These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Valterra Craven
#781 - 2015-02-02 00:04:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
but the game mechanics aren't different, so no, it could not mean that. Based on the data you were looking at, it was entirely unrealisable and idiotic to assume that you can kill that often because the data does not show it. It was based purely on assumption, not supported by the data, contradicted by actual mechanics, and in conflict with common sense. The point remains the same: one side of this argument will go so far as to invent evidence to cover up the very obvious fact that they have no idea what they're talking about and that their arguments are completely nonsensical from top to bottom


The fact that I showed an Eve outsider (well a person that's played Eve for less than a month) the same data and asked him if he thought it was possible to gank someone every 15 minutes and he responded yes, means that is not an unreasonable and idiotic to assumption to make. In fact, I bet if you carried the same question over to starter systems and showed them links to the kill mails I wonder how many would disagree.

Tippia wrote:
The point of the original argument was a lie. I exposed it as such. Moving the goal posts to state that it now meant something else is a fallacy and just further proves the ignorance behind it.


You did what now? I believe the only thing you exposed was a math error. Errors are not lies. The only one moving goal posts is you.

Tippia wrote:
]Nope and nope, in roughly that order.
So back in post 757 where you said "Good. The system is purposefully designed to allow for that." was you saying something other than Ganks can and do happen in short succession and that is fine?

Tippia wrote:
No. I'm explaining to you what you said. If you don't like the conclusion of your logic, then perhaps you should perhaps withdraw that logic as part of your argument. What you shouldn't do is assume that others agree with such a silly idea just because you didn't think it through.


Ok so lets put this in game context. CCP removed gankers getting insurance payouts for their ship losses. What you are saying is that this made concord more effective at protecting people in hi-sec. The problem is that his conclusion makes no sense because it in no way made concord more effective and in no way changed how much protection people in hi-sec received. The only outcome of this added consequence was that it changed the equation as to what is and is not profitable to gank. Therefore it is entirely possible to conclude that added consequences do not necessarily always translate to more protection.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#782 - 2015-02-02 00:05:07 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You actually don't know that you still lose sec status outside of highsec? Are you kidding me?

In LoSec, yes. But I don't think there's any kind of criminal/suspect flag activity in null/WH space. At least, I don't recall ever getting crim flagged for shooting neutrals.

CW2.0 took out pretty much all of it yes, so the only two flags that matter for null now are W- and P-flags, and the various police forces in EVE don't care one whit about either. Before that, though, and before the separation between CONCORD standing and sec status, there were a handful of extreme edge cases where you could effectively flag yourself even in null (if you were really quick about it).

Oh, and if we go really far back, we come across mines. Silly things. Lol
Valterra Craven
#783 - 2015-02-02 00:06:17 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Hopefully you're done being obtuse/pedantic now.


I doubt it. Because apparently that's the requirement to make "coherent" arguments now.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#784 - 2015-02-02 00:08:16 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Hopefully you're done being obtuse/pedantic now.


I doubt it. Because apparently that's the requirement to make "coherent" arguments now.


Not making a 4th grade math error might help.

In case you haven't gotten it yet, the first gank occurs at "Time = zero".

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#785 - 2015-02-02 00:11:18 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Not making a 4th grade math error might help.


Pot, meet Kettle, both black. The requirement that one must make error free arguments in order to make a valid point is inherently stupid.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#786 - 2015-02-02 00:12:46 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Not making a 4th grade math error might help.


Pot, meet Kettle, both black. The requirement that one must make error free arguments in order to make a valid point is inherently stupid.


Yeah, English is not my first language, and I suck at conveying context. Which has, thanks largely to your insistence on pedantry, been edited back into the quote.

So, we've established that math and grammar are not the same thing. What next? Are we going to discuss the color of the sky vs the color of grass?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#787 - 2015-02-02 00:17:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Valterra Craven wrote:
The fact that I showed an Eve outsider (well a person that's played Eve for less than a month) the same data and asked him if he thought it was possible to gank someone every 15 minutes and he responded yes, means that is not an unreasonable and idiotic to assumption to make.
Unfortunately, it still is as unreasonable and idiotic as ever. He just has the excuse of not being familiar with the game mechanics, but he still has no excuse from extrapolating from data that doesn't show anything of the kind.

