These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#41 - 2012-04-13 21:47:03 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:


inventing is a risk, while suicide ganking is not


thank you for seeing our point

(lol sarcasm and out of context quoting)

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

Yes
IGNATIUS HOOD
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2012-04-13 21:54:08 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
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.



Carebear eh? Roll

I never said they weren't risking something. I said that you cannot consider the fact that you lose a ship in the gank as being a risk. Its a given consequence of the act. What your response looks like is merely an attempt to call ganking something more noble then it is.

I personally think its a stupid waste of time and effort under most circumstances with little profit. I would say mass ganking as a tactic to achieve an objective or ganking to profit by swatting a Besty full of PLEX at undock is legitimate and profitable.

But none of that was discussed was it?


"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."   --H.L. Mencken
Kadesh Priestess
Descendance.
GoonSwarm.
#43 - 2012-04-13 21:55:56 UTC
Nothing surprising, this nerf closed and exploit where you could use ~6 battleships to kill freighter - by using BS with huge dronebay and abandoning hundreds of light drones. CONCORD shot these drones one-by-one instead of one-shotting their ex-carrier for some reason - now it jamms owner as well.

If you didn't use this exploit and nerf still affects you - you can say 'thanks' to guys who abused it.

Whole CONCORD mechanics looks ridiculously stupid tho. Even CONCORD-controlled ship detonation would look less ridiculous.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2012-04-13 21:56:43 UTC
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
Perhaps you could view it that way.
Indeed you can, because that's how risk is almost always defined (it can be debated whether it's a good or a useful definition, but we'll leave that to the shelf-kilometres worth of peer-reviewed treatises on the topic), and as someone pointed out, unless you include that net cost, the risk for the victim is suddenly zero as well.

The thing to note is that, yes, you can come out with zero cost… but you are not ensured any such thing. You might get no drops. The wreck might leave no salvage. Both of those are random, and no matter how cheap the gank ship, there is always a chance that the return from the attack is zero (or close enough), which means the assured loss isn't negated.

So, in short, the risk for gankers can be expressed as the probability that the drop does not cover the loss of the ship, and that probability is always non-zero. It may indeed be very small, given good enough a target, but it is not zero.
IGNATIUS HOOD
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2012-04-13 22:05:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
Perhaps you could view it that way.
Indeed you can, because that's how risk is almost always defined (it can be debated whether it's a good or a useful definition, but we'll leave that to the shelf-kilometres worth of peer-reviewed treatises on the topic), and as someone pointed out, unless you include that net cost, the risk for the victim is suddenly zero as well.

The thing to note is that, yes, you can come out with zero cost… but you are not ensured any such thing. You might get no drops. The wreck might leave no salvage. Both of those are random, and no matter how cheap the gank ship, there is always a chance that the return from the attack is zero (or close enough), which means the assured loss isn't negated.

So, in short, the risk for gankers can be expressed as the probability that the drop does not cover the loss of the ship, and that probability is always non-zero. It may indeed be very small, given good enough a target, but it is not zero.


If we start talking about the victim you need to discuss the probablity of the victim being ganked and work that into your calculation of risk. Thats more of a Business Impact Analysis and you could, if you had the data, conduct a BIA for every system and that would tell you where you should be mining and the best places to avoid.

In the narrow view of the original question I would argue that an established outcome (the loss of your ship) does not constitute risk on its own. Its only after you layer operating cost vs potential profit that you can assign risk to the act of ganking. I made the mistake of responding to the statement as it was written.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, quite the opposite in fact.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."   --H.L. Mencken
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#46 - 2012-04-13 22:10:37 UTC
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:
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.



Carebear eh? Roll

I never said they weren't risking something. I said that you cannot consider the fact that you lose a ship in the gank as being a risk. Its a given consequence of the act. What your response looks like is merely an attempt to call ganking something more noble then it is.

I personally think its a stupid waste of time and effort under most circumstances with little profit. I would say mass ganking as a tactic to achieve an objective or ganking to profit by swatting a Besty full of PLEX at undock is legitimate and profitable.

But none of that was discussed was it?




3 mil investment for 5-50 million return. You could easily sustain multiple accounts. Just sayin.

You wont be incursion rich. BIg deal.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#47 - 2012-04-13 22:16:45 UTC
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
In the narrow view of the original question I would argue that an established outcome (the loss of your ship) does not constitute risk on its own. Its only after you layer operating cost vs potential profit that you can assign risk to the act of ganking. I made the mistake of responding to the statement as it was written.
I don't know. Kind of, but not quite. I'd rather say that, on its own, the ship loss means a complete risk, but also a completely meaningless one because it has no context. So the end result is much the same: you arrive at a kind of “risk? so what?” state.

