These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Mutuality of Freighter Ganking

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#101 - 2016-12-20 08:00:51 UTC
Aaron wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Aaron wrote:
I know the OP has championed the view that freight pilots would be wise to limit their cargo value, i think 5 or 6 billion was the limit, correct me if I am wrong.

I think it would be wise to acknowledge this and freight pilots should accept this as an operational standard. Do we have some sort of freight union in game?

The need to study watchlists for freight gankers would become irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong I fully understand that having to split a 40 billion load into 8 or 9 freight trips is annoying and tiring, this is the most realistic approach to solving this problem with a high level of success.

Stop feeding the gankers easy kills. Assess the situation and realise that if you overload your freight with a high value you will most likely be bumped and held in place while a gank fleet mobilizes to relieve you of your goods.


The formula I use is just,

2*(EHP/DPS)/[CONCROD Response Time]*(ISK value of the ganking ships)

Assuming uniform ships makes it easier.

So for example if you have 200,000 EHP and DPS is 700/second and CONCORD will take 25 seconds to respond, and the ganking ships cost 10 million ISK each we have

400,000/700 = 571.43, but call it 572

Now divide that by 25 to get, 22.88 so 23 ships (note the gank will require half of this number of ships).

And since the ships cost 10 million the upper limit is 230,000,000 ISK. Which is not alot.

But, 200,000 EHP is not very high considering you can tank your freighter. So we can double the above result if you can double your tank. And the above is assuming pretty good skills for a catalyst pilot. In fact perfect skills and even some sort of implant. If DPS is dropped down to say 570/second and doubling the tank means you can carry 561 million ISK worth of cargo. Still not alot, but this is the bare minimum to be gank worthy--i.e. if a group of gankers were to gank freighters with this much loot many, many times, they'd get enough loot to cover just the cost of replacing ships. So if they are going to gank for profit you'd need to add in a profit margin too. So if they want say a 20% profit margin then you can carry 673 million in ISK value for your cargo.

And all of that is using just the bare minimum in terms of ganking ships. So if the gankers build in a margin of error on this say +5 pilots/ships then can carry even more.

Typically, I'd say .75 billion ISK is limit I use. Yes, it is annoying if you are looking at a pile of 40 billion in ISK value for cargo and thinking...53 trips! Damn. Cry But pushing it above that and you become more gankable. If you look at Kusion his lower limit appears to be 1 billion ISK.

A fringe thing you can do is use containers. Put lots of stuff in one container. That may not sound like an obvious thing, but what is the probability of that container dropping? 0.5 right? Well if it drops they get it all...or they get nothing. A priori their expected payout is the same, but their ex post payout is going to be...."lumpy". Whereas if you have lots of stuff, the probability that nothing drops is 0.5^N. And the more stuff you have the more likely about half of it will drop. In other words you make the gank more risky. Same thing with making it a courier package. In a situation where the gankers could pick between two targets (and only 1) each of equal value but one with all the cargo in one container vs. the other with N items....they should pick the one with N items since they are more likely to end up with half of the cargo. Granted, not all items are of equal value, but this general result still holds.

Another thing is to use a JF even if you are not going to use the jump drives. That hull comes with quite a bit more EHP. In that case my upper limit goes to 1 billion. After all with maxed out skills you can get the EHP on something like the Anshar to 899,753. And against something like catalysts the EHP will be even higher.

And when you look through freighters that have been ganked you usually see freighters with cargo expanders which actually reduces EHP. So not only are they over loading their freighter in terms of ISK value they are reducing EHP to be even easier to gank. About the only thing they could do to make it even worse in terms of risk at this point is to use auto-pilot which I would not be surprised if that were the case.


Your views are very well researched and presented, I'm not really sure why people have a problem with you you're simply stating facts.


Threads like these are about beliefs, not facts.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#102 - 2016-12-20 08:06:42 UTC
Teckos Pech, please stop being an idiot.