Quote:
You did what now?
I exposed the original argument as being a lie. It was a lie based on the maths, a lie based on mechanics, and a lie based on common sense. Even if it were just an exaggeration for rhetoric effect, it would still be a lie. The supposed “fact” that started it all is just a feverish fantasy.

Quote:
So back in post 757 where you said "Good. The system is purposefully designed to allow for that." was you saying something other than Ganks can and do happen in short succession and that is fine?
It was not me saying that ganks happen in short duration of time in the system, regularly, or for most of the day. That was entirely your straw man. If you're going to quote mine, make sure you understand the context of the quote.

Quote:
Ok so lets put this in game context. CCP removed gankers getting insurance payouts for their ship losses. What you are saying is that this made concord more effective at protecting people in hi-sec. The problem is that his conclusion makes no sense because it in no way made concord more effective and in no way changed how much protection people in hi-sec received.
It made CONCORD a lot more effective as a deterrent, and as such, people in highsec were more protected. As a result, ganks became more rare. The conclusion that skewing the fundamental gamble in highsec more in favour of the targets made the targets more safe makes quite a lot of sense once you understand how safety in highsec is constructed.

Quote:
The only outcome of this added consequence was that it changed the equation as to what is and is not profitable to gank.
…thereby making the threat of CONCORD more effective, increasing the protection offered to people. This is not rocket surgery we're talking about, you know.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#788 - 2015-02-02 00:19:36 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Actually gankers could kill more frequently than every 15 minutes by using chains of alts....they could even gank continuously.....


You have no idea how hyperdunking works do you?
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#789 - 2015-02-02 00:23:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Actually gankers could kill more frequently than every 15 minutes by using chains of alts....they could even gank continuously.....


You have no idea how hyperdunking works do you?

I don't think he's specifically referring to hyperdunking.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#790 - 2015-02-02 00:25:32 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Actually gankers could kill more frequently than every 15 minutes by using chains of alts....they could even gank continuously.....

You have no idea how hyperdunking works do you?

I don't think he's specifically referring to hyperdunking.

True enough. He's basically just saying that lots of people can kill lots of things. As if that kind of tautology was some kind of great and meaningful revelation. Lol
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#791 - 2015-02-02 00:29:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Actually gankers could kill more frequently than every 15 minutes by using chains of alts....they could even gank continuously.....

You have no idea how hyperdunking works do you?

I don't think he's specifically referring to hyperdunking.

True enough. He's basically just saying that lots of people can kill lots of things. As if that kind of tautology was some kind of great and meaningful revelation. Lol


Actually one person with many alts can kill multiple things. A guy running 10 clients simultaneously could theoretically pull off 10 ganks per 15 minutes, or 40 ganks an hour, so on average a gank every 1.5 minutes.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#792 - 2015-02-02 00:30:43 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

Actually one person with many alts can kill multiple things. A guy running 10 clients simultaneously could theoretically pull off 10 ganks per 15 minutes, or 40 ganks an hour, so on average a gank every 1.5 minutes.


And since ISBotter is finally illegal now, if they can run ten accounts simultaneously, they deserve it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#793 - 2015-02-02 00:35:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Tippia wrote:
I exposed the original argument as being a lie.
So you're saying that you showed that the original poster was being intentionally misleading? Where exactly is the evidence of your claim?

Tippia wrote:
It was not me saying that ganks happen in short duration of time in the system, regularly, or for most of the day. That was entirely your straw man. If you're going to quote mine, make sure you understand the context of the quote.


So just so everything is clear here.

This is the entire quote block:
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
The POINT of the argument is that it is possible to sit in a system and indiscriminately kill targets in short busts of time.
Good. The system is purposefully designed to allow for that.


Will you show exactly where this was taken out of context? And if that is NOT what you were saying, then given that I previously asked you point bank WHAT you were saying and you still didn't answer, will you now answer what you were saying/actually meaning?

Tippia wrote:

It made CONCORD a lot more effective as a deterrent, and as such, people in highsec were more protected. As a result, ganks became more rare. The conclusion that skewing the fundamental gamble in highsec more in favour of the targets made the targets more safe makes quite a lot of sense once you understand how safety in highsec is constructed.


Based on the amount of ganks I'm seeing on killboards today, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I can't see any frequency change in the number of ganks from before that change was implemented compared to the amount of ganks that happen now. However, if you have data to back up that point, I'd love to look at it.

