These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#661 - 2013-04-09 20:42:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Whether you get it back or not is the point. That's how you define risk. Using a formula is how you quantify it's value, not whether it exists or not.
The only way for a risk not to exist is if its value is 0 or if one of the factors — cost or probability — don't exist. With a nonzero cost and a non-zero probability, the value is not zero, and both factors obviously exist. Thus, it is a risk.

Quote:
It's a COST, not a risk.
Close, but completely wrong.
It's a cost, and therefore a risk.

You're setting up a dichotomy that does not exist, and which cannot exist without completely redefine risk.



Explain. Risk is a chance.

You risk losing it. You risk gaining it. You risk getting in trouble.

Uncertainty. Maybe. Might. Chance.

Loss is a certainty. You don't RISK losing your ship to Concord.

You WILL lose your ship to Concord.

There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false?

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
#662 - 2013-04-09 20:44:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:


Murk Paradox wrote:
But you still lose your ship. Period.

And?



And you lose your ship regardless of the outcome. 100% guaranteed. Attempting to gank someone will cost you your ship. It's an absolute. Not a risk. Not a chance. Not a gamble. A certainty. There is no variable, there is no "except".

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
#663 - 2013-04-09 20:44:51 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
And you lose your ship regardless of the outcome. 100% guaranteed. Attempting to gank someone will cost you your ship. It's an absolute. Not a risk. Not a chance. Not a gamble. A certainty.

And?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#664 - 2013-04-09 20:46:38 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
And you lose your ship regardless of the outcome. 100% guaranteed. Attempting to gank someone will cost you your ship. It's an absolute. Not a risk. Not a chance. Not a gamble. A certainty.

And?



And nothing. That's it. Your ship gets blown up. Everytime.

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
#665 - 2013-04-09 20:48:30 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
And you lose your ship regardless of the outcome. 100% guaranteed. Attempting to gank someone will cost you your ship. It's an absolute. Not a risk. Not a chance. Not a gamble. A certainty.

And?

And nothing. That's it. Your ship gets blown up. Everytime.

We know that. What's your point?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#666 - 2013-04-09 20:49:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Explain. Risk is a chance.
No. Risk is the effect of probability on an outcome.

Quote:
Loss is a certainty.
…and the risk is [probability = 1] × [cost = value of ship] = value of the ship.

Quote:
There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false?
False dilemma. Actual answer is: Irrelevant.

At best, it means that there is no risk for non-loss (but at that point, I'd ask what the cost of a non-loss is…).

And again, there's the reductio ad absurdum version: if 100% probability of CONCORD appearing means there is no risk, then a 1% probability of CONCORD appearing is a massive nerf to ganking since you've infinitely increased the risk. I would like to hear you sell that argument to miners: “no, no, you asked for more risk for the gankers so we've ensured that they most likely won't lose anything when the shoot you.” Blink
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#667 - 2013-04-09 20:54:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Explain. Risk is a chance.
No. Risk is the effect of probability on an outcome.

Quote:
Loss is a certainty.
…and the risk is [probability = 1] × [cost = value of ship] = value of the ship.

Quote:
There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false?
False dilemma. Actual answer is: Irrelevant.

At best, it means that there is no risk for non-loss (but at that point, I'd ask what the cost of a non-loss is…).

And again, there's the reductio ad absurdum version: if 100% probability of CONCORD appearing means there is no risk, then a 1% probability of CONCORD appearing is a massive nerf to ganking since you've infinitely increased the risk. I would like to hear you sell that argument to miners: “no, no, you asked for more risk for the gankers so we've ensured that they most likely won't lose anything when the shoot you.” Blink

Doesn't that concept of risk apply rather broadly? for instance doesn't it effectively count the use of any consumable as risk?
Alekksander Geinesa
Divine Mortals
#668 - 2013-04-09 20:55:17 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:
Because it has no relationship to how things really work. You can always make the most money in areas where there is the most stability. And when you think about it that makes sense. here is what doesn't.

The price of stability is a higher "price of admission". I could mine gold in the Congo or in Alaska. In the Congo there are less barriers to entry and lower overall costs, but significantly more risk. It is the first part that is missing in EvE hi sec, barriers to entry and higher overall costs.

Nothing is free in a "civilized" nation or space. Where are the mining permits and the subsequent outlaws that mine without a permit? Where are the taxes, beyond corporate taxes, for living in protected space? Docking permits, trade license, etc.

Beyond making the hi sec experience realistic it could add flavor to the game. Loose practices in some factions including corrupt officials or tight laws down to a specific permit required for each type of ore. All available at a local space station.

Risk versus reward is bozo. Lo sec is about freedom, hi sec is about sacrificing those freedoms for protection.



Completely agreed :)


Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#669 - 2013-04-09 20:55:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Explain. Risk is a chance.
No. Risk is the effect of probability on an outcome.

Quote:
Loss is a certainty.
…and the risk is [probability = 1] × [cost = value of ship] = value of the ship.

Quote:
There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false?
False dilemma. Actual answer is: Irrelevant.

At best, it means that there is no risk for non-loss (but at that point, I'd ask what the cost of a non-loss is…).

And again, there's the reductio ad absurdum version: if 100% probability of CONCORD appearing means there is no risk, then a 1% probability of CONCORD appearing is a massive nerf to ganking since you've infinitely increased the risk. I would like to hear you sell that argument to miners: “no, no, you asked for more risk for the gankers so we've ensured that they most likely won't lose anything when the shoot you.” Blink



100% probability means an absolute. Cost is a certainty, risk is not. Risk is a formula defined by a variable.

There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false? (It IS relevant since your ship value = cost to even chance getting loot from the other person).

"Risk is the potential that a chosen action or activity (including the choice of inaction) will lead to a loss (an undesirable outcome). The notion implies that a choice having an influence on the outcome sometimes exists (or existed). Potential losses themselves may also be called "risks". Any human endeavor carries some risk, but some are much more risky than others."

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
#670 - 2013-04-09 20:57:20 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone

What's your point?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#671 - 2013-04-09 21:04:51 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone

What's your point?



Just read it over and over, you'll understand it eventually. I already answered and replied and expanded on your answer to my question.

Beyond that I don't see any need to reply to you further unless you come up with something new. Repetition is pointless with you.

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
#672 - 2013-04-09 21:06:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Doesn't that concept of risk apply rather broadly? for instance doesn't it effectively count the use of any consumable as risk?
Yes. That's why it's so useful: because it's so easy to slot things in that may affect your bottom line. The fun starts when you have less-than-obvious probabilities and costs that defy calculation.

For consumables, the question is generally: does the consumption actually produce what it's supposed to do? To use the example from before: if I put fuel in my car, will it actually be fuelled, or do I now have a tank full of maple syrup?

Murk Paradox wrote:
100% probability means an absolute. Cost is a certainty
No, you're getting really confused now.
It's very simple: cost is a cost. 100% probability is a certainty. Combine the two and we have a risk (of a value equal to the cost).


Quote:
There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false?
Irrelevant. We're not calculating the risk of a non-loss.

Quote:
It IS relevant since your ship value = cost to even chance getting loot from the other person
Nope. It's irrelevant since we're not calculating the risk of a non-loss and since the chance of getting loot is two terms further down in the list of things we have to sum up to get the total risk for the entire gank event. Oh, and since you can get loot from the other person without paying that cost… Twisted
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#673 - 2013-04-09 21:10:01 UTC
In certain types of accounting, risk is measured as a cost. So 50% chance of losing 10,000 dollars is counted as a 5,000 cost in projections. A 100% chance of losing 10,000 dollars is counted as a 10,000 dollar cost when trying to project the cost of an endeavor. I hope that helps.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#674 - 2013-04-09 21:10:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:



Quote:
There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false?
Irrelevant. We're not calculating the risk of a non-loss.

Quote:
It IS relevant since your ship value = cost to even chance getting loot from the other person
Nope. It's irrelevant since we're not calculating the risk of a non-loss and since the chance of getting loot is two terms further down in the list of things we have to sum up to get the total risk for the entire gank event. Oh, and since you can get loot from the other person without paying that cost… Twisted



It's relevant as non loss is the same amount. You still paid for the ship or received it from the same source regardless if it gets blown up or not. Therefore it has a value. Otherwise if it had 0 value, there would be no risk even with loss wouldn't it?

You don't need to have a ship be blown up to have spent isk on it first.

There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false?

Answer the question. You may use facts if you do not wish to concede your opinion.

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
#675 - 2013-04-09 21:14:55 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone

What's your point?

Just read it over and over, you'll understand it eventually. I already answered and replied and expanded on your answer to my question.

Beyond that I don't see any need to reply to you further unless you come up with something new. Repetition is pointless with you.

Judging by your answer, you have no point.

It's almost as if we haven't said that the cost of the ship (and its modules) is what the ganker bets on the gamble that the gankee will pay out more than the ship (and its modules) is worth because the ship will blow up. Thankfully, reading the thread, I have said exactly that, numerous times, and I'm still waiting for an actual point to harping on and on about how the ship will die.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#676 - 2013-04-09 21:17:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
I'll even expand.

We can use James 315's CODE. Knights as an example.

James rallies supporters, who donate billions. Those billions get spent on ANYONE who wants to fly that ship with the intent on blowing up it via Concord via suicide ganking a miner or a miner's escort/protection.

Now, that Catalyst, fully fitted for the job, might COST 7mil. Fully donated, the pilot spent 0.

ZERO! Following so far? Awesome.

Now, the COST or RISK to that gank pilot is ZERO! He didn't risk anything at all but a free ship with free fittings to kill someone else and make a point.

It cost someone something farther up the food chain to be sure. But not the pilot. He was given a job, and the tools, to do it.

0 risk. 0 cost to him.

But he LOST a Catalyst. It served its' purpose, whether he profited from the ship or not.

The profits don't come into play until later. You need the spoils to consider the amount. This is risk assessment.

The Catalyst is gone. Blown up. Certainty reassured.

He did not risk any loss at all. There was no risk. There was nothing put "on the line" with a chance of coming back.

We know this, because Concord blows up EVERYTHING that agresses against Empire's will.

The reward? The loot from the wreck, if any. The risk? Nothing. It was free.

Now, that can be chalked up to 100% loss of the Catalyst (any modules left on the gank ship wreck is bonus) but not assessed when ganking.

The gank pilot didn't gamble anything. He did his job.

If you want to derive my point from that Zim, feel free. You aren't really doing anything else but attacking a viewpoint therefore you made it to nonfactor status.

Anything beyond that will require a monetary donation from you.

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
#677 - 2013-04-09 21:19:21 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
It's relevant as non loss is the same amount.
…except that we're not looking at not losing ships here, so it's a completely different question (and no, 0 is not the same amount as [whatever the ship is worth]).

Quote:
You still paid for the ship or received it from the same source regardless if it gets blown up or not. Therefore it has a value.
Sure, but again, we're now (irrelevantly) looking at the risk of a non-loss.

What is the probability of this non-loss? 0. Already there, we can pretty much say that there is no risk.
What is the cost of the non-loss? 0, otherwise it wouldn't be a non-loss. So again, we can say that it's not really a risk.
Combine the two: 0 × 0 = 0 — no risk.

Quote:
There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false?
Irrelevant. That was the answer to your false dichotomy from the very beginning.

Now that I've answered that for the third time (and hoping that this will be enough for you to understand that it won't change simply because you keep asking and just wish it would), how about you answer me this question:

Which is the higher risk: $1 or $100?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#678 - 2013-04-09 21:21:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
It's relevant as non loss is the same amount.
…except that we're not looking at not losing ships here, so it's a completely different question (and no, 0 is not the same amount as [whatever the ship is worth]).

Quote:
You still paid for the ship or received it from the same source regardless if it gets blown up or not. Therefore it has a value.
Sure, but again, we're now (irrelevantly) looking at the risk of a non-loss.

What is the probability of this non-loss? 0. Already there, we can pretty much say that there is no risk.
What is the cost of the non-loss? 0, otherwise it wouldn't be a non-loss. So again, we can say that it's not really a risk.
Combine the two: 0 × 0 = 0 — no risk.

Quote:
There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false?
Irrelevant. That was the answer to your false dichotomy from the very beginning.

Now that I've answered that for the third time (and hoping that this will be enough for you to understand that it won't change simply because you keep asking and just wish it would), how about you answer me this question:

Which is the higher risk: $1 or $100?


There does not have to be a value assigned to a ship since you can get them for free.

There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false?

You have not answered the question. You have one of 2 choices, you haven't chosen either.

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
#679 - 2013-04-09 21:22:51 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'll even expand.

We can use James 315's CODE. Knights as an example.

James rallies supporters, who donate billions. Those billions get spent on ANYONE who wants to fly that ship with the intent on blowing it via Concord via suicide ganking a miner or a miner's escort/protection.

Now, that Catalyst, fully fitted for the job, might COST 7mil. Fully donated, the pilot spent 0.

ZERO! Following so far? Awesome.

Now, the COST or RISK to that gank pilot is ZERO! He didn't risk anything at all but a free ship with free fittings to kill someone else and make a point.

It cost someone something farther up the food chain to be sure. But not the pilot. He was given a job, and the tools, to do it.

0 risk. 0 cost to him.

But he LOST a Catalyst. It served its' purpose, whether he profited from the ship or not.

The profits don't come into play until later. You need the spoils to consider the amount. This is risk assessment.

The Catalyst is gone. Blown up. Certainty reassured.

He did not risk any loss at all. There was no risk. There was nothing put "on the line" with a chance of coming back.

We know this, because Concord blows up EVERYTHING that agresses against Empire's will.

The reward? The loot from the wreck, if any. The risk? Nothing. It was free.

Now, that can be chalked up to 100% loss of the Catalyst (any modules left on the gank ship wreck is bonus) but not assessed when ganking.

The gank pilot didn't gamble anything. He did his job.

If you want to derive my point from that Zim, feel free. You aren't really doing anything else but attacking a viewpoint therefore you made it to nonfactor status.

Anything beyond that will require a monetary donation from you.

All of that still doesn't answer the question of what the point is of harping on about the certainty of a ship going boom.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#680 - 2013-04-09 21:23:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
It's relevant as non loss is the same amount.
…except that we're not looking at not losing ships here, so it's a completely different question (and no, 0 is not the same amount as [whatever the ship is worth]).

Quote:
You still paid for the ship or received it from the same source regardless if it gets blown up or not. Therefore it has a value.
Sure, but again, we're now (irrelevantly) looking at the risk of a non-loss.

What is the probability of this non-loss? 0. Already there, we can pretty much say that there is no risk.
What is the cost of the non-loss? 0, otherwise it wouldn't be a non-loss. So again, we can say that it's not really a risk.
Combine the two: 0 × 0 = 0 — no risk.

Quote:
There is 0% chance you will not lose your ship to Concord if you try ganking someone, true or false?
Irrelevant. That was the answer to your false dichotomy from the very beginning.

Now that I've answered that for the third time (and hoping that this will be enough for you to understand that it won't change simply because you keep asking and just wish it would), how about you answer me this question:

Which is the higher risk: $1 or $100?



So by YOUR logic, if you gave me a ship in which to gank, asking for nothing in return other that I lose it to Concord by agressing someone,,,

I have risked what?

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.