These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
EVE Stig
Doomheim
#161 - 2012-04-14 19:42:21 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
They also forgot to buff exhumers tank when they buffed destroyers to become better at (real) PvP. Would you petition that too?
Of course not. Why would you petition if something that never was intended to happen doesn't happen?


How do you know? There's examples of half done CCP implementations that were "forgotten" for years. Pax Amarria still capping Nocx anyone? Then one day minerals markets pressure happened and they changed it.




the feature turned bug of your skills still training when your account ran out of time...

"Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"!
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#162 - 2012-04-14 19:42:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:

You are a ganker, flying a 15M ISK Catalyst.
The simple nature of drop mechanics means that your costs are highly variable - (anywhere from 1 Million to 15M) - isn't that a 'risk', even by your flawed definition?


No, because I have signed off 15M, not 1 to 15M. If I feel to pour in more :effort: I can calculate the average (close to 50%) of mods being dropped minus the hull cost. Pre-scanning the target also helps at selecting worthwhile opportunities vs bad ones.


I'm just pointing out that you can completely forget about the miner, and whether or not you succeed in your efforts.
Risk exists in the simple action of 'expending' your suicide ship, because the material loss you suffer depends entirely on CCP's random number generator - and in the case of T2 Catalysts, that variable represents nearly the entire cost of the modded ship.

Just because YOU base YOUR own calculations on the unlikely scenario of 'total loss' - losing the ship and ALL mods, doesn't mean others do. That random mod drop from your own ship may or may not make the difference in a profit and a loss....

Its a risk we take with every gank.

I might lose 1 Million ISK, I might lose 15 or 20M ISK, who can say except the fates?

If I REALLY felt like gambling I could massively increase the risk to my wallet and put 3x 80M ISK Faction Mag Stabs on the Catalyst. Pretty risky, right? Maybe they die, maybe not. Maybe I lose 1 Million ISK, maybe 250M? Who can say?

The concept is no different than with standard T2 fittings. "Risk" exists in both cases.
You can deny it all you like, but pigheadedness is no virtue when the facts are not on your side.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#163 - 2012-04-14 19:43:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EVE Stig wrote:
yah thats a joke right tippia?
No, it's me pointing out that he keeps assigning the wrong unit and value to the risk (viz. no unit at all, at a value of 1), and as a seasoned risk manager, he shouldn't be making such a newbie mistake.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#164 - 2012-04-14 19:52:01 UTC
Not really profitable profession if you worry about few million. 1 mil... That's like killing one belt rat in null...
EVE Stig
Doomheim
#165 - 2012-04-14 19:54:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EVE Stig wrote:
yah thats a joke right tippia?
No, it's me pointing out that he keeps assigning the wrong unit and value to the risk (viz. no unit at all, at a value of 1), and as a seasoned risk manager, he shouldn't be making such a newbie mistake.


again... pot meet kettle in talking about not being nitpicky lol Tippia you cut every post you quote into at least 4 sections

"Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"!
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#166 - 2012-04-14 20:03:45 UTC
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Aruken Marr wrote:


So the certainty of losing your ship once you aggress is not a risk? What is wrong with you people?


Losing your ship is a business cost when you're a suicide ganker, you undock with the sole intent of ruining someone's day and in the full knowledge that you are going to lose your ship, that is not a risk.


If losing your ship ruins your day may I suggest the merry-go-round in your friendly neighborhood play park = less risk and deservedly requires, nay, demands you quit Eve and go spin on it instead.


Losing a ship does not ruin my day, I have plenty of other ships to play silly buggers in. However a miner losing an exhumer which may be their primary source of income may not be to happy that some trigger happy ganker in a 15 million isk ship just popped their income source for giggles. People react differently to the situation, I've personally lost quite a few ships to gankers on alts and it doesn't bother me, I'll often talk to them afterwards to see if I can improve my survival chances next time.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#167 - 2012-04-14 20:04:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EVE Stig wrote:
again... pot meet kettle in talking about not being nitpicky lol Tippia you cut every post you quote into at least 4 sections
Usually because there are at least 4 different points to respond to and I prefer the style where each response is clearly tied to each point, rather than presented as a big incoherent mass.

Also, just to nitpick even further, you realise that you are calling him a nit-picker by using the “pot and kettle” idiom, right? Blink
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#168 - 2012-04-14 20:17:24 UTC
I see tippia is one of those people who see they have walked into a swamp but continue to walk forward deeper into the mud thinking "this way I cant be blamed of being wrong!"


The ISO 31000 (2009) /ISO Guide 73:2002 definition of risk is the 'effect of uncertainty on objectives'. In this definition, uncertainties include events (which may or not happen) and uncertainties caused by ambiguity or a lack of information. It also includes both negative and positive impacts on objectives. Many definitions of risk exist in common usage, however this definition was developed by an international committee representing over 30 countries and is based on the input of several thousand subject matter experts.


Thing X happening with 100% certainty is not uncertainty, its the opposite of that.

99% would leave space for uncertainty but 100% flips it to be certainty and a fact.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#169 - 2012-04-14 20:24:13 UTC
Cedo Nulli wrote:
Thing X happening with 100% certainty is not uncertainty, its the opposite of that.

99% would leave space for uncertainty but 100% flips it to be certainty and a fact.
…which still doesn't mean that 100% certain events should not be included in the risk evaluation. The 100% probability is simply the trivial case in such a risk calculation, so there's no question about how to include, calculate, or interpret it.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#170 - 2012-04-14 20:24:23 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


Call it as you wish, if your little texbook says it's a risk then enjoy the scholarship.

For everybody else it's a cost. The cost is 100%, the outcome (total ship loss) is certain.


This person understands the real-world application of the term "risk".

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
EVE Stig
Doomheim
#171 - 2012-04-14 20:40:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EVE Stig wrote:
again... pot meet kettle in talking about not being nitpicky lol Tippia you cut every post you quote into at least 4 sections
Usually because there are at least 4 different points to respond to and I prefer the style where each response is clearly tied to each point, rather than presented as a big incoherent mass.

Also, just to nitpick even further, you realise that you are calling him a nit-picker by using the “pot and kettle” idiom, right? Blink


yes, hence it all being jokingly referred to rather than the whole threads r serious the rest of this this is lol

"Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"!
Lanasak
Doomheim
#172 - 2012-04-14 21:51:30 UTC
Lanasak wrote:
i love how miners try to paint suicide ganking as a "risk-free profession" when it is basically the only thing that adds any risk to their own


just quoting this again
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#173 - 2012-04-14 22:01:01 UTC
Personally I'm just happy that we've finally disposed of the myth that suicide ganking has no consequences.

At least now there is a consensus that it does cost - if that's the word I want? - something to make the attempt.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2012-04-14 22:16:37 UTC
Aruken Marr wrote:
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.


So the certainty of losing your ship once you aggress is not a risk? What is wrong with you people?

lol. i undock in my ship and self-destruct it.....

I"M A HERO!Cool

because of risk......

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#175 - 2012-04-14 22:20:20 UTC
Lanasak wrote:
Lanasak wrote:
i love how miners try to paint suicide ganking as a "risk-free profession" when it is basically the only thing that adds any risk to their own


just quoting this again



You do understand that its in no way relevant ? Even on the second time around.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#176 - 2012-04-14 22:25:18 UTC
Cedo Nulli wrote:
I see tippia is one of those people who see they have walked into a swamp but continue to walk forward deeper into the mud thinking "this way I cant be blamed of being wrong!"


The ISO 31000 (2009) /ISO Guide 73:2002 definition of risk is the 'effect of uncertainty on objectives'. In this definition, uncertainties include events (which may or not happen) and uncertainties caused by ambiguity or a lack of information. It also includes both negative and positive impacts on objectives. Many definitions of risk exist in common usage, however this definition was developed by an international committee representing over 30 countries and is based on the input of several thousand subject matter experts.


Thing X happening with 100% certainty is not uncertainty, its the opposite of that.

99% would leave space for uncertainty but 100% flips it to be certainty and a fact.



So reducing your chances of Concord death from 100% to 50% would increase the risk for a ganker?
Wow. You really must be insane.
Lanasak
Doomheim
#177 - 2012-04-15 00:39:27 UTC
Cedo Nulli wrote:
Lanasak wrote:
Lanasak wrote:
i love how miners try to paint suicide ganking as a "risk-free profession" when it is basically the only thing that adds any risk to their own


just quoting this again



You do understand that its in no way relevant ? Even on the second time around.


it is because any serious nerf to suicide ganking will just kill it off
JC Anderson
RED ROSE THORN
#178 - 2012-04-15 01:45:35 UTC
EVE Stig wrote:


the feature turned bug of your skills still training when your account ran out of time...


Heh..

Had almost forgot about the ghost training debacle.