Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
185
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:16:00 -
[61] - Quote
Alexandra Delarge wrote:Ioci wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Miners are irrationally risk averse.
Null Sec people are 'irrationally risk averse'. Not Blue Shoot it? Kill on sight policy to anything that might be a threat, that's not 'irrationally risk averse'? Blocking docking rights instead of just charging fees to dock because someone might log out in their station? That's not 'irrationally risk averse'? That's called 'defending your space and protecting your members'.
And I have played NRDS in EVE. I know better than anyone the need for NBSI but I have mined enough in EVE as well to know that miners are not 'irrationally risk averse'. They are simply taking precautions they need to to take to keep the process going. People who compare null mining to high sec mining really need to do both. They are in no way related. The ISK potential isn't there in high sec. You are forced to solo mine to make a profit. You are forced to solo mine with a Hulk and a cripple fit to make a profit. You are forced to do so with zero loss. Much like Level 4 missions, if you take a loss, you just shot all your profit for a week in to the toilet. People don't solo High Sec because they have a choice. They solo High Sec because they have NO choice. The game has been nerfed for 9 years. It isn't an option anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg-_HeVNYOk
Save Derpy! |
Alexandra Delarge
The Korova
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:28:00 -
[62] - Quote
Ioci wrote:They solo High Sec because they have NO choice. The game has been nerfed for 9 years. It isn't an option anymore.
Rubbish. Nobody is forced into playing solo in this game. Also, 9 years of nerfs? |
Wilma Lawson
Hedion University Amarr Empire
69
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:33:00 -
[63] - Quote
Alexandra Delarge wrote:Ioci wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Miners are irrationally risk averse.
Null Sec people are 'irrationally risk averse'. Not Blue Shoot it? Kill on sight policy to anything that might be a threat, that's not 'irrationally risk averse'? Blocking docking rights instead of just charging fees to dock because someone might log out in their station? That's not 'irrationally risk averse'? That's called 'defending your space and protecting your members'. No, that's called being risk averse. |
Wilma Lawson
Hedion University Amarr Empire
69
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:35:00 -
[64] - Quote
Ioci wrote: And I have played NRDS in EVE. I know better than anyone the need for NBSI but I have mined enough in EVE as well to know that miners are not 'irrationally risk averse'. They are simply taking precautions they need to to take to keep the process going. People who compare null mining to high sec mining really need to do both. They are in no way related. The ISK potential isn't there in high sec. You are forced to solo mine to make a profit. You are forced to solo mine with a Hulk and a cripple fit to make a profit. You are forced to do so with zero loss. Much like Level 4 missions, if you take a loss, you just shot all your profit for a week in to the toilet. People don't solo High Sec because they have a choice. They solo High Sec because they have NO choice. The game has been nerfed for 9 years. It isn't an option anymore.
Uh. Ok. Why gank the high sec miner then? |
Dimitryy
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
46
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:38:00 -
[65] - Quote
Ioci wrote:And I have played NRDS in EVE. I know better than anyone the need for NBSI but I have mined enough in EVE as well to know that miners are not 'irrationally risk averse'. They are simply taking precautions they need to to take to keep the process going. People who compare null mining to high sec mining really need to do both. They are in no way related. The ISK potential isn't there in high sec. You are forced to solo mine to make a profit. You are forced to solo mine with a Hulk and a cripple fit to make a profit. You are forced to do so with zero loss. Much like Level 4 missions, if you take a loss, you just shot all your profit for a week in to the toilet. People don't solo High Sec because they have a choice. They solo High Sec because they have NO choice. The game has been nerfed for 9 years. It isn't an option anymore.
Why are people in highsec forced to mine in a cripple fit to make a profit? And don't forget fitting is not the only way to protect you from ganking. Lets say you fit a hulk with a decent tank, move to a low activity area, set common ganking corps red, watch local (you can do that without scrolling in a low activity area) and keep moving (even if you just orbit a can at 1000). Your chance of being ganked goes way down, and you are still making money and still mining.
And in case people still think it is impossible to mine without a cripple fit, this is a pasted version of the fit i mined in when i only had a 5 FPS laptop and wanted to do something while i played chatboxes online. Its got between 19,000 and 20,000 EHP depending on skills, and still mines 1400m3/min. If you want to make it super tanky, you can even put on extender rigs instead of Cargo Opts.
[Hulk, Stop Complaining] Mining Laser Upgrade II Damage Control II
Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Medium Cargohold Optimization I Medium Cargohold Optimization I
Warrior II x5 Mining Drone I x5
-Dimi
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1787
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:38:00 -
[66] - Quote
Ioci wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Miners are irrationally risk averse.