When such a game mechanic is known, counters devised, and proved ineffective. Or when such counters cannot be found then a game breaking mechanic exists. You basically said it yourself. ganking is at the high end of return and low end of risk. Which puts it completely off the chart for risk vs. reward mechanics.

Please stop defending the indefensible.
Salvos Rhoska
#103 - 2016-12-20 08:39:15 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
ganking is at the high end of return and low end of risk. Which puts it completely off the chart for risk vs. reward mechanics.

Please stop defending the indefensible.


The same can be said of hauling.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#104 - 2016-12-20 08:44:38 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Teckos Pech, please stop being an idiot.

When such a game mechanic is known, counters devised, and proved ineffective. Or when such counters cannot be found then a game breaking mechanic exists. You basically said it yourself. ganking is at the high end of return and low end of risk. Which puts it completely off the chart for risk vs. reward mechanics.

Please stop defending the indefensible.

So you prefer completely risk free hauling as the alternative.

Unwardeccable freighter pilots that can bot their way around highsec on autopilot in complete safety earning all the ISK they can Horde?

Awesome. Great for you. That's a very carebear wonderland you live in.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2016-12-20 08:44:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Teckos Pech, please stop being an idiot.

When such a game mechanic is known, counters devised, and proved ineffective. Or when such counters cannot be found then a game breaking mechanic exists. You basically said it yourself. ganking is at the high end of return and low end of risk. Which puts it completely off the chart for risk vs. reward mechanics.

Please stop defending the indefensible.


Please demonstrate this risk-free gank for us. Please. Go on. Show us.

I can show you any number of failed ganks that have resulted in no kill, and as a result a net financial loss for the ganker. I can show you many. All of them demonstrate the risk a high-sec ganker takes in the event of failure.

But you seem to think ganking is easy. That it's something that you just know how to do and do well from day one.

If that's so, then please, show us. Go gank something decent and show us just how easy and risk-free it is.

I used to gank a lot myself. Not so much anymore, but not because I'm against it. I just personally find other things more interesting, such as picking fights in lowsec. But because my main is -10, I need to use my alt to haul ships, ammo and equipment in for Rem. I have done it this way with many different kinds of ships, freighters included (not to mention a T2 hulltanked bowhead worth a few bil), since 2012. To date, there have been 114 gank attempts on ships that Boz (my alt) has flown, with only only one success, which was in lowsec. The latest was barely a few weeks ago, a pair of Tornados took potshots at Boz's impel as it charged the MJD. They hit it, but they didn't kill it, and I repped the armour 100km off station after the MJD fired while aligning out, and watched as CONCORD finished off the two tornadoes.

Go and tell those tornado pilots they took no risk. Go ahead. Boz has KR's on them now but I admire their attempt far too much to activate them. While you're telling them there's no risk, also let them know that they'll need a bare minimum of 4 perfect hits at once from 1400mm tornadoes to take Boz's impel out, and he probably won't be carrying what those tornados are worth. Cheers.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2016-12-20 09:03:29 UTC
Loosing to the game mechanic is something else then risk. You are a perfect example of the risk aversion of gankers. You gank, or used to gank, with your main but because he is at -10 you don't haul with him. So you are avoiding risks by using an alt but are criticizing that hauling is relatively risk free. So there are game mechanics that allow you to to scout with an alt and only bring out the ganker when there is prey. How often have you been killed by Anti-Gankers? You are avoiding the risk other players pose to your main. Loosing to concord isn't even registered as a kill on the skillboard of the defenders, even when they especially fitted to be hard to kill. So the best any hauler can get is get away while you are risking some cheap ships and maybe hit the jackpot.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#107 - 2016-12-20 09:10:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Teckos Pech, please stop being an idiot.

When such a game mechanic is known, counters devised, and proved ineffective. Or when such counters cannot be found then a game breaking mechanic exists. You basically said it yourself. ganking is at the high end of return and low end of risk. Which puts it completely off the chart for risk vs. reward mechanics.

Please stop defending the indefensible.


Quite simply you are wrong. You, like most others on this topic who share your views, fail to realize the problem of risk vs. reward is due to the actions of players...not the game. One player takes on too much risk, other players take advantage of it. If the one player stopped taking on so much risk this thread would not be here and you would not be advertising your ignorance of the concepts of risk and risk management.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2016-12-20 09:21:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Loosing to the game mechanic is something else then risk. You are a perfect example of the risk aversion of gankers. You gank, or used to gank, with your main but because he is at -10 you don't haul with him. So you are avoiding risks by using an alt but are criticizing that hauling is relatively risk free. So there are game mechanics that allow you to to scout with an alt and only bring out the ganker when there is prey. How often have you been killed by Anti-Gankers? You are avoiding the risk other players pose to your main. Loosing to concord isn't even registered as a kill on the skillboard of the defenders, even when they especially fitted to be hard to kill. So the best any hauler can get is get away while you are risking some cheap ships and maybe hit the jackpot.


First of all, *losing. 'Loosing' is not a word. 'Loosening' is the opposite of tightening, but you don't 'loose' a fight, you 'lose' a fight.

Secondly, if you want to accuse me of not taking risks, come play a little in lowsec. I won't even shoot at you, I'll just introduce you to the concept of cynobait.

Thirdly, I don't use boz to avoid risk, I use him because he's trained for efficient hauling, and rem is not, because training rem for hauling would be an inefficient waste of skill training.

And finally, I'm at war with an anti-ganker alliance right now with Vendetta and Marmite assisting, and we're still actively hunting wartargets despite the anti-gankers having bloodied our noses by taking an Eos, Talos, and low-SP Thorax (granted mostly because the guys I'm flying with are coming back to EVE after long breaks).

Before you accuse me of not taking risks, little EVE Uni student, before you look down your nose at me from your perch of self-assured but failed perception of what risk actually entails in EVE Online, you might want to consider actually trying to do a few of the things you consider 'risk-free' and then come back and tell me what your results were.

For the record, literally everyone that's smart hauls with an alt. Not because of the risk, but because skill training, as I explained above. But even if people who are -10 use an alt to get things out of high sec, why do you call that risk averse? The only risk to a -10 in high sec is the facpo, because it sure ain't the players these days. Players choose high sec usually because of its illusion of safety, but there are also those that choose high sec to try to break that illusion for them as well, although they are in limited numbers compared to the plague of risk aversion in high sec these days. Even if I jumped a freighter loaded with deadspace modules I'd looted from 6/10s into high sec right now, I'd be more likely to lose it to facpo than a player, I guarantee it.

And avoiding that is not risk aversion, it's risk mitigation. I suggest you learn the difference. The former is a denial of what EVE is, the latter is acceptance. Learn the difference, and you might find yourself posting less stupidly than you just did.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#109 - 2016-12-20 09:31:31 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Loosing to the game mechanic is something else then risk. You are a perfect example of the risk aversion of gankers. You gank, or used to gank, with your main but because he is at -10 you don't haul with him. So you are avoiding risks by using an alt but are criticizing that hauling is relatively risk free. So there are game mechanics that allow you to to scout with an alt and only bring out the ganker when there is prey. How often have you been killed by Anti-Gankers? You are avoiding the risk other players pose to your main. Loosing to concord isn't even registered as a kill on the skillboard of the defenders, even when they especially fitted to be hard to kill. So the best any hauler can get is get away while you are risking some cheap ships and maybe hit the jackpot.


Anyone using the term "risk averse" like it is some sort of insult or slur is somebody who does not understand the concept.

Are you expecting use to believe you are risk neutral or even risk seeking?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#110 - 2016-12-20 09:46:43 UTC
People who mitigate risk are risk averse....

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2016-12-20 09:50:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Teckos Pech wrote:
People who mitigate risk are risk averse....


Is this sarcasm or are you for real right now? Risk mitigation = acceptance of risk and doing what you can with the tools available to minimise it. Risk aversion is completely different, and leads to forum posts like the one recently asking for Jita to be made a no-fire zone. I mitigate the risk to my hauling alt by fitting his Impel in such a way that makes it much more difficult to gank and/or be otherwise caught and destroyed when travelling through both high sec and low. Doesn't mean I'm not taking any risk, it means I'm doing what I can to minimise it. What I don't do is come to the forums and demand any and/or all risk to that Impel be removed in any way.

If you think not taking steps to minimise risk is somehow praiseworthy, I'm sorry, but I refuse to enable stupidity. If you want to leave your front door unlocked at night, that's your prerogative, but I do genuinely hope you were being sarcastic.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Miriam Beckstein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#112 - 2016-12-20 10:19:28 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Unless the code is boogered to give one side an unfair advantage....then no it is not CCPs concern.

No, there is no need to set up "fair playing fields". Again, the issue is when the code is screwed in a way CCP did not anticipate. Example? CCP's changes to FW LP that allowed 5 players to rake in 5 trillion+ ISK in two weeks.

That CCP has to ensure "fair play" is just utter nonsense. If I can bring 20x the people you can...well sucks to be you. Not CCPs problem.


I know the thread has veered into something else since I last posted. I get the feeling these threads normally go that way. But I'll respond anyway, as you were missing the point I was making.

You bring 20x the people I do, that's completely fine. Completely fair. Level playing field, fair gameplay design, that is a different thing to a 'fair' fight where the outcome is 50-50. A big chunk of the fights that happen in the game are people choosing to take the fight because they think it's not 50-50, it's in their favour. Nothing wrong with that at all.


Quote:
Quote:

You're conflating 'freighters currently get ganked with the help of unfair methods' with 'it's unfair that freighters get ganked.' Just because those that argue the second are [insert insult here], that doesn't mean the first is wrong.


No, CCP has addressed the bumping mechanic. If that has not worked, then perhaps they should just stop ******* around with **** that they can't fix and let players learn a hard, hard lesson. And that lesson is don't be a complete ******* moron when loading up your freighter. If you put 6+ billion ISK in your freighter and get bumped for N+ hours the lesson is...don't put 6+ billion ISK in your freighter. In fact, figure out where the cargo/gank boundary is and play accordingly. Asking CCP to "fix" something means you just don't understand the problem.

And again, the problem is a player taking on too much risk. Take on too much risk, expect to get your poop pushed in.


And again you're conflating two different things, harping on about the thing that is not a problem (that risk taking haulers explode) while ignoring the other thing that seems to be a problem (that bumpers face no consequences, that once bumped, the hauler has no counter.)

Anyone who thinks hauling should be risk free, that ganking shouldn't be allowed, that there shouldn't be potential consequences for undocking with 6 billion on board, they are wrong.

Anyone who thinks the gankers take on no risk, that they face no consequences, they're wrong too. Can argue about how their risk v reward should be balanced, but can't see a valid argument that their risk is zero. Can argue about ways to counter them once the attempted gank commences (better tank, friendly combat ships escorting, etc) but can't argue that there are no counters.

However, as far as I can tell, the battleship pilot who aggresses the hauler, bumps them and keeps them stuck on grid for the gankfleet to warp to, they do it risk free. They face no consequences. There is no counter available. Tank's irrelevant. Combat escort can't shoot the bumper due to highsec mechanics. I think that's a problem. If you think it's not, can you please explain to me why I'm wrong, what the potential consequences or theoretical counters are?

And when you say CCP has addressed bumping, how did they address it? What did they change? I can't find anything, and others in thread have said there have been no changes.

Take on too much risk, get caught in fight that isn't 50-50, lose (but occasionally survive) that's one of the pillars of the game. But two of the other pillars are that both sides of the fight can do something, you can bring extra firepower to help out your side, you can run away, you can survive long enough for the concord cavalry to arrive. And that actions have consequences, especially that aggressive actions in highsec drops your sec status and costs you the aggressing ship. Ganking meets all those criteria, bumping does not. Ganking is fine, bumping needs fixing.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#113 - 2016-12-20 10:21:55 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
People who mitigate risk are risk averse....


Is this sarcasm or are you for real right now? Risk mitigation = acceptance of risk and doing what you can with the tools available to minimise it. Risk aversion is completely different, and leads to forum posts like the one recently asking for Jita to be made a no-fire zone. I mitigate the risk to my hauling alt by fitting his Impel in such a way that makes it much more difficult to gank and/or be otherwise caught and destroyed when travelling through both high sec and low. Doesn't mean I'm not taking any risk, it means I'm doing what I can to minimise it. What I don't do is come to the forums and demand any and/or all risk to that Impel be removed in any way.

If you think not taking steps to minimise risk is somehow praiseworthy, I'm sorry, but I refuse to enable stupidity. I do genuinely hope you were being sarcastic though.


No. I am totally for real. Mitigating your risk means you reduce your risk. People who are risk seeking do not do this. The additional risk, to a risk seeking person, is welfare enhancing.

So if you are reducing the risk you are risk averse.

There is nothing wrong with this. That is why I wrote the previous post. People throw around the term "risk averse" as if it is an insult...but most people are risk averse. This is true in and out of game.

Do you use a scout? You are risk averse and are mitigating your risks.
Do you use alts in NPC corps for certain activities? You are risk averse and are mitigating your risk.
Do you use standings to help spot hostiles in HS, and do you use an intel channel if you are of a NS group? You are risk averse and are mitigating your risk.

These things are not only fine...they are good for the game. It makes the game interesting and challenging.

And risk aversion does not mean you avoid any and all risk. That is more like loss aversion where the loss is actually of greater consequence than equally valued (monetarily speaking) gain. Here is what risk aversion means:

You have two choices:

1. $50 guaranteed.
2. A coin is flipped heads you get $100, tails nothing.

In 1 the expected payoff is $50, in 2 $50. A risk neutral person doesn't care. He might toss a coin to choose between 1 or 2. A risk seeking person will pick 2, he gets a thrill from the risk. A risk averse person always picks 1. Now, if the sure thing is reduced to say, $25, a risk averse person might decide to take 2. And 2 different people who are both risk averse will behave differently for a variety of reasons. If I have 40 billion ISK in my wallet I might be willing to risk a 500 million ISK ship. If you have 1 billion ISK you might not...even though I might be more risk averse than you. That is our wealth/endowment will also play a role.

And again...nothing wrong with this. It makes the game interesting.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#114 - 2016-12-20 10:26:31 UTC
Miriam Beckstein wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Unless the code is boogered to give one side an unfair advantage....then no it is not CCPs concern.

No, there is no need to set up "fair playing fields". Again, the issue is when the code is screwed in a way CCP did not anticipate. Example? CCP's changes to FW LP that allowed 5 players to rake in 5 trillion+ ISK in two weeks.

That CCP has to ensure "fair play" is just utter nonsense. If I can bring 20x the people you can...well sucks to be you. Not CCPs problem.


I know the thread has veered into something else since I last posted. I get the feeling these threads normally go that way. But I'll respond anyway, as you were missing the point I was making.

You bring 20x the people I do, that's completely fine. Completely fair. Level playing field, fair gameplay design, that is a different thing to a 'fair' fight where the outcome is 50-50. A big chunk of the fights that happen in the game are people choosing to take the fight because they think it's not 50-50, it's in their favour. Nothing wrong with that at all.


Quote:
Quote:

You're conflating 'freighters currently get ganked with the help of unfair methods' with 'it's unfair that freighters get ganked.' Just because those that argue the second are [insert insult here], that doesn't mean the first is wrong.


No, CCP has addressed the bumping mechanic. If that has not worked, then perhaps they should just stop ******* around with **** that they can't fix and let players learn a hard, hard lesson. And that lesson is don't be a complete ******* moron when loading up your freighter. If you put 6+ billion ISK in your freighter and get bumped for N+ hours the lesson is...don't put 6+ billion ISK in your freighter. In fact, figure out where the cargo/gank boundary is and play accordingly. Asking CCP to "fix" something means you just don't understand the problem.

And again, the problem is a player taking on too much risk. Take on too much risk, expect to get your poop pushed in.


And again you're conflating two different things, harping on about the thing that is not a problem (that risk taking haulers explode) while ignoring the other thing that seems to be a problem (that bumpers face no consequences, that once bumped, the hauler has no counter.)

Anyone who thinks hauling should be risk free, that ganking shouldn't be allowed, that there shouldn't be potential consequences for undocking with 6 billion on board, they are wrong.

Anyone who thinks the gankers take on no risk, that they face no consequences, they're wrong too. Can argue about how their risk v reward should be balanced, but can't see a valid argument that their risk is zero. Can argue about ways to counter them once the attempted gank commences (better tank, friendly combat ships escorting, etc) but can't argue that there are no counters.

However, as far as I can tell, the battleship pilot who aggresses the hauler, bumps them and keeps them stuck on grid for the gankfleet to warp to, they do it risk free. They face no consequences. There is no counter available. Tank's irrelevant. Combat escort can't shoot the bumper due to highsec mechanics. I think that's a problem. If you think it's not, can you please explain to me why I'm wrong, what the potential consequences or theoretical counters are?

And when you say CCP has addressed bumping, how did they address it? What did they change? I can't find anything, and others in thread have said there have been no changes.

Take on too much risk, get caught in fight that isn't 50-50, lose (but occasionally survive) that's one of the pillars of the game. But two of the other pillars are that both sides of the fight can do something, you can bring extra firepower to help out your side, you can run away, you can survive long enough for the concord cavalry to arrive. And that actions have consequences, especially that aggressive actions in highsec drops your sec status and costs you the aggressing ship. Ganking meets all those criteria, bumping does not. Ganking is fine, bumping needs fixing.


Your problem is risk is not something the game should be imposing on players at least it should not be the only source. It should be a function of their actions....and your solution is to basically shield people from taking on too much risk. Stop it. Stop defending people who were imprudent and foolish. Yes, there is no risk to bumping. And that is totally fine....because bumping is not really an issue unless you are initially a complete and blithering fool.

And if that still does not work for you...then nut up and shoot the ******* bumping ship. They have minimal tank can cost lots of ISK. There, you just imposed some risk on them.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Salvos Rhoska
#115 - 2016-12-20 10:31:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
I think you two are talking past each other, but essentially agreeing.

I am risk averse while motorcycling.

I mitigate risk (ie: take steps to avert risk) by carefully maintaining my motorcycle, wearing protective gear, only motorcycling during good weather conditions, never driving drunk, carefully choosing my routes and driving within the law in a safe fashion.

Many other motorcyclists are not risk averse, do not mitigate risk by available means, and are thus at greater risk than I.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2016-12-20 10:38:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Teckos Pech wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
People who mitigate risk are risk averse....


Is this sarcasm or are you for real right now? Risk mitigation = acceptance of risk and doing what you can with the tools available to minimise it. Risk aversion is completely different, and leads to forum posts like the one recently asking for Jita to be made a no-fire zone. I mitigate the risk to my hauling alt by fitting his Impel in such a way that makes it much more difficult to gank and/or be otherwise caught and destroyed when travelling through both high sec and low. Doesn't mean I'm not taking any risk, it means I'm doing what I can to minimise it. What I don't do is come to the forums and demand any and/or all risk to that Impel be removed in any way.

If you think not taking steps to minimise risk is somehow praiseworthy, I'm sorry, but I refuse to enable stupidity. I do genuinely hope you were being sarcastic though.


No. I am totally for real. Mitigating your risk means you reduce your risk. People who are risk seeking do not do this. The additional risk, to a risk seeking person, is welfare enhancing.

So if you are reducing the risk you are risk averse.


'Risk seeking' is fine, but it's not mutually exclusive with risk mitigation. You seek risk, but you still put a tank on your ship, and load it with guns. THAT is risk mitigation, just as locking your front door is when you go to bed because you acknowledge that by sleeping, you are taking a risk, and locking the door mitigates, but does not remove, that risk. Anyone going to bed at night believing they are perfectly safe to sleep is just as dumb as someone who thinks a taking freighter full of PLEX through hisec is as well. Risk mitigation can also be an attempt to avoid risk, but it always involves the acceptance of the risk you are taking. I strongly recommend you actually look up the terms, especially how they're applied in the military and insurance policies. Because those are the correct applications. The military does not go to war because it is risk averse, but it does take steps to reduce the risks to the men and women who serve nonetheless, and accept the fact that there will be casualties regardless of those steps.

Risk aversion, on the other hand, is more of a denial and/or rejection of the risk that leads to players thinking it shouldn't be there, or believing high sec should be completely safe and PVP-free. Risk aversion is what leads to people asking for Trammel.

EDIT: Let's talk about risk seeking in the real world. Another word for the kind of people that do this is 'thrill seekers': sky divers, base jumpers, mountain climbers, etc. They seek risk, but they still wear parachutes and safety gear. If you're going to sit there and call them 'risk averse' for wearing that safety gear, then how can they also be risk-seeking? Would you argue that they're not? I'd love to hear that argument. No, really, I would, but give me a few hours so I can get some popcorn. If your argument is that a skydiver would only be truly risk seeking if he jumped from a plane without a parachute (ie without risk mitigation) then what you're suggesting is that the only way to be a risk-seeker is to be Godking of the Darwin Awards.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#117 - 2016-12-20 10:58:50 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
People who mitigate risk are risk averse....


Is this sarcasm or are you for real right now? Risk mitigation = acceptance of risk and doing what you can with the tools available to minimise it. Risk aversion is completely different, and leads to forum posts like the one recently asking for Jita to be made a no-fire zone. I mitigate the risk to my hauling alt by fitting his Impel in such a way that makes it much more difficult to gank and/or be otherwise caught and destroyed when travelling through both high sec and low. Doesn't mean I'm not taking any risk, it means I'm doing what I can to minimise it. What I don't do is come to the forums and demand any and/or all risk to that Impel be removed in any way.

If you think not taking steps to minimise risk is somehow praiseworthy, I'm sorry, but I refuse to enable stupidity. I do genuinely hope you were being sarcastic though.


No. I am totally for real. Mitigating your risk means you reduce your risk. People who are risk seeking do not do this. The additional risk, to a risk seeking person, is welfare enhancing.

So if you are reducing the risk you are risk averse.


'Risk seeking' is fine, but it's not mutually exclusive with risk mitigation. You seek risk, but you still put a tank on your ship, and load it with guns. THAT is risk mitigation, just as locking your front door is when you go to bed because you acknowledge that by sleeping, you are taking a risk, and locking the door mitigates, but does not remove, that risk. Anyone going to bed at night believing they are perfectly safe to sleep is just as dumb as someone who thinks a taking freighter full of PLEX through hisec is as well. Risk mitigation can also be an attempt to avoid risk, but it always involves the acceptance of the risk you are taking. I strongly recommend you actually look up the terms, especially how they're applied in the military and insurance policies. Because those are the correct applications.

Risk aversion, on the other hand, is more of a denial and/or rejection of the risk that leads to players thinking it shouldn't be there, or believing high sec should be completely safe and PVP-free. Risk aversion is what leads to people asking for Trammel.


Risk seeking is not fine. A person who seeks risk is the person who goes to Vegas and then...can't go home because he gambled it away....literally....along with his car.

As I noted, a risk averse person does not avoid all risk. So a risk averse player does not necessarily believe that HS should be completely safe. Case-in-point, I freely admit I am risk averse...and yet I wrote a post outlining why ganking is fine and not something CCP should be concerned with.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2016-12-20 11:11:36 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
People who mitigate risk are risk averse....


Is this sarcasm or are you for real right now? Risk mitigation = acceptance of risk and doing what you can with the tools available to minimise it. Risk aversion is completely different, and leads to forum posts like the one recently asking for Jita to be made a no-fire zone. I mitigate the risk to my hauling alt by fitting his Impel in such a way that makes it much more difficult to gank and/or be otherwise caught and destroyed when travelling through both high sec and low. Doesn't mean I'm not taking any risk, it means I'm doing what I can to minimise it. What I don't do is come to the forums and demand any and/or all risk to that Impel be removed in any way.

If you think not taking steps to minimise risk is somehow praiseworthy, I'm sorry, but I refuse to enable stupidity. I do genuinely hope you were being sarcastic though.


No. I am totally for real. Mitigating your risk means you reduce your risk. People who are risk seeking do not do this. The additional risk, to a risk seeking person, is welfare enhancing.

So if you are reducing the risk you are risk averse.


'Risk seeking' is fine, but it's not mutually exclusive with risk mitigation. You seek risk, but you still put a tank on your ship, and load it with guns. THAT is risk mitigation, just as locking your front door is when you go to bed because you acknowledge that by sleeping, you are taking a risk, and locking the door mitigates, but does not remove, that risk. Anyone going to bed at night believing they are perfectly safe to sleep is just as dumb as someone who thinks a taking freighter full of PLEX through hisec is as well. Risk mitigation can also be an attempt to avoid risk, but it always involves the acceptance of the risk you are taking. I strongly recommend you actually look up the terms, especially how they're applied in the military and insurance policies. Because those are the correct applications.

Risk aversion, on the other hand, is more of a denial and/or rejection of the risk that leads to players thinking it shouldn't be there, or believing high sec should be completely safe and PVP-free. Risk aversion is what leads to people asking for Trammel.


Risk seeking is not fine. A person who seeks risk is the person who goes to Vegas and then...can't go home because he gambled it away....literally....along with his car.

As I noted, a risk averse person does not avoid all risk. So a risk averse player does not necessarily believe that HS should be completely safe. Case-in-point, I freely admit I am risk averse...and yet I wrote a post outlining why ganking is fine and not something CCP should be concerned with.


Sorry, but you're wrong. You're working from the assumption that risk-seeking behaviour is not on a gradient scale, and risk-aversion is. It's actually the other way around, and I've explained why. A risk averse player does not avoid all risk, no. As soon as that risk affects them, though, they'll complain about it and ask it to be removed, and they won't take any steps to mitigate that risk because they think it shouldn't be there. They think they shouldn't have to. That's what risk aversion is. Hell, that's what aversion is. Feel free to look up the word if you want. But to tell me that risk-seeking behaviour like sky diving is 'not fine' tells me that you're not worth talking to on the subject at all, since you seem to think words mean things they don't mean.

I see though that you think 'risk seeking' is actually akin to being a Darwin Awards nominee. It can be.But you think it is exclusively. It isn't. And I've told you why. Ignore that explanation all you want, your own denial of simple facts is your own problem at this stage.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#119 - 2016-12-20 11:17:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Teckos, your train wreck around risk is an example why I gave up on you and blocked you, I have to grumble at Remiel for schooling you on this subject so well, because I had to read a couple of your posts to get the full context of your failure, and now I need to take a shower. Roll

Methinks Teckos you continue to try too hard... Shocked

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2016-12-20 11:18:16 UTC
Didn't take me long to find a number of scholarly articles and other explanations of the difference between risk aversion vs risk management (another word for risk mitigation). Here are a few examples, minus the scholarly ones which are behind paywalls. I'm trying to find some that aren't, but in the meantime:

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/investing-risk-mitigation-not-risk-aversion-is-key/1110668/

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040315/what-difference-between-risk-avoidance-and-risk-reduction.asp

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Lo/publication/222527421_Nonparametric_Risk_Management_and_Implied_Risk_Aversion/links/54998be30cf22a83139622af.pdf (this pdf won't load for me, probably because of my bad internet atm, but there's either something there or it's just a bad link, idk if it'll work for anyone else).

https://theitriskmanager.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/risk-aversion-and-risk-management-a-case-study/

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104