These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Communication Center » EVE General Discussion » The Great Ice Mining Interdiction: Not so Great

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page1819202122Next pageLast page

The Great Ice Mining Interdiction: Not so Great First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Krixtal Icefluxor

INLAND EMPIRE Galactic

Likes received: 114,583

#381 - 2013-08-22 00:24:12 UTC | Edited by: Krixtal Icefluxor

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Rekon X wrote:

It is not a risk. It is a result of your actions. You don't want the flag, don't do the ganking. It is your decision.

The result of a gankers actions and choices increases their risk of explosion at anothers hands, so there is a risk involved. Being an easy target is the result of a miners choices, and the risk of getting ganked while mining can be mitigated by changing those choices.

Quote:

Yea, go wardec some more noobs, miners

You are the carebears that scan down targets with alts, calculate their defenses, and then attack, but only if no one else is around that can attack back.

Did you somehow miss the part where Krixtal states that he is in fact a miner?

My rather thin kill ratio after 3 1/2 years does indeed prove that.

But then in 2 1/2 years I've only lost one ship, a Deep Space Transport and that wasn't even mining.

I must be doing something right.

Maybe it's never being AFK.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck." - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

Frostys Virpio

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 3,464

#382 - 2013-08-22 01:42:06 UTC

Rekon X wrote:

It is not a risk. It is a result of your actions. You don't want the flag, don't do the ganking. It is your decision.

Yea, go wardec some more noobs, miners.

You are the carebears that scan down targets with alts, calculate their defenses, and then attack, but only if no one else is around that can attack back.

The shiploss is not the risk in itself. The risk is that you can potentially waste assets (the ship) for nothing.

Here are the reason why you might gank someone else and then I will list risk associated with trying that gank.

A : For profit

The risk involved in this gase is mostly related to the infamous loot fairy. If she says no, all you did was for nothing. You risked your assets/time by investing them into a gank trial and you were denied the prize. So sad, too bad, bye bye.

B: For tears

The risk here is ganking a really level headed player. No matter how many time you gank him, you never get what you wanted. You took the risk of investing a gank ship/fleet intop this gank for nothing. It was all lost because all you got out of the guy is silence of "o7 mate".

C: Just for the kill

The risk here actually apply to every other single gank but the previous risk obviously don't apply to this because getting no tears or loot does not matter if you are not looking for it. The risk in this case is anything surprising you while you gank. Oops, the guy had some ganklink on him giving him more tank. Oops, the guy had implants giving him again more tanks. The guy had a cloaked falcon alt on grid and denied the gank with ECM. You again didn't get anything out of your investement. EVE is like that, sometime, what you put on the line goes away and you are left without anything. You took a chance at it after calculating your risk (hopefully you did) and tried it anyway. Sometime it goes your way, sometime the risk bite you. Statistically, you will lose some and win some.

Again, the ship loss is not the risk in itself. The risk is to lose the ship in vain. Your gank is done for a reason. There is always a risk you will not get what you were looking for in a gank.

The only form of "ganking" that would be riskless is if you ganked purely to lose your own ship. At that point, nothing can deny you that I guess. Unless CCP remap/crash the node...

Mallak Azaria

Caldari Provisions

Caldari State

Likes received: 6,614

#383 - 2013-08-22 04:56:08 UTC

Murk Paradox wrote:

Mallak Azaria wrote:

Captain Tardbar wrote:

Dictionary.com defines risk as "exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance"

I bolded the word "chance" so you know that risk requires a chance which assumes possible survivability. When death or destructionis 100% guaranteed, then there is no risk, because it is outcome that has no chance of survivability.

As has been explained, ship loss isn't the only factor that we have to take in to account for suicide ganking. There are plenty of things left to chance. You're trying to pidgeon-hole the definition of risk in to 'ship loss only'.

Let's break it down. When you fire your gun, you don't risk losing a bullet. You know it's going to fire, you know it's going to leave, you know you're going to lose it.

Not really much pidgeon holing there. No need to over complicate things. You take a ship out with full intention of not coming back in it.

Now, you DO risk coming back poorer, because you might not make a profit. But that doesn't equate to the act of suicide ganking and that would be pidgeon holing the situation.

So yea, let's not pidgeon hole the fact you know it's going to be loss, not risk.

So you are saying that everytime I suicide gank someone I know for a fact that I will not profit from it? Think about what you're saying there.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#384 - 2013-08-22 05:23:10 UTC | Edited by: Tippia

Murk Paradox wrote:

Cost is not a risk. It is a cost.

…and all costs are risks. If those costs are certain, the risk is very high, but it is a risk none the less.

Quote:

Only in the written word, not in application.

