These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaylee Clay
Doomheim
#161 - 2013-08-21 00:23:05 UTC
Way back when I first started this game (different account) about 5 years ago or so I used to get upset about suicide gankers and surprise pvp etc. I thought ya'll were the most pychopathic and psychotic people I had ever had the great misfortune to encounter. I hated PvP'rs. Hated suicide gankers and in general hated anybody who would violence my boat when I didn't want to be violated. I was a pathetic carebear.

Then I ran across someone I truly loathed in game. Everything about this person made me hate them with a passion. I wanted nothing else but to see them dead and often. I climbed into my first pvp purposed ship that day and set out to violence HIS boat.

I lost. I got another one, changed my build some and went after him again. I lost again. I grabbed another ship, changed my build with some advice from some local pirate players and went after this guy again. I beat him. I was hooked. Lost. I had turned into a Psychopathic, Psychotic killer. The rush was amazing.

Since then I don't look at PvP of any kind the same way. I've participated in Hulkageddon. lived in the various places you can live in eve. I've done a lot of the game. I'm still a carebear at heart, I prefer to go off and do my own thing, but now if a fight comes my way I don't get angry and scream and yell and shed wild tears all over local. I reship and loose the autocannons.

I understand the carebear point of view because I was the ultimate carebear. But now I also understand the PVP point of view and why it is such an addicting rush.

If you have never PvP'd you have not engaged in the best that EVE has to offer. The game is so much broader than mining, missions and industry.

This is just my opinion. Yes I am still pretty much a carebear. But now I have teeth and claws.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#162 - 2013-08-21 00:23:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
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'.

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.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#163 - 2013-08-21 00:58:42 UTC
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'.


It's practically the same idiocy as the statement "the minerals you mine aren't free so buy them on the market".

Obviously nothing can be had ingame or in real life without economic or material exchange of some sort....even if its the energy used to go to the kitchen for more coffee.

Assigning the word "free" to the main argument is erroneous in that it assigns a value of zero to something which has already even been declared of a value, simply by default of its very existence.

It is not an argument.

It is a semantic derp.

"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
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#164 - 2013-08-21 01:21:19 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Ganking has no risk other than failure and with 15 catalysts this is 0%.

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.


So if CCP changed hisec aggression mechanics and introduced a diceroll that determines whether you get CONCORDed after getting a GCC, or removed CONCORD entirely and put the onus of dealing with criminal flagged players on other players, you'd shut up about suicide ganking being risk-free?

We'll take that!

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#165 - 2013-08-21 01:23:43 UTC
Like really what you're saying here is that suicide ganking is risk-free because there's no chance of the aggressor surviving the event

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#166 - 2013-08-21 01:25:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
"It's risky to mine in hisec because you might get suicide ganked. On the other hand, if you're suicide ganking, getting your suspect flagged looter blown up or having the loot diceroll work against your favor isn't the result of it being a risky activity, but the cost of business" - Captain Tardbar

Tell us more about your way of thinking here

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#167 - 2013-08-21 01:33:12 UTC
Being ganked by 15 catalysts = risk free mining!
No chance of survival.

Who put the goat in there?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#168 - 2013-08-21 03:27:27 UTC
Andski wrote:
"It's risky to mine in hisec because you might get suicide ganked. On the other hand, if you're suicide ganking, getting your suspect flagged looter blown up or having the loot diceroll work against your favor isn't the result of it being a risky activity, but the cost of business" - Captain Tardbar

Tell us more about your way of thinking here

Shederov Blood wrote:
Being ganked by 15 catalysts = risk free mining!
No chance of survival.

We might be on to something here.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#169 - 2013-08-21 03:47:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
As always, risk = cost × probability.
Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean it's not a risk — it just means that the risk is so hight that it has the same value as the cost.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#170 - 2013-08-21 03:51:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
As always, risk = cost × probability.
Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean it's not a risk — it just means that the risk is so hight that it has the same value as the cost.


Too lazy to read the entirety; are you still arguing that suicide cats (which work out to about the isk/hour of BS ammo) are inherently risky?

Like most people, I tend not to factor ammo costs into my risk assessment.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#171 - 2013-08-21 03:56:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
Too lazy to read the entirety; are you still arguing that suicide cats (which work out to about the isk/hour of BS ammo) are inherently risky?
Maybe you should read the entirety so you can check your assumptions.

No. I'm stating that risk = cost × probability, and that probabilities range from 0 to 1. The only way for the risk to be zero is if at least one of the two factors — the cost or the probability — is zero. In ganks, both are non-zero; in fact, one of them is as far from zero as it will go.

Quote:
Like most people, I tend not to factor ammo costs into my risk assessment.
If you choose to assess your risk incorrectly, then that's your problem.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#172 - 2013-08-21 04:13:08 UTC
It's different risks Tippia.

You're mixing up the definitions.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#173 - 2013-08-21 04:17:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S Byerley wrote:
Too lazy to read the entirety; are you still arguing that suicide cats (which work out to about the isk/hour of BS ammo) are inherently risky?
Maybe you should read the entirety so you can check your assumptions.