[Tippia]thereby making the threat of CONCORD more effective, increasing the protection offered to people. This is not rocket surgery we're talking about, you know.[]

Only if all gankers cared about profitability. The problem is that CODE exists and they frequently kill things that are not profitable to kill which would mean that concord is not any more effective at its job then it was before the insurance change.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#794 - 2015-02-02 00:35:45 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Actually one person with many alts can kill multiple things. A guy running 10 clients simultaneously could theoretically pull off 10 ganks per 15 minutes, or 40 ganks an hour, so on average a gank every 1.5 minutes.

…and it is functionally indistinguishable from 10 people pulling off those 30 ganks per hour — one each every 20 minutes. So all he's effectively saying is lots of people can kill lots of things. This is to be expected and it would be very weird if it wasn't the case.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#795 - 2015-02-02 00:48:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

Actually one person with many alts can kill multiple things. A guy running 10 clients simultaneously could theoretically pull off 10 ganks per 15 minutes, or 40 ganks an hour, so on average a gank every 1.5 minutes.


And since ISBotter is finally illegal now, if they can run ten accounts simultaneously, they deserve it.

Took the words right outta my mouth.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#796 - 2015-02-02 00:51:27 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

Actually one person with many alts can kill multiple things. A guy running 10 clients simultaneously could theoretically pull off 10 ganks per 15 minutes, or 40 ganks an hour, so on average a gank every 1.5 minutes.


And since ISBotter is finally illegal now, if they can run ten accounts simultaneously, they deserve it.

Took the words right outta my mouth.


The fact that one human player can accomplish that is far more troubling than lots of human players working together accomplishing that.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#797 - 2015-02-02 00:52:04 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

The fact that one human player can accomplish that is far more troubling than lots of human players working together accomplishing that.


Why do you care? You don't want freighters to be attacked at all, the how shouldn't matter.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#798 - 2015-02-02 00:52:57 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
So you're saying that you showed that the original poster was being intentionally misleading? Where exactly is the evidence of your claim?
As mentioned: in your data, in the game mechanics, and in the realm of common sense. He made a claim that is flat out impossible. An attempt was made to buttress this false claim with data that didn't support it, very obviously and blatantly lying about what the data actually said.

Quote:
So just so everything is clear here.

This is the entire quote block:
[…]

Will you show exactly where this was taken out of context?
It was taken out of context when you said that “ganks happen in short duration of time in the system for most of the day. You agree that this point is not only possible but that it happens regularly.” I did not agree to either of those. That was entirely something of your invention. Hence my answer of “nope and nope”, which you tried to twist using the aforementioned quote.

Quote:
Based on the amount of ganks I'm seeing on killboards today, I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
By experiencing it at the time it happened. You do remember that ganks were cost-effective even if you didn't kill anything before that, right? Now, I'll grant you that the insurance change alone might not have been that big a hit — ganking was already on a downward trend, and yet another nail in its coffin just kept that trend going.

Quote:
I can't see any frequency change in the number of ganks from before that change was implemented compared to the amount of ganks that happen now.
Yeah, uhm. That's most likely because you haven't looked. If you had, you would probably have noticed that Crucible happened before we had the full loss data collection we have today. If you did look, and can't see any change in frequency in how many ships are lost, then fewer are lost today since you are comparing a much smaller sample to a complete one.

Quote:
Only if all gankers cared about profitability.
Almost all of them do. Some just operate on statistics rather than individual spotting, and others use different revenue streams than pure loot. Profitability exists behind all of them. Change the profitability — especially on the loss side — and you change the behaviour.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#799 - 2015-02-02 00:53:55 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
The fact that one human player can accomplish that is far more troubling than lots of human players working together accomplishing that.

1. How is that a fact?
2. What makes it troubling than lots of pilots can kill lots of things?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#800 - 2015-02-02 00:54:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

The fact that one human player can accomplish that is far more troubling than lots of human players working together accomplishing that.


Why do you care? You don't want freighters to be attacked at all, the how shouldn't matter.


Eh? Where did you get that nugget? I personally think that the mechanics should steer crime towards high profitability targets. So empty freighters should be very safe, sure, but not so for ones stuffed with goodies.