The real problem comes when you start including intangible rewards such as killboard points, tears, or just plain old legitimate “get the fsckers out of my asteroid belt” results of the gank. At that point, it becomes very difficult to weigh one against another, and you also arrive at completely different probabilities. Those killboard points are a certainty (if you get the kill); the tears are likely; the lulz on vent/mumble are pretty much ensured even if you don't even manage to get a shot of, etc…
Botleten
Perkone
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-04-13 22:18:52 UTC
You're guaranteed to lose the ship so in and of itself its not necessarily the risk. The risk that's involved is that you'll fail the gank and end up losing that ship for no good reason (though one could argue that no gank is a fail, since even if you fail to blow up his ship, that pubbie is gonna **** his pants and have the fear of god in him every time a goon jumps in system). So yes, there is a risk to ganking.
Tarsus Zateki
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2012-04-13 22:23:22 UTC
Given that the goal is to blow up the helpless pathetic victim before Concord shows up, this isn't an issue in any way.

You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#50 - 2012-04-13 22:32:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Simetraz
Well in watching the fan fest video's there was also a comment about using the death ray and be be done with the whole thing.

As in, the time you get to gank someone is the time it takes Concord to respond and that is it, and it was going to have a random component to it.

to be honest it is a lot easier to balance a system that way.
IF you know you have x amount of 1 seconds before concord arrives then you adjust to those x amount of seconds.

Which may be the way it is right now.
The random portion may be the time till they jam you.

Just adjust and stop whining about it.
In a week people will have figured out the numbers again and all will be back to normal.

It is not as if CCP provided those number initially, players had to figure it out.

PS- OMG you have have to figure it out again.
Welcome EVE, I swear some gankers are as bad as mission runners, don't change anything cause I just want known values so I don't have to think.

EVERYBODY KNOWS
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-04-13 22:34:19 UTC
Only problem with risk....is something like this

Player A = Player B
Monthly Sub = Monthly Sub
Hulk = Catalyst x2 ? Shocked
200m+ = 5 million ? Ugh

If both pay the same, why does the other gain better odds?

Its understandable that Player B may 2 box or bring a friend, so thats 2x monthly sub.

Its also understandable, that Player A also pays more monthly subscription up until they can fly a hulk well (about 3-4 months tops with support) equates to at least 4x monthly subscription

Player B on the other hand, can pay 1x monthly subscription and blow the hulk away with just a few days of a new character training (whats the new 10 hours hero? Like 3 days minimum ?).

Yeah, notice it takes less time and about 2 mill fit destroyer x 2 vs several months to fly a hulk....one pays like $60 USD while the other other pays $30 USD for 2x account...less then a week to skill vs 120 days. Yeah, the risk favors player B who spent less time / money then player A no matter how risk less you belive rock mining is. The 5 million still rounds down closer to zero in the time needed to obtain that isk vs the hours and weeks to even buy the first hulk...its lopsided in favor of the ganker because of the **** poor fitting and stats of barges / exhumers.
Spencer Smythe
Lormal Research and Refining
#52 - 2012-04-13 22:42:21 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 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.


I have no idea why everyone patted this fellow on the back. As he himself pointed out if the risk is zero then the cost is zero. He in fact invalidated his first statement with the second.

Certainty is not risk, risk is not certainty. Probability is to certainty what cost is to risk. This is the proper relationship. In other words, he didn't know what he was saying when he said it.

If a ganker doesn't stand to lose anything (and by anything we interpret this to mean something significant to him/her or something of value they want to preserve), then the ganker isn't taking any risk. Why would anyone defend this? Sacrifice (risk) can only be made when you lose something important to you. If it's unimportant, such that you don't care if you lose it, there's no risk being taken.

Ganking is more akin to paying a price to cause ruin on someone else. Much more akin to paying for a hit on someone.
Aruken Marr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2012-04-13 22:46:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Aruken Marr
You're ignoring the fact that the ganker's ships costs isk, there is certain probability that he will lose his ship and that there is a chance that if he's looking for a pay off in loot its not certain that it will drop.

How is this hard?

edit- oh and the uncertainty that the gank is succesful is also an issue
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#54 - 2012-04-13 22:56:02 UTC
Aqriue wrote:
If both pay the same, why does the other gain better odds?
For a couple of reasons that all are somewhat related.

First of all, because EVE doesn't subscribe to the “older is better” power curve you see in level-based games. Just because the Hulk owner has been playing for a few months doesn't mean that he has any kind of advantage over the completely fresh player. This goes back to the often recurring question of “catching up” and how new players are supposedly (but not really) at a disadvantage compared to old ones. What you're describing is the result of the design decision not to go down that road.

Secondly, there's the decision to adhere to a paper-scissors-rock kind of balancing, rather than the strict “bigger is better” design you often see (again) in those level-based games. Those two destroyers can take out the Hulk because that's what destroyers do. The Hulk costing more (in ISK, SP, time, or whathaveyou) is quite besides the point. The destroyers can kill the Hulk with ease for the same reason the Hulk can outmine the destroyers with ease: because destroying things is what destroyers do, and because smashing asteroids is what hulks do.

