Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lanasak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
57
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 02:40:00 -
[91] - Quote
If I'm baiting a hotdrop in a situation where hostiles are 100% certain to show up, am I taking a risk?
Yes.
Stop being spreadsheet spergs thanks |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1217
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 02:45:00 -
[92] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:I'm not contradicting myself :P You're contradicting yourself by saying that, yes, risk = cost +ù probability, and yes, probability = 1, but no those two combined somehow don't yield risk = cost. Granted, this may just be a terminology issue GÇö you are thinking GÇ£value ofGǪGÇ¥ in one case but GÇ£concept ofGǪGÇ¥ in another, and the contradiction arises from how both are being referred to with the same words without any qualifier to set them apart.
At some point you have to call the ISK spent on a Catalyst a cost. At some point you have to have an outcome that you are seeking that leads you to evaluate the risk of a particular course of action. If your desired outcome is "illegally firing upon a neutral target and not losing my ship" then sure, go ahead and start evaluating the "risk" of shooting someone in hisec and declaring that your probability of failure is 100%. But then you are automatically disqualifying yourself from the economics game because economics assumes rational actors.
So I'll agree with you that it is indeed possible to evaluate the "risk" of an activity which has a known certain outcome by plugging those numbers into a formula in the appropriate positions. I look forward to discussing with you the "risk" of purchasing some Quafe from a retailer at the Impetus Holoreel Convention: the list price is 5ISK, so therefore the risk of handing the money to the teller and hoping that I don't get a Quafe is 5ISK, because I know that despite my greatest desire to not receive a Quafe, I will in fact receive a Quafe when I pay for one. Then I can whine on the forums about how paying for Quafe is one of the riskiest professions in EVE Online because no matter what you do, when you pay for a Quafe you always get one. Even your beloved ISO 31000 discusses risk in terms of uncertainty: thus any rational person would realise that discussing the risk of an action with a known outcome is at best intellectual onanism, at worst the ravings of an irrational mind.
Your argument is logical, but not rational.
As for a logical, rational argument, here's an example:
I buy a Hulk. That has a cost (not a risk) of about 400M by current prices.
I head out to an asteroid field and start mining. My expectation is that I'll get home with lots of ore to sell. The probability that this will not happen is, in my estimate, 10% each time I attempt this task. Thus in the long run, I expect my risk to be 40M ISK per trip, and I must optimise my selection of ore in order to earn more than 40M ISK each trip.
I can mitigate the risk by using a cheaper ship such as a Covetor, as long as the probability that I will lose that ship isn't going to cancel out the benefit of using a cheaper ship. I have choices that I can make to change that risk.
|
Grumpymunky
Super Monkey Tribe of Danger
91
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 02:46:00 -
[93] - Quote
I once ran off with 1.5bil worth of loot from someone else's gank. I'd say they took a risk. Post with your monkey. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1217
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 02:54:00 -
[94] - Quote
Grumpymunky wrote:I once ran off with 1.5bil worth of loot from someone else's gank. I'd say they took a risk.
That is correct. The desired outcome was "receive bacon". This was uncertain, since the bacon could have evaporated in the ship explosion, or been stolen by a bacon thief.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 03:07:00 -
[95] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:At some point you have to call the ISK spent on a Catalyst a cost. At some point you have to have an outcome that you are seeking that leads you to evaluate the risk of a particular course of action. If your desired outcome is "illegally firing upon a neutral target and not losing my ship" then sure, go ahead and start evaluating the "risk" of shooting someone in hisec and declaring that your probability of failure is 100%. But then you are automatically disqualifying yourself from the economics game because economics assumes rational actors. Fine by me. I'm not talking about economics GÇö I'm talking about cataloguing risks and debunking the myth that suicide gankers have none. Sure, a rational actor will most likely try to mitigate that risk in various ways by chipping away at the cost, even to the point where he now has a sizeable risk of a gain as well. However, even with that possible gain in store, the mechanics will ensure that it cannot fully nullify the absolute risk of that ship loss (which the mechanics also ensure).
GǪand that's pretty much the entire point I'm making.
Quote:I look forward to discussing with you the "risk" of purchasing some Quafe from a retailer at the Impetus Holoreel Convention: the list price is 5ISK, so therefore the risk of handing the money to the teller and hoping that I don't get a Quafe is 5ISK, because I know that despite my greatest desire to not receive a Quafe, I will in fact receive a Quafe when I pay for one. Well, that's just a matter of what sign you pick for your cost variable. Do you denote cost as positive or negative, and conversely, do you denote gain as negative or positive. In MatrixSkye's milk example, I chose the notation of positive cost/negative gain because that's how he framed the exchange.
When you then go on to whine on the forums, the obvious counter will be GÇ£your choice of sign is nonsensical GÇö you should invert itGÇ¥ (albeit in less technical terms, eg. GÇ£it's a gain, not a loss, you numpty!GÇ¥).
Quote:Even your beloved ISO 31000 discusses risk in terms of uncertainty That's because the uncertainty is the difficult thing to calculate. In this case, the same risk definition is applied, but the calculation is trivial because the probability of loss is 100%.
Quote:I buy a Hulk. That has a cost (not a risk) of about 400M by current prices. GǪand as with milk example, that's because the risks cancel each other out: you have a 100% probability of incurring a 400M ISK cost, and in doing so you have a 100% probability of incurring a 400M-ISK-worth-of-ship gain. 100% +ù (400M - 400M) = zero risk, even at considerable cost. Over time, that will change, since you will no longer have 400M ISK worth of ship GÇö it may suddenly only be worth 200M, or maybe it's up to 600 GÇö but at the point in time where you chose to make that trade, the risk is zero.
You could try a similar transaction with different probabilities and costs. Eg, you spend 10M ISK to set up a scam that will net you that 400M ISK Hulk. The scam has a 10% risk of failure, which somehow will cost you your set-up cash. Your risk is now: 10% +ù 10M - 90% +ù 400M = -359M ISK. As long as you succeed with your scam at least once every 36 tries, you come out ahead, and with a mere 10% failure rate, it's probably something you should try. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1217
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 03:26:00 -
[96] - Quote
Tippia wrote:You could try a similar transaction with different probabilities and costs. Eg, you spend 10M ISK to set up a scam that will net you that 400M ISK Hulk. The scam has a 10% risk of failure, which somehow will cost you your set-up cash. Your risk is now: 10% +ù 10M - 90% +ù 400M = -359M ISK. As long as you succeed with your scam at least once every 36 tries, you come out ahead, and with a mere 10% failure rate, it's probably something you should try.
You cannot include failure to achieve expected income as a risk. What you risk is only what you have paid. The expected income comes in at the Reward stage, where Reward = Expected Income x Probability of Success.
Your scam has a 10% risk of failure, therefore your risk is 1M ISK per attempt. Your expected reward is 400M x 90% = 360M ISK per attempt. Your expected ROI is thus 359M ISK per attempt (or about 3590%). In the long run. You can't risk money you haven't spent. You're starting to sound like a recording industry executive claiming that every lost sale costs them $20k, when each actual sale only makes them $15. |
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1478
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 03:30:00 -
[97] - Quote
I've noticed something changed.
I would have gotten that pod normally, after his ship exploded ...
I'll try again. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
297
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 03:31:00 -
[98] - Quote
High sec ganking still has risk in the sense that the next target you go after will not be as easy as you thought. You run the risk of a failed gank. I have recently started diving into ganking as a side hobby, but have consistently failed to successfully kill a mining ship. Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6076
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 03:43:00 -
[99] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:You cannot include failure to achieve expected income as a risk. What you risk is only what you have paid. The expected income comes in at the Reward stage, where Reward = Expected Income x Probability of Success. Sure I can, as long as I remember to keep my signs in order: what do I choose to designate with a + and a -?
Risk of loss = 10M ISK cost +ù 10% chance of the loss happening. Risk of gain = -400M ISK cost +ù 90% chance of the gain happening.
Total risk = -359M ISK.
Note the shift in wording and the chosen variable in the second equation: I'm talking about the risk of gain, but I choose to denote that gain as a negative cost instead so I can sum up my costs in one fell swoop and get my risk. All I have to do is remember what the + and - signs mean when I look at that final risk. Since I put cost as positive, a negative risk means I'm looking at a potential gain. What you call a reward is just GÇ£syntactic sugarGÇ¥ for a risk-calculation where I denote gains as positive and costs as negative, rather than the other way around. As long as I keep that sign change in mind, they are exactly the same and I can combine them quite freely.