In application, nothing ever has probability of 1 (or 0), not even ship losses from ganking (on either side). So not only is it the case that having a 100% probability of losing your ship still means that it's a risk, but it is also the case that you don't have a 100% probability of losing your ship, so it's a risk anyway. No matter how you count, it's a risk.

Quote:

It doesn't cost you anything if you don't die.

…and the whole point of talking about risks is because we have that “if” in the sentence. Risks are costs, and costs are risks. What the projected outcome does is take into account both the possibility that you die and the possibility that you don't.

Quote:

The difference, is outcome based on intent.

Intent only determines the sign on your outcome: if the outcome is aligned with your intent, you generally put a plus sign in front of it; if the outcome is counter to your intent, you put a minus sign in front of it. If your intent is to calculate projected losses, then costs are positive and gains are negative.

Quote:

To prove a constant. It isn't a risk if you do not consider it anything more than a cost.

It doesn't matter if it's a constant. A risk is a risk is a risk, and costs with p=1 are also risks because they are still a cost-probability duplet.

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#385 - 2013-08-22 05:23:19 UTC

Murk Paradox wrote:

I will however, take the time to applaud all the people who rise to the defense of people, even in fact of them being wrong and trying to circumvent simple fact into fantasy to pretend something is something different than it is.

Well, if they just accepted the reality of what risks are (i.e. cost × probablity, where c can be both positive and negative and p can be anything from 0 to 1), they wouldn't have to be wrong so much in spite of having this simple fact explained to them over and over again.

Quote:

Now, get the hell over the fact that suicide ganking is in fact riskless pvp since you aren't putting anything on the line and just gank a ship and be done with it.

Why should they get over that fantasy, when it has no connection to reality? After all, there are plenty of risks involved: the loss of the ship(s) being one; the destruction of the target being another; and getting the loot being a third. If you really want to go with the argument that they're just costs, then guess what? There is no risk for the gank victim either, because his loss is also just a cost. That leads us nowhere. Accepting the simple fact that ganks are risky means we can actually start to legitimately debate whether that risk is where it should be or not — denying it only leaves you at an impasse with no proof for your case and no argument to change anything.

Quote:

I have yet to ever hear anyone ever think they could suicide gank and not get blown up by Concord.

That's because you're not paying attention.

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#386 - 2013-08-22 05:23:25 UTC | Edited by: Tippia

Rekon X wrote:

It is your choice to do the ganking. That does not make it a risk. It is a result.

By that logic, there are no risks anywhere, ever. You don't risk getting blown up when you're getting ganked because dying to gankers is a result, not a risk. It's all a cost of doing business. See how that works?

Quote:

It is not a risk. It is a result of your actions.

…and the risk involved in doing that action is still a risk. You're confusing the projected and the actual outcome.

S Byerley wrote:

Yes? P(B|A) is literally said, "The probability of B given A"

So when you said that they were dependent, you meant… what, exactly?

Quote:

You seem really defensive about having ****** up highschool level statistics; don't worry about it, most people do.

You're confusing me with you, which is why I would like you to answer the question and show that you actually have any idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry if you can't just google a page where the answer is given to you, but that's kind of the point of the exercise.

So, how would you write the two in order to control for the dependence of p(stolen)…?

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

But....

Shhh!…

Spectatoress

Doomheim

Likes received: 2

#387 - 2013-08-22 06:05:05 UTC | Edited by: Spectatoress

baltec1 wrote:

Rekon X wrote:

but only if no one else is around that can attack back.

Yea about that.

Almost funny to cite a kill where at least more than half of the squad are braindead multiboxed zombies controlled by the crybearer ..., sorry, your "Architect" Warr Akini ..... what was it again about "skill needed"? The tornado was a very severe threat after all it seems. Roll

More tears or hints about afk-multiboxed-miners or afk-flying freighter please while afking multiboxed in a safe station, waiting for the ping or > 15 minutes gone by to launch and attack .... hypocrisy anyone? Lol

S Byerley

The Manhattan Engineer District

Likes received: 158

#388 - 2013-08-22 07:17:29 UTC

Tippia wrote:

So when you said that they were dependent, you meant… what, exactly?

When I said they were dependent I meant they were dependent, oddly enough. P(B|A) isn't the same as P(B), unless A and B are independent. Is the notation confusing you?

Tippia wrote:

Quote:

You seem really defensive about having ****** up highschool level statistics; don't worry about it, most people do.

You're confusing me with you

Are you trying to argue now that your original equation was correct? Honestly, it's not that big of a deal - common pitfall.

baltec1

Bat Country

Pandemic Horde

Likes received: 19,001

#389 - 2013-08-22 07:27:27 UTC

Spectatoress wrote:

baltec1 wrote:

Rekon X wrote:

but only if no one else is around that can attack back.

Yea about that.

Please tell me how you gank people while you are away from the keyboard.

Spectatoress

Doomheim

Likes received: 2

#390 - 2013-08-22 09:11:40 UTC | Edited by: Spectatoress

baltec1 wrote:

Spectatoress wrote:

baltec1 wrote:

Rekon X wrote:

but only if no one else is around that can attack back.

Yea about that.

Please tell me how you gank people while you are away from the keyboard.

i enjoy you trying to be witty stating questions that i already have answered. please continue little zerg goonie.

But in case your reading comprehension is that bad for real .... ask some of your fellow zerglings to help you. not my job. Cry

Prince Kobol

Likes received: 2,558

#391 - 2013-08-22 09:17:47 UTC

baltec1 wrote:

Spectatoress wrote:

baltec1 wrote:

Rekon X wrote:

but only if no one else is around that can attack back.

Yea about that.

Please tell me how you gank people while you are away from the keyboard.

With Mind Bullets !!!!!

baltec1

Bat Country

Pandemic Horde

Likes received: 19,001

#392 - 2013-08-22 09:21:54 UTC

Spectatoress wrote:

i enjoy you trying to be witty stating questions that i already have answered. please continue little zerg goonie.

But in case your reading comprehension is that bad for real .... ask some of your fellow zerglings to help you. not my job. Cry

Well given that it is impossible to gank anything while AFK I am interested in how you think it is possible. Of course, we all know you are simply making another grr goons rant post.

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#393 - 2013-08-22 09:34:06 UTC | Edited by: Tippia

S Byerley wrote:

When I said they were dependent I meant they were dependent, oddly enough. P(B|A) isn't the same as P(B), unless A and B are independent. Is the notation confusing you?

No, what's confusing me is that you first claimed that the same two probabilities were dependent, and thus couldn't be multiplied together, and then claimed that they were independent, so they could be multiplied together.

So which one is it?

Quote:

Are you trying to argue now that your original equation was correct?

I'm trying to make you answer a very simple question: how would you write the two in order to control for the dependence of p(stolen)?

The harder you try to avoid it by not quoting it and by asking me if I'm asking something else, the more it becomes clear that you can't answer it. If you can't, then just say so. It's not that big of a deal — common pitfall.

Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1,536
Lugia3 Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation Likes received: 1,536	#394 - 2013-08-22 09:37:12 UTC < See's a single T1 barge going uninterrupted for 2 hours. < Announces a glorious victory over the Ice Interdiction. "CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik

Lugia3

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 1,536

#395 - 2013-08-22 09:39:00 UTC

Spectatoress wrote:

baltec1 wrote:

Spectatoress wrote:

baltec1 wrote:

Rekon X wrote:

but only if no one else is around that can attack back.

Yea about that.

Please tell me how you gank people while you are away from the keyboard.

i enjoy you trying to be witty stating questions that i already have answered. please continue little zerg goonie.

But in case your reading comprehension is that bad for real .... ask some of your fellow zerglings to help you. not my job. Cry

Post with a main so I can wardec you.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik

S Byerley

The Manhattan Engineer District

Likes received: 158

#396 - 2013-08-22 09:47:50 UTC

Tippia wrote:

Quote:

Are you trying to argue now that your original equation was correct?

Do you admit that it's wrong then? I accept no responsibility to fix your equation for you just because I pointed out a place where it was wrong and explained why.

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#397 - 2013-08-22 11:08:11 UTC

S Byerley wrote:

Do you admit that it's wrong then?

I'm merely trying to make you answer a very simple question: how would you write the two in order to control for the dependence of p(stolen)?

Quote:

I accept no responsibility to fix your equation for you just because I pointed out a place where it was wrong and explained why.

…and then immediately contradicted yourself.

Caldari Provisions Caldari State 12
Xavier Perez Caldari Provisions Caldari State Likes received: 12	#398 - 2013-08-22 11:09:19 UTC I'm sure the billions in chaos we've caused and closure of ice belts for hours a day speaks differently.

State War Academy Caldari State 3,457
Scatim Helicon State War Academy Caldari State Likes received: 3,457	#399 - 2013-08-22 11:25:47 UTC 2 Just confirming that this is a 20 page thread about how insignificant and unworthy of attention Goons are. Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.


Krixtal Icefluxor INLAND EMPIRE Galactic Likes received: 114,583	#400 - 2013-08-22 11:47:24 UTC baltec1 wrote: Please tell me how you gank people while you are away from the keyboard. INORITE ? "He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck." - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882

First pagePrevious page1819202122Next pageLast page