Spencer Smythe wrote:
I have no idea why everyone patted this fellow on the back. As he himself pointed out if the risk is zero then the cost is zero. He in fact invalidated his first statement with the second.
No, you read that wrong — note the “because” in the sentence. It's the other way around: if the cost is zero, the risk is zero. The risk is the result, not the cause. The other cause is the probability, but that one is pinned at 100% in this scenario.

Quote:
Certainty is not risk, risk is not certainty.
Sure they are. Certainty means a 100% risk unless you have zero cost. The whole point here is that you cannot be certain of zero cost, so therefore that certainty means there is always a risk.

Quote:
Probability is to certainty what cost is to risk.
Eh, no. Certainty is one possible value for probability (viz. 100%). Cost is a factor in risk (the other being probability, since risk = probability × cost). The relationships are completely different and quite incomparable.
Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#55 - 2012-04-13 23:08:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Sasha Azala
Kattshiro wrote:
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.





Yeah, that's how it is.

Only other risk is they might waste time looking for a target, but suicide ganking is pretty much risk free, regardless how the suicide gankers try to spin it.



Edit: On the other hand mining in a Hulk in high-sec without the risk of being suicided, is totally risk free as belt rats in high-sec are nothing more than irritation.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#56 - 2012-04-13 23:29:07 UTC
Sasha Azala wrote:
Only other risk is they might waste time looking for a target, but suicide ganking is pretty much risk free
…aside from the 100% risk of the ship loss, and the unknown chance of any returns.

A cost of doing business is still a risk that has to be mitigated.
AureoBroker
Perkone
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-04-13 23:33:46 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
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.


The miner's risk is actually facing a ganker.
By the "100% chance of loss is still a risk": Then expending crystal and ammo is a risk?
Risks in the high digit without big consequences are business costs, not risks.
A high risk happens when there's a big difference between different outcomes of an event. This is not the case.
The worst that can happen to a suicide ganker is that he fails to complete his gank, which didn't bring any effectual relevant reward.
Effectively, a sucide ganker is the most adverse person of eve, for that he has exactely nothing at stake. We may also argue that he has nothing to win either.

risk-facing means putting yourself in a situation with a (high) probability of losing something of (high) value. Actually, flying a Mackinaw is, while ganking said mackinaw is.
Of course, actually doing something (speculation, hauling, low/zero ratting/missioning/mining, just about anything but L4s and incursions) has an higher risk than hisec mining. Atleast, used to be so.
If the point is that the miner is risking too much for too little reward, well, that's an argument we may apply to a ganker too.
He's effectively doing something on a negative efficiency, 100% of the time. So, scorning someone who's doing a suboptimal activity...
Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#58 - 2012-04-13 23:34:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Sasha Azala
Tippia wrote:
Sasha Azala wrote:
Only other risk is they might waste time looking for a target, but suicide ganking is pretty much risk free
…aside from the 100% risk of the ship loss, and the unknown chance of any returns.

A cost of doing business is still a risk that has to be mitigated.




100% ship loss is not a risk, you've already factored that in, it's a known result before you even start. There's no risk involved in that.

The risk you're talking about is how much will the suicide ganker make, will they make enough to cover their costs. Generally they're not risking much to start with, plus a lot just do it for the laughs.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#59 - 2012-04-13 23:41:45 UTC
Sasha Azala wrote:
100% ship lost is not a risk, you've already factored that in, it's a known result before you even start.
It most certainly is a risk. Again: risk = probability × cost. Just because the probability is 100% doesn't mean there is no risk — quite the opposite, in fact: it means there the risk is total.

Quote:
The risk you're talking about is how much will the suicide ganker make, will they make enough to cover their costs.
No, the risk I'm talking about is the net effect of all the variables. Just because there is a chance that you can reduce the cost doesn't mean that the base risk isn't a risk. If there is no risk reduction in the form of a cost reduction, the total risk is still that 100% × cost of ship.

Yes, you can simplify it as the chance of not getting enough in return (a risk that is non-zero, so the whole “no risk for gankers” is just uninformed nonsense), but that doesn't mean that the various risks that are compounded to create that final risk value don't exist. One of those risks is the ship loss — and that risk is 100% × ship cost.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-04-13 23:45:29 UTC
Tippia 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.

Then you should bug report it, because that's not what's supposed to happen. You're still meant to have the entire n second period to kill your target — you just not meant to be able to boomerang your way to escape.

Most likely, they forgot that the scram ships also jam, and will have to remove that functionality from them.



And yet if CCP added this feature, all you will get back is "working as intended". Don't be angry...

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]