Quote:Your scam has a 10% risk of failure, therefore your risk is 1M ISK per attempt. Your expected reward is 400M x 90% = 360M ISK per attempt. Your expected ROI is thus 359M ISK per attempt. In the long run. Exactly: my risk is a -359M ISK cost. A negative cost is a gain.
I'm doing the exact same thing you're doing, but as a single sum, which I can do by treating gains as negative costs or vice versa. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
298
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 04:26:00 -
[100] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Bullshit * 100% = $lots of $Bullshit - Credibility = 0 (because credibility is negative). Stunning comeback. So you understand the maths now, then? It's actually very simple and the only issue is the slightly unintuitive edge case of having 100% probability, since it falls somewhat outside how the word is used in everyday speech. I suppose the idea of negative risks might raise an eyebrow at first as well, but that's just a way to decide how you want to signify losses and gains, especially if you want to be able to deal with both at the same time.
HAHA. MatrixSkye Mk2 just got schooled because he can't even comprehend, even when its been explained multiple times.
Seriously, acting like losing a ship to Concord isn't 'a risk'...simply because its a guaranteed outcome - is complete nonsense.
Simple mental exercise: Suppose CCP modified Concord so it only killed the ganker 90% of the time. (which would be awesome, BTW) It would mean LESS risk for the ganker. Obviously.
But wait! If you are stupid, and believe that merely having 100% chance of being killed by Concord = 'no risk exists'.... well, how can you reduce your risk to less than zero? Or do you think that 'risk' for the ganker somehow 'increases' by simply adding a probability of surviving Concord?
Really, these are simple concepts, and Tippia has spent hours patiently spoon-feeding them for you. If you STILL don't comprehend them...well, I'm sorry, but there are no drugs that will fix your particular empty-headed condition. |
|
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1399
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 05:18:00 -
[101] - Quote
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 GÇö 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.
Concord punishing the unworthy and the latter crying about not getting a shot at something in a fair way?
Working as intended. |
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
108
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 05:54:00 -
[102] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: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.
Id say everyone would dispute that the inventor is taking a risk. Simply because its not a risk when you knowingly lose the materials in an calculated process that you know evens itself out profitably for you in the long run.
This same process goes for suicide ganking ... nobody ganks 1 target ... they gank many .. the operating cost (lost ship vs dropped loot) will balance itself out to be profitable for the gankers.
Both inventors and suicide gankers are essentially same booring industrial farmers.
Only possibility to create artificial risk to both actions would be to do it with your last money knowingly that unless you get big payoff you wont have enough isk continue the cycle. But for either profession that is not the case in 99.99% |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
621
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 05:58:00 -
[103] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: Really, these are simple concepts, and Tippia has spent hours patiently spoon-feeding them for you.
ROFL - Spoon feeding bull **** still tastes like crap. |
Tarsus Zateki
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
467
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 06:02:00 -
[104] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote: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 GÇö 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. Concord punishing the unworthy and the latter crying about not getting a shot at something in a fair way? Working as intended.
Of course since Concord still only spawns after I've triggered my 1400mm howitzers, your barge is still space debris regardless of my currently targeting predicament. |
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
108
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 06:04:00 -
[105] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote: Really, these are simple concepts, and Tippia has spent hours patiently spoon-feeding them for you.
ROFL - Spoon feeding bull **** still tastes like crap.
So the church must be 100% right because its been spoon feeding their mantra for couple thousand years ?
If you follow that logic. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
621
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 06:12:00 -
[106] - Quote
Cedo Nulli wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote: Really, these are simple concepts, and Tippia has spent hours patiently spoon-feeding them for you.
ROFL - Spoon feeding bull **** still tastes like crap. So the church must be 100% right because its been spoon feeding their mantra for couple thousand years ? If you follow that logic.
I'll assume you're speaking to Herr Exploitus |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
565
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 07:15:00 -
[107] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
They also forgot to buff exhumers tank when they buffed destroyers to become better at (real) PvP. Did you petition that too? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
565
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 07:43:00 -
[108] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote: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 +ù cost. Just because the probability is 100% doesn't mean there is no risk GÇö quite the opposite, in fact: it means there the risk is total.
Can you stop talking about stuff you have no idea about and then going the usual TRALALALA I AM RIGHT when people kindly points you out how it's COST OF BUSINESS.
If you had a 100M ship in low sec that shoots a 3M projectile that always kills a Mackinaw, then 3M is the cost of business.
If you "are" the 3M projectile that always kills a Mackinaw then 3M is the cost of business.
The risk is there: 20% of the time the Mackinaw will NOT die (for many factors), that's your RISK. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 08:15:00 -
[109] - Quote
Tippia wrote:When something will happen with 100% certainty, the risk is 100%.
You don't always lose your gank ship. |
Jonah Gravenstein
140
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 08:58:00 -
[110] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
You don't always lose your gank ship.
If you're suicide ganking in hisec and not losing your gank ship to CONCORD, you're committing an exploit by evading CONCORD. The clue is in the word suicide
Some of us call the loss of a suicide gank ship the cost of doing business, some of us call it risk.
Either way it basically breaks down to balancing your guaranteed cost/risk against the possible lols, loot drop and tears to be had. War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
566
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 10:17:00 -
[111] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
You don't always lose your gank ship.
If you're suicide ganking in hisec and not losing your gank ship to CONCORD, you're committing an exploit by evading CONCORD. The clue is in the word suicideSome of us call the loss of a suicide gank ship the cost of doing business, some of us call it risk. Either way it basically breaks down to balancing your guaranteed cost/risk against the possible lols, loot drop and tears to be had.
A suicide ship is exactly treated as a projectile: a consummable. Nobody thinks that losing the projectile they just used is a risk. The risk is the possibility for the projectile to miss the target and make the consummable expense into a loss.
Likewise suicide ships are consummables. Even their alts, also know as "throwaway alt" are consummable for those who prefer to suicide at gates and don't want to grind standings all the time. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jonah Gravenstein
141
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 10:25:00 -
[112] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
A suicide ship is exactly treated as a projectile: a consummable. Nobody thinks that losing the projectile they just used is a risk. The risk is the possibility for the projectile to miss the target and make the consummable expense into a loss.
Likewise suicide ships are consummables. Even their alts, also know as "throwaway alt" are consummable for those who prefer to suicide at gates and don't want to grind standings all the time.
I'm firmly in the "it's a cost of doing business camp", as you say suicide gank boats are a consumable albeit an expensive consumable, the same way ammunition is a consumable.
War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions Solyaris Chtonium
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 10:47:00 -
[113] - Quote
@Invention camp: Invention is running a expense for a profit. Failing to get the profit means the expense is wasted.
Ganker has next-to-no difference, ISKwise, on a failure or a success. And if he scanned the target, there's also no risk of failure, since there's no countermeasures to suicide ganking. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
298
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 10:51:00 -
[114] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote: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 +ù cost. Just because the probability is 100% doesn't mean there is no risk GÇö quite the opposite, in fact: it means there the risk is total. Can you stop talking about stuff you have no idea about and then going the usual TRALALALA I AM RIGHT when people kindly points you out how it's COST OF BUSINESS. If you had a 100M ship in low sec that shoots a 3M projectile that always kills a Mackinaw, then 3M is the cost of business. If you "are" the 3M projectile that always kills a Mackinaw then 3M is the cost of business. The risk is there: 20% of the time the Mackinaw will NOT die (for many factors), that's your RISK.
Eh, sounds like some hair splitting going on.
My issue is with people that go around propagandizing that suicide ganking involves no risk to the ganker, therefore deserves no reward - and therefore should be removed from the game. One could easily turn around the 'cost of business' angle and say that miners losing their Barges is simply a 'cost of business' as well. Over a long enough period of time AFK-mining without a tank, you are going to lose Exhumers to gankers.
However, it sounds like you acknowledge that ganking involves significant risk.
Certainly, the odds of any given suicide attack are in favor of the ganker - but that is because he chooses when and where to strike - and 95% of the mining population do not even take the simplest of precautions. But that doesn't mean failure is impossible. Gunnery has a random number component which widely modifies artillery shots. 3rd Parties can always interfere on your behalf. Even lag plays a significant role when your window of operation is seconds.
A miner might even L2tank - or be at the keyboard and warp out. Crazy, I know. |
Lanasak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 11:08:00 -
[115] - Quote
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 |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
21
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 11:09:00 -
[116] - Quote
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 dropsGǪ 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. Losing any ship to concord is not a risk factor. Once you decide to suicide your ship you take all risk out of the equation because it was a choice you made that is 100% certified for you to lose your ship.
Risk is the "dangers" of any action that you will take. By knowing the "dangers" you face you calculate how much is at "risk" and how you can lower your "risk level". When you know for certain that you are going to lose this for doing that then to say something like suicide ganking is risky means that you are a ******.
Now where the monetary risk lies is in the person that is going to scoop the cargo. Anyone can target and hit F1 and kill a hulk or a cargoship. Who is the fastest at grabbing the contents that survive though. |
Jonah Gravenstein
142
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 11:09:00 -
[117] - Quote
I believe that suicide ganking is a valid form of gameplay, it doesn't mean I have to like it.
I totally agree that losing a barge is a cost of business, as is losing a hauler, if you refer back to my previous posts I have said as much. Sensible miners and haulers will factor that cost into their "business plan" as should suicide gankers.
The loss of a barge is a risk and a business cost, it is not a 100% outcome, the loss of a suicide gank ship is a business cost not a risk simply because it is a 100% outcome as determined by game mechanics.
If you can make a living suicide ganking barges and haulers then fair play to you. When you have purposefully gone out to pop another ship knowing full well the guaranteed 100% consequence is the loss of your ship, the risks are not the loss of your ship but are in fact that someone else will steal the loot, the target will fail to shed tears, the target will have actually fitted a tank and not go squish or the loot will not drop, your ship is merely the cost of doing business, much like your sec status and ammo. War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
298
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 11:19:00 -
[118] - Quote
I also don't understand why you guys act like there is a fixed price to ganking. But it is not - its highly variable and based on a random number generator.
A typical gank-fit T2 Catalyst (capable of soloing an Exhumer) costs around 1M for the hull, and maybe 10-18M for the mods. A typical 50M ISK T2 Tornado (capable of killing 2 Mackinaws or a Hulk + a pod) is sporting around 40-50M in mods.
Anywhere between 0 and 100% of them could survive - and in the case of Destroyers, thats 95% of the entire cost. Leave the target and explosion out of it - I could lose anywhere from 1M to 20M per Catalyst.
You can pretend that 'consuming' your own ship is a 'fixed' cost - but thats wrong because there is a significant 'random' factor there because you are 'rolling the dice' on your OWN costs on each attempt.
....as well as the chance of success ...AND the chances of getting good drops.
Over a long enough time period, drop rates should approach 50%, but on any given attempt the actual costs are somewhat out of your control - unknown until you actually perform the gank.
Sometimes you get all 8x of your T2 1400MM arties back, sometimes you don't get any - assuming someone doesn't manage to steal them first. |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
23
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 11:26:00 -
[119] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
You can pretend that 'consuming' your own ship is a 'fixed' cost - but thats wrong because there is a significant 'random' factor there because you are 'rolling the dice' on your OWN costs on each attempt.
....as well as the chance of success ...AND the chances of getting good drops.
Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. |
Jonah Gravenstein
143
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 11:53:00 -
[120] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:I also don't understand why you guys act like there is a fixed price to ganking. But it is not - its highly variable and based on a random number generator.
A typical gank-fit T2 Catalyst (capable of soloing an Exhumer) costs around 1M for the hull, and maybe 10-18M for the mods. A typical 50M ISK T2 Tornado (capable of killing 2 Mackinaws or a Hulk + a pod) is sporting around 40-50M in mods.
Anywhere between 0 and 100% of them could survive - and in the case of Destroyers, thats 95% of the entire cost. Leave the target and explosion out of it - I could lose anywhere from 1M to 20M per Catalyst.
You can pretend that 'consuming' your own ship is a 'fixed' cost - but thats wrong because there is a significant 'random' factor there because you are 'rolling the dice' on your OWN costs on each attempt.
....as well as the chance of success ...AND the chances of getting good drops.
Over a long enough time period, drop rates should approach 50%, but on any given attempt the actual costs are somewhat out of your control - unknown until you actually perform the gank.
Sometimes you get all 8x of your T2 1400MM arties back, sometimes you don't get any - assuming someone doesn't manage to steal them first.
I'm not saying that there is a fixed cost to suicide ganking, it is indeed a variable cost depending on what drops from the target. What is a fixed cost is the price of your ship, you lose it no matter what, the variable part of it comes into play with loot from your target and the modules you recover from your own ship, the variable is the profit, sometimes you win sometimes you lose.
Either way you have to offset the initial cost of your gank ship, which is fixed, against the possible returns from your gank attempt, which is variable (call it profit/loss if you will). War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |