These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nice shadow nerf to highsec ganking CCP o7o7o7o7o7o7
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#21 - 2012-04-13 20:25:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Cedo Nulli wrote:
When something will happen 100% certainty ... its not a risk. The risk is 0
No. When something will happen with 100% certainty, the risk is 100%. That's how risk works: [probability] × [cost].

If the risk is zero, it's because the cost is zero, and that can only really happen if the gank is 100% certain to return more ISK than was spent on it… and that certainty isn't 100% simply because the drop mechanics won't let it.



Anyway, as mentioned: it's a bug. Report it as such.
Nub Sauce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-04-13 20:35:46 UTC
Are you saying an unintended, exploitable, game mechanic was fixed?

If so, how dare they?!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#23 - 2012-04-13 20:44:14 UTC
Nub Sauce wrote:
Are you saying an unintended, exploitable, game mechanic was fixed?

If so, how dare they?!
No, he's saying that a fix to an exploit had unintended consequences.

The fix was to keep ships from warping off; what is apparently happening is that it keeps ships from shooting.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#24 - 2012-04-13 20:47:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
Tippia wrote:
Cedo Nulli wrote:
When something will happen 100% certainty ... its not a risk. The risk is 0
No. When something will happen with 100% certainty, the risk is 100%. That's how risk works: [probability] × [cost].

If the risk is zero, it's because the risk is zero, and that can only really happen if the gank is 100% certain to return more ISK than was spent on it… and that certainty isn't 100% simply because the drop mechanics won't let it.



Anyway, as mentioned: it's a bug. Report it as such.


Nicely put.

The lack of reasoning coming from the carebear community is astounding.

Suppose you bring a 1650 DPS Talos crashing down on an untanked Mackinaw.
Once you start shooting, the Mackinaw's chance of survival is basically zero (unless the node crashes).

Using their insane logic:
Because the miner has essentially 0% chance of surviving the encounter - same as the ganker,
the miner is, likewise, 'not taking a risk'.

If the miner isn't risking anything, what are they whining about? Shocked

EDIT: And yes, doesn't make sense that Concord jams instantly - it would make ganking in Catalysts nearly impossible. Haven't tried it myself since the last wave of nerfs....haven't even logged in lately.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-04-13 20:50:55 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
CCP also is nerfing nullsec pvp by getting rid of hellcats, alpha fleets, etc.


thats a hell of a crusade yer on lol
Every "stealth nerf" thread ends up with a post on this

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#26 - 2012-04-13 20:51:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Nicely put.
…except I accidentally wrote “risk” a second time when I meant “cost”. Fixed now. Oops
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#27 - 2012-04-13 20:53:00 UTC
Digital Messiah wrote:
CCP is letting goons know that the space police are ready. HTFU goons, htfu...



dunno; telling the guys with infinite money to htfu cause theyre losing ships they have infinite monies to replace...

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Aruken Marr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-04-13 20:53:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Cedo Nulli wrote:
When something will happen 100% certainty ... its not a risk. The risk is 0
No. When something will happen with 100% certainty, the risk is 100%. That's how risk works: [probability] × [cost].

If the risk is zero, it's because the risk is zero, and that can only really happen if the gank is 100% certain to return more ISK than was spent on it… and that certainty isn't 100% simply because the drop mechanics won't let it.



Anyway, as mentioned: it's a bug. Report it as such.


Exactly. I'm not sure why someone would think that the certainty of losing your ship is not a risk. Obviously people factor that into their marks, but still there's the chance it will go horribly wrong like the loot not dropping or someone else scooping it up instead.

Again: What is wrong with these people?
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#29 - 2012-04-13 20:55:57 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
....haven't even logged in lately.


as usual, trolling forums is more fun than the game

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#30 - 2012-04-13 21:10:26 UTC
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:
....haven't even logged in lately.


as usual, trolling forums is more fun than the game


Yeah, more or less. Getting my Battlefield 3 on lately, waiting for CCP to get off their nerf-a-day kick.
We'll see where things stand once the rules of the game stabilize. Mildly curious to see if the bots I spent 4 months petitioning will still be there when I start up miner-ganking operations again.

Oh, and I think the OP is mistaken - as I clearly see people on the Killboards solo-killing Hulks with Catalysts. An insta-jam would make this impossible.
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#31 - 2012-04-13 21:17:29 UTC
Aranakas wrote:
Zverofaust wrote:
So apparently yesterday's patch introduced a secret shadow feature change, as CONCORD police will now insta-jam the moment they show up on grid.


About time this change was made. Suicide ganking as a profession is too risk-free for the ganker and harmful to the target.


Do yourself a favour and don't leave high sec, you're not safe out on your own.

Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#32 - 2012-04-13 21:18:34 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:
....haven't even logged in lately.


as usual, trolling forums is more fun than the game


Yeah, more or less. Getting my Battlefield 3 on lately, waiting for CCP to get off their nerf-a-day kick.
We'll see where things stand once the rules of the game stabilize. Mildly curious to see if the bots I spent 4 months petitioning will still be there when I start up miner-ganking operations again.

Oh, and I think the OP is mistaken - as I clearly see people on the Killboards solo-killing Hulks with Catalysts. An insta-jam would make this impossible.




Bots and MMOs... this is the only one I ever hear of the management killing them.

Inm WoW, during the last expansion I spent a week solid, every day, reporting a bot, figuring theyd get him at some point. A GM eventually got back to me and told me to stop. When I asked him for a reputable botting service then (as theyre apparently allowed) he told me it was a breach of TOS and my account would be flagged for questionable actions. It was the last time I played that game

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
IGNATIUS HOOD
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-04-13 21:21:38 UTC
Zverofaust wrote:
So the certainty of losing your ship once you aggress is not a risk? What is wrong with you people?


If you attempt to do something *knowing* the outcome is the loss of your ship how could you consider that risk? (See Ganking A$$HAT)

If you attempt to do something under the *possibility* you could lose your ship given a certain set of criteria. That is the definition of risk. (See poor defenseless Miner)

Now if you said risking your ship * a certainty* versus the *possibility* of attaining your objective (the Miner going boom) you are still a Ganking A$$HAT, but an A$$HAT who understands the concept of risk.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."   --H.L. Mencken
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-04-13 21:25:20 UTC
Zverofaust wrote:
People, I said Jam, not scram, not damp, not whatever else. Jamming means literally only one thing. They instantly ECM jam you the moment they appear on grid.


Just tested this ingame. CONCORD do not jam you the moment you appear on grid unless CONCORD was already on grid in the first place. Either way it is working as intended you are you really, really, really bad at EVE.

For a low price of 500m I will teach you pvp 101 including overview settings, the difference between scramming and jamming, and how not to panic and whine on GD when an NPC red boxes you.
Nub Sauce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#35 - 2012-04-13 21:27:47 UTC
Vaal Erit wrote:
Zverofaust wrote:
People, I said Jam, not scram, not damp, not whatever else. Jamming means literally only one thing. They instantly ECM jam you the moment they appear on grid.


Just tested this ingame. CONCORD do not jam you the moment you appear on grid unless CONCORD was already on grid in the first place. Either way it is working as intended you are you really, really, really bad at EVE.

For a low price of 500m I will teach you pvp 101 including overview settings, the difference between scramming and jamming, and how not to panic and whine on GD when an NPC red boxes you.


Aha! So I was right. Which means.... How dare they!
Zverofaust
Ascetic Virtues
#36 - 2012-04-13 21:27:55 UTC
Vaal Erit wrote:
Zverofaust wrote:
People, I said Jam, not scram, not damp, not whatever else. Jamming means literally only one thing. They instantly ECM jam you the moment they appear on grid.


Just tested this ingame. CONCORD do not jam you the moment you appear on grid unless CONCORD was already on grid in the first place. Either way it is working as intended you are you really, really, really bad at EVE.

For a low price of 500m I will teach you pvp 101 including overview settings, the difference between scramming and jamming, and how not to panic and whine on GD when an NPC red boxes you.


1/10
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#37 - 2012-04-13 21:28:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
If you attempt to do something *knowing* the outcome is the loss of your ship how could you consider that risk?
You consider that a risk because you have a 100% certainty of incurring a cost X. Thus the risk is X. You could reduce that risk by reducing the cost, say, by hoping that Y worth of stuff drops… but that's a different bit of probability entirely.

You are certain of incurring cost X; you are uncertain about generating gain Y. Thus you have a risk generated by the mismatch between the two.

Vaal Erit wrote:
Just tested this ingame. CONCORD do not jam you the moment you appear on grid unless CONCORD was already on grid in the first place. Either way it is working as intended you are you really, really, really bad at EVE.
“Either way” isn't quite right there. If they jam the moment they appear on grid, then it is not working as intended, since the first ship that shows up is only meant to scram you and keep you in place until the backup arrives after the standard delay. However, if the right (or wrong, from the ganker's perspective) ship is already on grid, then you're quite right and it's working properly (if a bit quirkily).

But yes, that test seems to settle it.
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-04-13 21:39:58 UTC
Isn't the risk of SG whether or not you'll gank the target? And if you do what will drop?
Your ship loss is a certainty... Thus the name for the activity. Which means ship is just like ammo you knew you were going to to lose it...

Just cost O business.

IGNATIUS HOOD
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2012-04-13 21:42:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
If you attempt to do something *knowing* the outcome is the loss of your ship how could you consider that risk?
You consider that a risk because you have a 100% certainty of incurring a cost X. Thus the risk is X. You could reduce that risk by reducing the cost, say, by hoping that Y worth of stuff drops… but that's a different bit of probability entirely.

You are certain of incurring cost X; you are uncertain about generating gain Y. Thus you have a risk generated by the mismatch between the two.


Perhaps you could view it that way. Deffering of costs as mitigation of risk is really what you're talking about. There you're looking at the loss of the ship as operating cost weighed against the potential profit of the loot you stand to gain from the act. A well reasoned response Tippia and exactly what I would expect from you given your posts in the past.

I would argue that OP's original assertion was I lose my ship therefore I'm taking a risk. Cost vs Profit never came up and I was reluctant to even go there with someone who would make such a statement to begin with. I would further argue that ganking as a profession doesn't exactly sound profitable especially if one would consider the myriad of other ways to make money in EVE without resorting to something so borish as suicide ganking.

The only exception would be ganking the foolish at undock with holds full of shiny stuff. Twisted
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."   --H.L. Mencken
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#40 - 2012-04-13 21:44:15 UTC
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
Zverofaust wrote:
So the certainty of losing your ship once you aggress is not a risk? What is wrong with you people?


If you attempt to do something *knowing* the outcome is the loss of your ship how could you consider that risk? (See Ganking A$$HAT)


Allow me to point out how stupid and hypocritical you are in carebear terms.

When you invent something: What happens?
-You destroy a BPC, a number of datacores, and a decryptor.
-You lose those items 100% of the time, you don't get them back.
-You may, or may not get back a T2 BPC, based on a random number generator.
The inventor is taking a risk. And nobody disputes that.


Suicide ganker: What happens?
-You gank with a Tornado or a Catalyst.
-You lose it 100% of the time, you don't get it back.
-You may, or may not kill your target. (based on target tank, ganker skill and gunnery random number generation)
-You may, or may not get good drops. (again, random number generated)

Somehow, according to carebears, the ganker is not taking a risk.

Why is inventing a risk, while suicide ganking is not?
Simple, the 'ganker is bad' and carebears don't even want to concede that the ganker is risking something.
Because that admission would contradict other carebear arguments for removing suicide ganking from the game entirely. (on the grounds that it is unbalanced because there is 'no risk')

Nonsense, but thats what is going on their heads.