Null Sec people are 'irrationally risk averse'. Not Blue Shoot it? Kill on sight policy to anything that might be a threat, that's not 'irrationally risk averse'? Blocking docking rights instead of just charging fees to dock because someone might log out in their station? That's not 'irrationally risk averse'? Miners just understand their position in an MMO like EVE. They are alone and undefended in a game full of jackals. That's just common sense.
Did you see the math before you jumped on that comment? That math kind of informs the comment, explaining why miners are irrationally risk averse.
The null sec response of NBSI/Docking rights/etc is the Rational Response to risk if you're averse to it. They are mitigating the risk, not quitting their activity in a response to risk.
Half the mining fleet docking up in response to a very small risk of getting ganked (and an even smaller risk of actually going into the red) is not a rational response. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Alexandra Delarge
The Korova
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:50:00 -
[67] - Quote
Wilma Lawson wrote:Alexandra Delarge wrote:Ioci wrote: Null Sec people are 'irrationally risk averse'. Not Blue Shoot it? Kill on sight policy to anything that might be a threat, that's not 'irrationally risk averse'? Blocking docking rights instead of just charging fees to dock because someone might log out in their station? That's not 'irrationally risk averse'?
That's called 'defending your space and protecting your members'. No, that's called being risk averse. Only a hisec miner would think that. |
Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 22:04:00 -
[68] - Quote
Shooting at any non-blue in your territory is a risk averse action. You could argue that it's a rational action, but that's neither here nor there. There's lots of safe, rational actions.
Wearing a seatbelt? Risk averse. The average person is never in an accident, yet the majority of people wear safety belts just in case. Moreover, that doesn't mean that people who wear seat belts are risk averse; race car drivers wear seatbelts. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1789
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 22:10:00 -
[69] - Quote
Makkal Hanaya wrote:Shooting at any non-blue in your territory is a risk averse action. You could argue that it's a rational action, but that's neither here nor there. There's lots of safe, rational actions.
Wearing a seatbelt? Risk averse. The average person is never in an accident, yet the majority of people wear safety belts just in case. Moreover, that doesn't mean that people who wear seat belts are risk averse; race car drivers wear seatbelts.
Never said it wasn't. Miners are saying "My car might crash" therefore I CAN'T drive, and screw you for suggesting I wear a seatbelt. That's an irrational aversion to risk. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 22:23:00 -
[70] - Quote
You seem to be under the impression that my post was a response to yours. It wasn't.
Likewise, I never suggested that you wear a seatbelt. I stated that the majority of people wear seatbelts and that's a risk averse action. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1789
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 22:26:00 -
[71] - Quote
Makkal Hanaya wrote:You seem to be under the impression that my post was a response to yours. It wasn't.
Likewise, I never suggested that you wear a seatbelt. I stated that the majority of people wear seatbelts and that's a risk averse action.
Sorry, not quoting what you're responding to makes it much harder to tell.
I didn't say that you suggested that people wear seatbelts. I was adapting the miner's argument to the analogy.
EDIT: Again, nobody's saying miner's shouldn't be risk averse. Just that they shouldn't be irrationally so. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 22:31:00 -
[72] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Sorry, not quoting what you're responding to makes it much harder to tell. Not a problem. I shall try to be clearer next time.
Quote:I didn't say that you suggested that people wear seatbelts. I was adapting the miner's argument to the analogy. I get it now. To some extent, I agree with what you're saying.
I also think there's a problem with lack of information. Hulkageddon is 'hyped' so many miners imagine that it's all out war where every one is in constant danger, as opposed to a relatively small increase in risk. Both PvPers and miners tend to overstate just how widespread the situation is. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|
Spikeflach
Echo's of Liberty Dominatus Atrum Mortis
72
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 22:45:00 -
[73] - Quote
I Believe its pretty rational for a miner to not mine when people are out looking to gank them.
It's been suggested by the same people that have been saying miners want to be risk free. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3219
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 22:52:00 -
[74] - Quote
Spikeflach wrote:I Believe its pretty rational for a miner to not mine when people are out looking to gank them.
Of course you do. You are precisely the sort of unthinking miner we're discussing here. Normal EVE players know that no matter what they're doing, someone, somewhere may wish to gank them. But they manage to overcome the crippling fear of losing their ship, take reasonable precautions, and play the game. When they're making money, they know they have reduced the risk of loss to a level where when factoring in losing their ship they will still come out ahead overall.
