost to cover the protection provided by Concord. Who covers their overhead? The Jove?

Give us some numbers and we can discuss it.
Without numbers there is nothing to speak about i guess.

Nexus Day wrote:
Not that their is a lot of overhead to cover one hit time to quit kills, but still I am sure Concord isn't manned by volunteers. Concord needs to get paid!

CONCORD is NPC (it's a program). It does not lose ships. It does not buy new modules. And it does not need to buy PLEX for subscription. It uses magical las0rs and does not spend ammo.
It doesn't need ISK.


Maybe some more CPU ticks and a little more megabytes of RAM. Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Bane Veradun
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#613 - 2013-04-09 14:33:32 UTC
Andski wrote:
imagine a space-themed amusement park and you have several rides

that's what eve is basically going towards


Precipitated by a total lack or regard for moderation coupled with a perpetual cacophony of voices crying about how broken the game is and how certain groups are being catered to and coddled. Add to it some fable about Risk v Reward, a concept that is dictated purely on perception and circumstance, not hard coding or even location and you get the equivalent of a cat being raked across a chalkboard with a blaring claxon jammed in its feline behind.

The game WAS perfectly fine before, it was the players who needed to be balanced and told to HTFU and stop begging for hand-outs. Instead, you get what we're getting now. In a game that boasts of consequences for actions, this is the consequences of past actions.

Hi.
Colonel Xaven
Perkone
Caldari State
#614 - 2013-04-09 14:58:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Colonel Xaven
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
Andski wrote:
imagine a space-themed amusement park and you have several rides

that's what eve is basically going towards


Gee never herd this before. The theme park is the BLUE section of null-sec the blue doughnut the sea of blue.


Tell me how this player-made blue donut (you know: meta gaming, politics etc.) is a restricted game play aka theme park? Shocked

www.facebook.com/RazorAlliance
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#615 - 2013-04-09 15:25:45 UTC
Bane Veradun wrote:
Andski wrote:
imagine a space-themed amusement park and you have several rides

that's what eve is basically going towards


Precipitated by a total lack or regard for moderation coupled with a perpetual cacophony of voices crying about how broken the game is and how certain groups are being catered to and coddled. Add to it some fable about Risk v Reward, a concept that is dictated purely on perception and circumstance, not hard coding or even location and you get the equivalent of a cat being raked across a chalkboard with a blaring claxon jammed in its feline behind.

The game WAS perfectly fine before, it was the players who needed to be balanced and told to HTFU and stop begging for hand-outs. Instead, you get what we're getting now. In a game that boasts of consequences for actions, this is the consequences of past actions.



I wanna ride the Thunderdome mommy!

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
#616 - 2013-04-09 15:32:21 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Is that why you keep bringing up inane metaphors that don't belong?

Which metaphors?

Still waiting.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#617 - 2013-04-09 15:33:26 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Is that why you keep bringing up inane metaphors that don't belong?

Which metaphors?

Still waiting.


Then just scroll up troll.

I'm more interested in discussing the topic. If you want to have a private conversation about your shortcomings, feel free to send me a mail.

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
#618 - 2013-04-09 15:36:05 UTC
So when you said I used "inane metaphors", you were talking out your ass. Gotcha.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#619 - 2013-04-09 15:43:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
No. You made them.

Inadvertently, out of your ass. As it were.

But there you go.

Scroll up.

Your metaphors and analogies are there in all their glory, some even on this page.

GTF back on topic please. We don't want this topic to go to the forum Concord for "protection" for you trolling or flaming.

Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Oh nono, don't derail.

It's not a derail.

Murk Paradox wrote:
I don't think anyone who undocks a ship they know is gonna die in a gank attempt considers they might not lose the ship.

Nobody who's putting money on the table, or coin in the machine, aren't thinking they might not lose that coin/money. The instant they've bet it, they've sunk that cost. So according to you, they're not risking anything.



Pure asinine metaphor. There are no coins or machines in Eve. there is a table in captain's quarters I guess. But I don't think you mean that.

Yes, by the way, that's YOUR quote, not mine.

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
#620 - 2013-04-09 15:49:00 UTC
I'll tell you where the metaphors are: in your imagination.

And as for "risk", the only way you can come even close to claiming that ganking doesn't involve risk is by saying that gambling doesn't contain risk either, since that's exactly what gankers do. They gamble on a payout, with their ship's value as the wager.

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

RIP Vile Rat