No. I'm stating that risk = cost × probability, and that probabilities range from 0 to 1. The only way for the risk to be zero is if at least one of the two factors — the cost or the probability — is zero. In ganks, both are non-zero; in fact, one of them is as far from zero as it will go.


Using that definition, nothing in the game is risk-free, making the concept useless in discussions. Perhaps it makes more sense to consider context. By Eve standards, catalyst ganking is risk-free - moreso than any of the hisec activities you tend to disdain if you don't mind me saying.

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Like most people, I tend not to factor ammo costs into my risk assessment.
If you choose to assess your risk incorrectly, then that's your problem.


If you waste time considering trivial factors, that's your problem, please don't burden us with your distorted/feigned appreciation of scale.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#174 - 2013-08-21 04:21:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
MeestaPenni wrote:
It's different risks Tippia.

You're mixing up the definitions.

I guess.

Sometimes, I get this whole “risk as defined by every risk assessment standard ever” with “risk is what I say it is because it serves my purposes to arbitrarily paint something as risk-free because I don't like it” mixed up. It's just that I think the former is actually relevant and the latter is idiotic and dishonest so if people choose to discuss something different than the actual risk, I just skip over that bet and keep using the correct way of calculating it.

S Byerley wrote:
Using that definition, nothing in the game is risk-free, making the concept useless in discussions.
Nothing in the game is risk-free, and the concept is as useful as ever because it lets you determine… you know… risk, and lets us discuss whether or not the risk is at the level it should be.

The only thing that is rendered useless by using the correct definition is the argument “nerf it because it's risk-free”, and that's a good thing because it's a thoroughly dishonest and ignorant argument with no basis in reality.

Quote:
If you waste time considering trivial factors
…which I don't. There's a reason why the suggestion of ISK-tanking — making yourself too costly to kill — always comes up when people complain about ganking, you know…
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#175 - 2013-08-21 04:27:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Sometimes, I get this whole “risk as defined by every risk assessment standard ever” with “risk is what I say it is because it serves my purposes to arbitrarily paint something as risk-free because I don't like it” mixed up. It's just that I think the former is actually relevant and the latter is idiotic and dishonest so if people choose to discuss something different than the actual risk, I just skip over that bet and keep using the correct way of calculating it.


Forgive me for not knowing all your fancy business major lingo, but I'm pretty sure when an expense is certain you don't run a risk assessment on it; rather you consider it overhead/operating cost/ w/e
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#176 - 2013-08-21 04:33:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
S Byerley wrote:
Forgive me for not knowing all your fancy business major lingo, but I'm pretty sure when an expense is certain you don't run a risk assessment on it; rather you consider it overhead/operating cost/ w/e

Sure you do, because transforming it into a risk means you can slot it into the overall risk assessment and not accidentally miss out on unexpected compound effects of complex risks.

Total risk exposure is far better a foundation for decisions than having two baskets of “things we think might be risks” and “things we think might not be” and having no idea of if or how the two tie together.

For instance, it lets you avoid the obvious and absurd trap of thinking that something that has 0.1% chance of happening offers higher risk than something that has a 100% chance of happening, and lets you plan accordingly.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#177 - 2013-08-21 04:41:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Total risk exposure is far better a foundation for decisions than having two baskets of “things we think might be risks” and “things we think might not be” and having no idea of if or how the two tie together.


Really? No idea how the two tie together? Do business peoples have trouble with the concept of constant offsets? They're much more efficient than introducing a meaningless variable; pretty sure they're preferred in engineering.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#178 - 2013-08-21 04:47:10 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Really? No idea how the two tie together? Do business peoples have trouble with the concept of constant offsets?
I have no idea what business people have trouble with (other than predicting economic trends), but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to calculate total risk, you include all risks — even the ones with a an astronomically high probability.

That's the whole beauty of the risk concept: that it trivially allows you to include such high-probability costs and get the right number immediately rather than having to figure out after the fact where it goes in the equation. Thus you avoid the problem of accidentally counting a 0.01% probability of incurring a given cost as a higher risk than a 100% probability of incurring the same cost.
Spectatoress
Doomheim
#179 - 2013-08-21 04:50:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Spectatoress
baltec1 wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Came to the thread looking for miner tears.

Left disappointed


Give it a week before we get a good one. Right now its just the grr goon brigade.


Oh, at this time your comrades get disappointed that near no one cares about their doing besides some babbling in local that they continue to open threads with highsec-alts where you/they can post with their goon-twinks about "farming tears from pubbies" desperately looking for e-fame for zerging despite being the incompetent player they are that need afk-targets to polish their kb?
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#180 - 2013-08-21 05:01:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:
you include all risks — even the ones with a an astronomically high probability.


You don't have to wedge it into a risk to include it in the assessment (and you really shouldn't because dimensions are expensive, computation wise, and offsets are cheap).