The miner, unable to deal with the fear of loss, can only consider if someone might gank him. If there's a chance he could get ganked he will turn tail and run, cowering in a station pleading for CCP to ban ganking. The fact that if he mines and takes basic precautions he will have a positive expected return, factoring in the risk of ganks, is irrelevant to the miner - and to you. That's not rational, thats the cold clammy hand of fear clutching your heart as you consider the slight risk you might lose your ship. |
Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 22:54:00 -
[75] - Quote
Spikeflach wrote:I Believe its pretty rational for a miner to not mine when people are out looking to gank them.
It's been suggested by the same people that have been saying miners want to be risk free.
If it's rational to not mine when people want to gank you, then you should never mine because there's always someone out there who would like to gank you. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1150
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:08:00 -
[76] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Miners are irrationally risk averse.
Imagine if we EVER had one thread crying because cloakies AFK in 0.0 systems.
Oh, well, they come up like fungus, showing two proofs:
- Some 0.0 seccers are as risk averse, like some miners are risk averse.
- They demand safety in the supposed end game harsh world. There are some miners who also demand the same.
The difference being, the above 0.0 seccers demand the same things than some hi sec miners demand yet the former went to 0.0 to have major income yet no risk and the latter stayed in hi sec accepting dwarfed income. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Wilma Lawson
Hedion University Amarr Empire
69
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:24:00 -
[77] - Quote
Alexandra Delarge wrote: Only a hisec miner would think that.
Really? Then why do you defend your space if you aren't averse to losing assets, aka being risk averse? Being risk averse is not a bad thing unless taken to extreme. |
Alexandra Delarge
The Korova
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:32:00 -
[78] - Quote
Wilma Lawson wrote:Alexandra Delarge wrote: Only a hisec miner would think that.
Really? Then why do you defend your space if you aren't averse to losing assets, aka being risk averse? Being risk averse is not a bad thing unless taken to extreme. The phrase used was 'Irrationally risk adverse'. Read back. While your at it read what Ruby Porto said because he already answered your question with regard to NBSI and docking rights in null. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3221
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:37:00 -
[79] - Quote
Wilma Lawson wrote:Alexandra Delarge wrote: Only a hisec miner would think that.
Really? Then why do you defend your space if you aren't averse to losing assets, aka being risk averse? Being risk averse is not a bad thing unless taken to extreme. Being loss-averse and being risk-averse are utterly unconnected things. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3221
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:44:00 -
[80] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Miners are irrationally risk averse. Imagine if we EVER had one thread crying because cloakies AFK in 0.0 systems. As someone who quails at the thought of losing a ship and who gets clammy at the thought of leaving highsec, i am sure you have difficulty understanding the mind of someone willing to live in 0.0. What outrages a nullseccer, a man who can stand on his own two feet, about an AFK cloaker is not the thought he might lose a ship. It's that someone is in his space and he cannot murder them. |
|
Wilma Lawson
Hedion University Amarr Empire
69
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:46:00 -
[81] - Quote
Alexandra Delarge wrote:Wilma Lawson wrote:Alexandra Delarge wrote: Only a hisec miner would think that.
Really? Then why do you defend your space if you aren't averse to losing assets, aka being risk averse? Being risk averse is not a bad thing unless taken to extreme. The phrase used was 'Irrationally risk adverse'. Read back. While your at it read what Ruby Porto said because he already answered your question with regard to NBSI and docking rights in null. You're still risk averse. |
ivar R'dhak
STK Scientific
59
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:47:00 -
[82] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Being loss-averse and being risk-averse are utterly unconnected things. Cognitive dissonance, thy name is Goon?
I thought loosing your expensive ships IS the risk in EVE, silly me. How much does the average ganking destroyer cost again?
I too can shitpoast in a thread full of goonshipoasters. YAY.
I liked EVE better when the likes of you where contained to CAOD.
|
Wilma Lawson
Hedion University Amarr Empire
69
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:47:00 -
[83] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Wilma Lawson wrote:Alexandra Delarge wrote: Only a hisec miner would think that.
Really? Then why do you defend your space if you aren't averse to losing assets, aka being risk averse? Being risk averse is not a bad thing unless taken to extreme. Being loss-averse and being risk-averse are utterly unconnected things. Uh. No, they aren't. |
Spikeflach
Echo's of Liberty Dominatus Atrum Mortis
72
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:48:00 -
[84] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Spikeflach wrote:I Believe its pretty rational for a miner to not mine when people are out looking to gank them. Of course you do. You are precisely the sort of unthinking miner we're discussing here. Normal EVE players know that no matter what they're doing, someone, somewhere may wish to gank them. But they manage to overcome the crippling fear of losing their ship, take reasonable precautions, and play the game. When they're making money, they know they have reduced the risk of loss to a level where when factoring in losing their ship they will still come out ahead overall. The miner, unable to deal with the fear of loss, can only consider if someone might gank him. If there's a chance he could get ganked he will turn tail and run, cowering in a station pleading for CCP to ban ganking. The fact that if he mines and takes basic precautions he will have a positive expected return, factoring in the risk of ganks, is irrelevant to the miner - and to you. That's not rational, thats the cold clammy hand of fear clutching your heart as you consider the slight risk you might lose your ship.
