These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Great Ice Mining Interdiction: Not so Great

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#601 - 2013-08-23 21:46:02 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
You know that there is a chance, a RISK, that you CAN lose 100% of the ship, and therefore it becomes a cost.

No. The cost is the part I know is guaranteed to be lost (the hull and rigs and some of the modules). The rest is a risk.

Murk Paradox wrote:
The risk comes from the hope that the cost will get offset by victory.

But if you do not succeed in killing your target, you already know the loss is 100% since you already assumed it from the get go. Anything else is bonus.

Yeah I don't plan to feed ISK to people I violence the ships of. If I fail the gank, you bet the looter is going to grab what survives from my ship before the victim does. And since more often than not the victim is not at the keyboard in the case of ice miners, it's a pretty safe bet who will get the loot. Successfully killing the victim is not a condition of recovering the loot from the concorded wreck.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#602 - 2013-08-23 21:47:00 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



Guess we are back to success and failure not dictating the act then aren't we?

Don't have to be good at something to do it.


No we are looking at people commiting suicide and you trying to use them to prove some wild madness on suicide ganking.

The two are totally different things.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#603 - 2013-08-23 21:47:01 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

What I've been saying from the get go, is that suicide ganking as an act is risk free. That's the original focal point of the argument.

Not profit. Not goal.

The act.

A few people here have decided that THEIR suicide ganking has to apply to everyone as the same reasons and goals.

Suicide is an adjective in this context, with gank being the verb. You're arguing that it's the other way around and Suicide-by-assault is risk-free because you know the result upfront (losing your life).




Because we aren't talking about can flipping, or exploiting (sorry, ugly word but meh) aggression mechanics. We are talking about the fact you buy a ship to destroy it by Concord in the hopes you get more profit from a wreck that may or may not exist.

So yes, suicide is the verb in this instance. Oratleast, MY instance, which people keep discussing.

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
#604 - 2013-08-23 21:47:15 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


i'm sorry; what does buying a ship have to do with suicide ganking?



If you have to ask that you do not have the qualifications to tell me I'm right or wrong.


considering most of the ships i suicide gank in aren't ones i've purchased... although admittedly; i'm new to the whole suicide ganking shenanigans.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#605 - 2013-08-23 21:49:10 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Don't care if you do sir, but I will talk to you regardless if you want.

please do.
i regard you as the eve-o equivalent of the facebook friend we never unfriend because their car crash of a life periodically popping up on your news feed makes you feel better about yourself.



Your reasons are your own sir!

If I based anyone's actual mentalities on this forum, then Eve is in a very sad state.

For instance, my actual opinions of you guys would be terrible, but then, I do not need to brag or impress anyone by saying so (meh, of course I just said it now but whatever).

So unless it will buy me a ship to suicide gank with, or pay my monthly, it won't matter as to WHY in the end.

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
#606 - 2013-08-23 21:49:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



50% chance of Concord not blowing you up is a stretch for you to claim.


Good thing that I am not claiming that then isn't it?

There is a 50% chance of the loot dropping. How is that not a risk?



See how that works? That's what you were doing with me.

And 50% loot dropping is a risk, noone is saying it isn't.

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
#607 - 2013-08-23 21:50:48 UTC
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You know that there is a chance, a RISK, that you CAN lose 100% of the ship, and therefore it becomes a cost.

No. The cost is the part I know is guaranteed to be lost (the hull and rigs and some of the modules). The rest is a risk.

Murk Paradox wrote:
The risk comes from the hope that the cost will get offset by victory.

But if you do not succeed in killing your target, you already know the loss is 100% since you already assumed it from the get go. Anything else is bonus.

Yeah I don't plan to feed ISK to people I violence the ships of. If I fail the gank, you bet the looter is going to grab what survives from my ship before the victim does. And since more often than not the victim is not at the keyboard in the case of ice miners, it's a pretty safe bet who will get the loot. Successfully killing the victim is not a condition of recovering the loot from the concorded wreck.



Yep. Exactly/ Ship loss is cost and not a risk. Thank you for 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
#608 - 2013-08-23 21:54:27 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Guess we are back to success and failure not dictating the act then aren't we?

Don't have to be good at something to do it.


No we are looking at people commiting suicide and you trying to use them to prove some wild madness on suicide ganking.

The two are totally different things.





We are talking about getting a ship and encouraging Concord to blow it up. Nothing else past that. I'm saying there's no risk to that since it's 100% guaranteed to get blown up so it's a cost. You and your friends are saying that's a risk as to imply you might not lose your ship, which I do not agree with.


Anything past that is just you trolling to be the one who said "I told you so" when I have quite plainly already that the profitability of suicide ganking is about risk, but the ship purchasing is not.


You want to equate an idea to encompass the norm for everyone else, and your disregard for the written word has coost you your ego.

Which is why you haven't let it go.

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#609 - 2013-08-23 21:58:26 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


See how that works? That's what you were doing with me.

And 50% loot dropping is a risk, noone is saying it isn't.



Difference between us is that I wasn't making things up like you just did.

You say there is no risk in suicide ganking. Dispite the fact that between the fact that the target may not die for any number of reasons, the loot may not drop, your ship that is looting the wreck might get blown up due to being open to attack by everyone and the fact that you now have a killright on your head that can be acted upon by anyone at any time.

Its like saying that there is no risk fighting a war. No risk in investment banking.

Its a stupid argument.
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#610 - 2013-08-23 21:58:31 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

Risk of what? You already bought it. You already know it's going to be destroyed. You already know there is a chance you might get 0%. Now, I cannot tell you to already assume it, but if you were smart, you would assume 100% loss and HOPE for +% recoup.

A chance of getting 0. An uncertain outcome. A risk you might say. You want me to assume I'm going to fail, not once but twice in the same gank, so you can change the position on the balance sheet and support your argument. That's not how projections and risks work.

Murk Paradox wrote:
But then, we would be talking about risk assessment, which is weighing costs and risks associated and would be going back full circle to it not being a risk if you already discounted it as a cost because you took the safer view as opposed as the hopeful...

I prefer to look at the AVERAGE case to get a proper view of the risks, rather than assume I'm going to sell PLEX to jita contracts for 360 mil on a daily basis and plan according to that.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#611 - 2013-08-23 21:59:51 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



We are talking about getting a ship and encouraging Concord to blow it up. Nothing else past that.


Because the whole gank part of suicide ganking doesn't matter...
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#612 - 2013-08-23 22:10:48 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Nope, not at all, because at the very beginning, no matter what goal you have involving a suicide gank, or rather, intended outcome.. you are still buying the ship knowing it's going to get blown up. You know that there is a chance, a RISK, that you CAN lose 100% of the ship, and therefore it becomes a cost. The risk comes from the hope that the cost will get offset by victory.

But if you do not succeed in killing your target, you already know the loss is 100% since you already assumed it from the get go. Anything else is bonus.

You have just described every single ship I have ever purchased, up to and including my bling Nightmare. I know it will be blown up, the only question left is whether I will profit from it sufficiently (by whatever metric you choose, ISK, fun, whatever) to offset the upfront cost.

Therefore, there are no risks in eve.



But you do know when you specifically buy a ship to not last past 1 engagement.

I daresay you chose to spend that money on a nightmare for that reason.

I hoped it would live long enough to pay for itself. I expected to get scanned and ganked the first time i undocked because lol loot piniada in mission hub. Oh I ran missions in it under wardecs too. I think i swapped out the heat sinks to T2 but kept the rest.

But who says everyone buys a ship with the intention of suicide ganking? The last time I ganked someone I used a tier 3 BC with expired insurance that had been on multiple killmails. It was personal and i wanted to do it myself. Yet I still managed to get the loot from my ship, his ship, and the salvage from the exhumer. It did not cost me 100 mil up front to prepare, and I sure as hell did not plan to let his buddies pick up the loot. The cost was buying a replacement hull and whatever didn't drop.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#613 - 2013-08-23 22:14:44 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I do know a goal has costs and risks. Chances and probability. That 100% shiploss would even be considered a risk is silly.

And yes, I will stick by my stance no matter how many asshats try to imply something other than what I'm saying, yourself included.

I have already said there is associated risks in the gank aspect, but it was the cost aspect I was discussing. It's not my fault mongoloids cannot read.

Remember, it's them telling me how wrong I am, such as you are, when I have succinctly said over the last few pages what the costs were, as well as what the risks are.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT THE 100% SHIPLOSS IS A RISK.
You are one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered.
**** the shiploss. **** the cost.
The ACT OF GANKING requires you TO KILL YOUR TARGET.
that ACT is not a GUARANTEED SUCCESS.
THAT IS WHERE THERE IS RISK.

Thus. SUICIDE GANKING as an ACT has RISK
The costs are obviously costs, the same as ANY OTHER COST.

Just because you post a bunch of nonsense repeatedly doesn't make you right. It just makes you an argumentative prick.

At the end of the day, you repeatedly shiptoasting has gone on long enough. You are either remarkably stupid or a massive troll. Either way, go **** yourself.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dave Stark
#614 - 2013-08-23 22:16:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
You are either remarkably stupid or a massive troll.
i did say he was a troll...
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#615 - 2013-08-23 22:18:13 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Georgina Parmala wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You know that there is a chance, a RISK, that you CAN lose 100% of the ship, and therefore it becomes a cost.

No. The cost is the part I know is guaranteed to be lost (the hull and rigs and some of the modules). The rest is a risk.

Murk Paradox wrote:
The risk comes from the hope that the cost will get offset by victory.

But if you do not succeed in killing your target, you already know the loss is 100% since you already assumed it from the get go. Anything else is bonus.

Yeah I don't plan to feed ISK to people I violence the ships of. If I fail the gank, you bet the looter is going to grab what survives from my ship before the victim does. And since more often than not the victim is not at the keyboard in the case of ice miners, it's a pretty safe bet who will get the loot. Successfully killing the victim is not a condition of recovering the loot from the concorded wreck.



Yep. Exactly/ Ship loss is cost and not a risk. Thank you for that.

Nope. Ship loss is a risk. Hull loss is a cost.

Ship =/= Hull

For ship loss to be guaranteed, and therefore considerable as a guaranteed cost, Concord would need to instantly destroy the wreck of any ship they blow up. Luckily eve has a great PvP dynamic where any and every player can compete for the content of that wreck.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#616 - 2013-08-23 23:16:07 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


The ACT OF GANKING requires you TO KILL YOUR TARGET.
that ACT is not a GUARANTEED SUCCESS.
THAT IS WHERE THERE IS RISK.

Thus. SUICIDE GANKING as an ACT has RISK
The costs are obviously costs, the same as ANY OTHER COST.



noun: risk; plural noun: risks

a situation involving exposure to danger:

Since the Ganker has accepted the foregone conclusion that his ship will be lost, he is not risking his ship. He is voluntarily forfeiting it.

Therefore, I fail to see how the Ganker could in any way be put into "danger" within the mechanics of EVE, from the completely unarmed mining ship.

And don't be so idiotic as to deny the Oxford English Dictionary.


"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
Dave Stark
#617 - 2013-08-23 23:19:10 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


The ACT OF GANKING requires you TO KILL YOUR TARGET.
that ACT is not a GUARANTEED SUCCESS.
THAT IS WHERE THERE IS RISK.

Thus. SUICIDE GANKING as an ACT has RISK
The costs are obviously costs, the same as ANY OTHER COST.



noun: risk; plural noun: risks

a situation involving exposure to danger:

Since the Ganker has accepted the foregone conclusion that his ship will be lost, he is not risking his ship. He is voluntarily forfeiting it.

Therefore, I fail to see how the Ganker could in any way be put into "danger" within the mechanics of EVE, from the completely unarmed mining ship.

And don't be so idiotic as to deny the Oxford English Dictionary.




you mean aside from the fact that once his ship has been concorded the criminal flag means any one can shoot his pod without consequence?
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#618 - 2013-08-23 23:28:34 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


The ACT OF GANKING requires you TO KILL YOUR TARGET.
that ACT is not a GUARANTEED SUCCESS.
THAT IS WHERE THERE IS RISK.

Thus. SUICIDE GANKING as an ACT has RISK
The costs are obviously costs, the same as ANY OTHER COST.



noun: risk; plural noun: risks

a situation involving exposure to danger:

Since the Ganker has accepted the foregone conclusion that his ship will be lost, he is not risking his ship. He is voluntarily forfeiting it.

Therefore, I fail to see how the Ganker could in any way be put into "danger" within the mechanics of EVE, from the completely unarmed mining ship.

And don't be so idiotic as to deny the Oxford English Dictionary.




you mean aside from the fact that once his ship has been concorded the criminal flag means any one can shoot his pod without consequence?


For 15 minutes, an already accepted part of the forfeiture. And also, highly unlikely and easily avoidable.

"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
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#619 - 2013-08-23 23:48:42 UTC
I guess my buying Enron stock after the collapse wasn't considered a risky investment strategy.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Georgina Parmala
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#620 - 2013-08-23 23:54:54 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:

noun: risk; plural noun: risks

a situation involving exposure to danger:


Reading further down in the link you provided:
flouting the law was too much of a risk
all outdoor activities carry an element of risk

Just confirms something we all know, all activities that involve undocking carry an element of risk.

Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Since the Ganker has accepted the foregone conclusion that his ship will be lost, he is not risking his ship. He is voluntarily forfeiting it.

Except he has not, because up to 90% of said ship is recoverable. Losing the entire ship is a foregone conclusion only if he chooses not to attempt to pick up the loot.

Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Therefore, I fail to see how the Ganker could in any way be put into "danger" within the mechanics of EVE, from the completely unarmed mining ship.

Who said the danger comes from the victim alone? You seem to be neglecting to consider the other 50,000 players online.
Who said the barge is unarmed? It has combat drones capable of T2 frigate DPS and as I have previously pointed out in this thread, 10 barges with drones will instagib a gank catalyst. They will drop 3-4 gank cats before concord even shows up if they choose to defend themselves and work together.
There's no danger carrier ratting in null either, because the rats can't kill your carrier?

Reading further down
Quote:
verb
[with object]
expose (someone or something valued) to danger, harm, or loss:

incur the chance of unfortunate consequences by engaging in (an action):


Chance of unfortunate consequences, exposing something valuable to danger, harm or loss.

Like the chance of the miner posting the kill rights to a mercenary outfit, which subsequently exposes the ganker's valued ship(s) to harm and loss.

Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
And don't be so idiotic as to deny the Oxford English Dictionary.

OK.

Science and Trade Institute [STI] is an NPC entity and as such my views do not represent those of the entity or any of its members

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984&p=38