I'm sorry, i haven't mined for months, i'm only confirming the tactic of not mining to not get ganked.
Why you have to go on, i don't know.
And yes, even super duper pvp types will turn tail and run if they have even the littlest bit of a chance they could lose. |
Wilma Lawson
Hedion University Amarr Empire
69
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:48:00 -
[85] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: As someone who quails at the thought of losing a ship and who gets clammy at the thought of leaving highsec, i am sure you have difficulty understanding the mind of someone willing to live in 0.0. What outrages a nullseccer, a man who can stand on his own two feet, about an AFK cloaker is not the thought he might lose a ship. It's that someone is in his space and he cannot murder them.
Then why is the macho null seccer coming into high sec? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3221
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:54:00 -
[86] - Quote
Wilma Lawson wrote: Uh. No, they aren't.
yes, my ignorant but hopefully able to learn friend
risk-averse refers to your tolerance for risk when judging potential actions, a person who is risk-averse will select options with lower net expected value but lower variance compared to options that have a higher expected value but higher variance
the highsec miner, wetting himself as he contemplates losing a ship, is taking an activity with a net expected value of zero (hiding in a station crying and rocking slowly back and forth) but zero variance over an activity with much higher net expected value (on the order of 8-10m per hour even assuming a very high risk of ganking) but significant variance
a braver man takes the second option |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3221
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:55:00 -
[87] - Quote
being loss-averse is assumed in all discussions of risk aversion because without it the entire discussion makes no sense |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3221
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 23:56:00 -
[88] - Quote
Wilma Lawson wrote: Then why is the macho null seccer coming into high sec?
A real lord does not merely sit in his castle discussing issues with other lords: he also goes among the wretched peasants and dispenses wisdom, discipline and justice |
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo
NuclearSpaceFishCapitalism
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 00:02:00 -
[89] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:Wat? The OP is listing a number of claims being made about the current situation in EVE and is hoping that they are contradictory. They're not, really.
ha, of course you would say that.
sandbox based harassment and nothing more. Unfortunately CCP is to cowardly to intervene before players destroy the sandbox that ccp created. Of course a sandbox is absolutely pointless if there is no one playing in it. If these hacks that consider themselves "pvpers" were anything they suggest then they would be appalled by the idea of bothering with miners that cannot fight back.
Unfortunately ccp...i mean eve pvp has turned into nothing but picking on toddlers and punching them in the face repeatedly. Its no longer about the risk of getting blown up by someone that was better then you. eve pvp has become all about beating on those that don't even have a weapon fitted and beating one's chest as though they defeated an impossibly difficult enemy. It used to be about the rush, now everyone is a bunch of light weights that either play station games, the titan bridge shuffle, gate humping, or hulkageddon lemmings. Its no longer about that adrenaline rush that left people's hands shaking like some kind of junkie trying to get their fix.
Unfortunately the eve that I came back to is nothing but a buncha retards looking for the weakest targets possible. Theres more risk involved in playing solitaire. nothing but cowards, the whole lot of them, ccp should just purge the system and pull the plug so that maybe people still have a slightly positive memory of what eve used to be, all in the hopes that they can make a new game and not look like complete tools that let idiots ruin the game. |
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo
NuclearSpaceFishCapitalism
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 00:09:00 -
[90] - Quote
Wilma Lawson wrote:Weaselior wrote:Wilma Lawson wrote:Alexandra Delarge wrote: Only a hisec miner would think that.
Really? Then why do you defend your space if you aren't averse to losing assets, aka being risk averse? Being risk averse is not a bad thing unless taken to extreme. Being loss-averse and being risk-averse are utterly unconnected things. Uh. No, they aren't.
Why bother with these fools? They cannot connect the idea that being loss averse is nothing but a specific level of risk averse. What is it to take a risk one must ask. To take a risk is to take a chance that something negative will happen due to the actions taken by the individual. The be "loss averse" is to want to reduce the risk that one is taking, also see "risk averse".
Then again its not that they cannot connect it, it is that they choose not to when speaking to others in order justify their paid harassement of players through mindless pawns so that they can make profit off of the losses of the hulks, so they can try and sell more hulks. They do not want to let the discussion go in the proper direction, which is to point out that it is all about them making more money while playing these people like the fools that they are, those who choose to participate in the harassment of other players. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |