Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zverofaust
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
87
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
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. |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow NightSong Directorate
161
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP also is nerfing nullsec pvp by getting rid of hellcats, alpha fleets, etc. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
263
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
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.
I've read posts where dev's TALKED about doing that but was not aware they had actually decided to do so. :/ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6064
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
If you actually mean GÇ£jamGÇ¥ (as in ECM) and not GÇ£scramGÇ¥ (as in warp jamming), then bug-report it. 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. |
Aranakas
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
301
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
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. Aranakas CEO of-áGreen Anarchy Green vs Green |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
599
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
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. That was announced.
First hint: http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4972&tid=1
Patch Notes for Crucible 1.6 wrote:Miscellaneous * Pilots with a Global Criminal Countdown in high security space will be prevented from warping (if they are in any ship other than a capsule). This is to prevent a tactic declared to be an exploit recently. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6064
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Aranakas wrote:About time this change was made. Suicide ganking as a profession is too risk-free for the ganker and harmful to the target. This doesn't change the risk for suicide gankers in any way, you knowGǪ 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. |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
241
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
Trolololol? |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3774
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Was removed because pilots would warp point to point to point and nail people even on the same grid.
|
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
209
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:31:00 -
[10] - Quote
It wasn't a shadow nerf, you are just ******* clueless. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
|
Digital Messiah
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
169
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP is letting goons know that the space police are ready. HTFU goons, htfu... "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"
|
Zverofaust
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
87
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
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. |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
241
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:37:00 -
[13] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:It wasn't a shadow nerf, you are just ******* clueless. Not empty quoting. |
Aruken Marr
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
59
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
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? |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow NightSong Directorate
161
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
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?
He means real risk, like tanking low level belt NPCs and mining roids that can't defend themselves. Duh. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
168
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 19:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote: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? He means real risk, like tanking low level belt NPCs and mining roids that can't defend themselves. Duh.
Empire is a dangerous place to be an poor little asteroid. Unless you're Omber, then you'll be fine. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6065
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 19:46:00 -
[17] - Quote
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. 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. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1516
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sweet...go CONCORD! EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
105
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
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?
When something will happen 100% certainty ... its not a risk. The risk is 0 ... less then carebearing or mining.
Suicide ganking is the most risk-free activity in the whole game. |
Jonah Gravenstein
133
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:18:00 -
[20] - Quote
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. 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. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6067
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
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] +ù [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 itGǪ 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. 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. |
Nub Sauce
State War Academy Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
Are you saying an unintended, exploitable, game mechanic was fixed?
If so, how dare they?! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6067
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:44:00 -
[23] - Quote
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. 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
297
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
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] +ù [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 itGǪ 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?
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
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
401
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:50:00 -
[25] - Quote
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
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1109909#post1109909
My stance on WiS (updated) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6068
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:51:00 -
[26] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Nicely put. GǪexcept I accidentally wrote GÇ£riskGÇ¥ a second time when I mean GÇ£costGÇ¥. Fixed now. 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. |
Kengutsi Akira
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
401
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:53:00 -
[27] - Quote
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... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1109909#post1109909
My stance on WiS (updated) |
Aruken Marr
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
59
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:53:00 -
[28] - Quote
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] +ù [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 itGǪ 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
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
401
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:55:00 -
[29] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:....haven't even logged in lately.
as usual, trolling forums is more fun than the game https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1109909#post1109909
My stance on WiS (updated) |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
297
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:10:00 -
[30] - Quote
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
GWA Corp
161
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:17:00 -
[31] - Quote
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. If the Sims all became zombies it would be easy to escape them, just shove them in a room and make them answer the telephone. |
Kengutsi Akira
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
401
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
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 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1109909#post1109909
My stance on WiS (updated) |
IGNATIUS HOOD
Zephyr Corp Black Thorne Alliance
298
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:21:00 -
[33] - Quote
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. 'perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim'
Be patient and tough; some day this pain will be useful to you. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
148
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:25:00 -
[34] - Quote
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
33
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:27:00 -
[35] - Quote
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
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
87
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:27:00 -
[36] - Quote
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
6070
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:28:00 -
[37] - Quote
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.
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. GÇ£Either wayGÇ¥ 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. 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. |
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:39:00 -
[38] - Quote
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
Zephyr Corp Black Thorne Alliance
299
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:42:00 -
[39] - 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.
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. 'perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim'
Be patient and tough; some day this pain will be useful to you. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
297
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:44:00 -
[40] - Quote
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.
|
|
Kengutsi Akira
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
402
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:47:00 -
[41] - Quote
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) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1109909#post1109909
My stance on WiS (updated) |
IGNATIUS HOOD
Zephyr Corp Black Thorne Alliance
299
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:54:00 -
[42] - Quote
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?
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?
'perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim'
Be patient and tough; some day this pain will be useful to you. |
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
179
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:55:00 -
[43] - Quote
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
6071
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:56:00 -
[44] - Quote
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 costGǪ 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. 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. |
IGNATIUS HOOD
Zephyr Corp Black Thorne Alliance
299
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:05:00 -
[45] - Quote
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 costGǪ 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. 'perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim'
Be patient and tough; some day this pain will be useful to you. |
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
461
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:10:00 -
[46] - Quote
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? 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.
I AM ******* PISSED OFF THAT EVE WILL NOT RUN ON MY COMMODORE 64. **** THAT **** I QUIT. take all my isk for 1 trit. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6071
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:16:00 -
[47] - Quote
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 GÇ£risk? so what?GÇ¥ state.
The real problem comes when you start including intangible rewards such as killboard points, tears, or just plain old legitimate GÇ£get the fsckers out of my asteroid beltGÇ¥ 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, etcGǪ 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. |
Botleten
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
276
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:18:00 -
[48] - Quote
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
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
455
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:23:00 -
[49] - Quote
Given that the goal is to blow up the helpless pathetic victim before Concord shows up, this isn't an issue in any way. |
Simetraz
State War Academy Caldari State
193
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:32:00 -
[50] - Quote
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.
|
|
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
542
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:34:00 -
[51] - Quote
Only problem with risk....is something like this
Player A = Player B Monthly Sub = Monthly Sub Hulk = Catalyst x2 ? 200m+ = 5 million ?
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
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:42:00 -
[52] - Quote
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] +ù [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 itGǪ 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
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
59
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:46:00 -
[53] - Quote
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
6073
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:56:00 -
[54] - Quote
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 GÇ£older is betterGÇ¥ 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 GÇ£catching upGÇ¥ 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 GÇ£bigger is betterGÇ¥ 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 GÇö note the GÇ£becauseGÇ¥ 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 +ù cost). The relationships are completely different and quite incomparable. 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. |
Sasha Azala
Blood and Decay
209
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:08:00 -
[55] - Quote
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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:29:00 -
[56] - Quote
Sasha Azala wrote:Only other risk is they might waste time looking for a target, but suicide ganking is pretty much risk free GǪaside 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. 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. |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions Solyaris Chtonium
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:33:00 -
[57] - Quote
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] +ù [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 itGǪ 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? 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
Blood and Decay
209
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:34:00 -
[58] - Quote
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 GǪaside 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 lost 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
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:41:00 -
[59] - Quote
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 +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.
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% +ù 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 GÇ£no risk for gankersGÇ¥ 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 GÇö and that risk is 100% +ù ship cost. 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. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
599
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:45:00 -
[60] - 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.
And yet if CCP added this feature, all you will get back is "working as intended". Don't be angry...
|
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1212
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:48:00 -
[61] - Quote
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] +ù [cost].
Risk is the probability of an undesirable outcome. The loss of your ship when you suicide gank someone is not risk, it is a known cost. The only risks in suicide ganking are that (a) you don't end up blowing up the target because you were a lazy bones and skipped the step of "scan the target's fitting", (b) the target doesn't produce tears, or (c) that the phat lewt doesn't drop.
Tippia wrote: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% +ù cost of ship.
That's a cost. It's like stating that one of the "risks" of running a business is paying rent on the premises, or paying electricity bills, or paying salaries. That's not risk, that's cost. So in your "Risk = Cost * Probability of Failure" equation, known costs are one of the multiplicands, risk is the product. |
Sasha Azala
Blood and Decay
210
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:48:00 -
[62] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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 +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.
Risk implys there's an element of uncertainty, there is no uncertainty, they will lose their ship.
Like others have mentioned before the ship is being used like ammo, it's disposable. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:49:00 -
[63] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:And yet if CCP added this feature, all you will get back is "working as intended". If CCP added this as a feature, they would do it as a part of the crimewatch and CONCORD revamp, and would present it in a devblog. Until then, it's a bug since it directly contradicts their stated goals for CONCORD, should it happen the way the OP describes it.
Fortunately, as testing has shown, it doesn't actually work that way, but rather works the way it's supposed to work.
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. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
599
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:51:00 -
[64] - Quote
It would not be the first time something in the near future accidentalied it's way in before release however. Granted I don't know what testing you're referring to, I am tired and did not read all 4 pages of people flinging poo at each other.
|
EVE Stig
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
96
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:56:00 -
[65] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote: If you didn't use this exploit and nerf still affects you - you can say 'thanks' to guys who abused it.
Happens alot lately huh "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"! |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1213
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:14:00 -
[66] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Risk denotes the statistical cost of (usually) a negative event (you can have positive risks as well, but the word isn't commonly used that way). It is not the same as the probability of the event.
Exactly. Risk is neither the cost, nor the probability of failure. Risk is the product of cost and probability of failure. If the probability of failure is low (i.e.: you properly surveyed the target and have the right amount of firepower to blow it up before CONCORD arrives), the risk is low.
Tippia wrote:If the statistical likelihood of the event occurring is 100%, then that's a bit of an edge case, but it doesn't change what the risk is.
That's not an edge case at all. A probability of 1 means that you are dealing with a certainty.
Tippia wrote:Hell, there's even an ISO standard for the thing, and it boils down to the same old formula: risk = probability +ù cost. A probability of 100% does not suddenly turn a risk into a non-risk.
And the mistake that you are making is confusing "cost" with "risk". The risk applies to the ganking operation, not to the illegal attack against a neutral target in hisec. The cost is the total of the ships and fittings you are going to blow up. The probability of failure is the probability that, having expended your costs, you will not get a return. Thus if the target is carrying 1 thing of value, the probability is 50%. If the target is carrying many things of value (bunch of blueprints not in a can), the probability of failure is significantly lower. There is also the probability of not getting significant salvage from the wreck of a player ship.
Tippia wrote:Ships being used as ammo doesn't remove the risk factor of the ship GÇö it's still 100% +ù ship cost. It just sets a higher bar for the compound risk of not coming out ahead and lets us simplify the equation for that compound risk since once of the factors is pinned at 100%.
Cost is not Risk. Risk is not Cost. Risk is Cost multiplied by Probability of Failure. A 100% chance of achieving the desired outcome means you have a certainty, and there is no risk. And note that in this instance, the probability of failure is 0% since it is 100% guaranteed by the game mechanics that this cost will be successfully spent.
Please, make sure you understand how these calculations work. If you're calculating metres per second, you don't look at the 300m travelled and then say, "the speed is 300 metres!" You have to look at the seconds too. If you're calculating the velocity of a ship, you don't look at its speed and say, "the velocity is 60 metres a second", because velocity is a vector.
A ganking catalyst costs about 4M ISK. That is the cost. The risk of the cargo-fit hulk standing motionless in a 0.5 not being destroyed is about 0%. Thus the risk is 0 ISK. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:23:00 -
[67] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:That's not an edge case at all. A probability of 1 means that you are dealing with a certainty. The edge case is that it's still a risk in spite of it being a certainty, which is a bit contrary to how the word is commonly used.
Quote:And the mistake that you are making is confusing "cost" with "risk". Except that I'm not doing that. I'm saying that if the probability is 1, then the risk will have the same value as the cost.
Quote:Cost is not Risk. Risk is not Cost. Risk is Cost multiplied by Probability of Failure. A 100% chance of achieving the desired outcome means you have a certainty, and there is no risk. GǪand again, I'm not saying that cost and risk are the same. I'm saying that at 100% probability, the value of the risk is the same as the value of the cost. I'm also saying that just because you have a certainty (a 100% probability), doesn't mean that you no longer have a risk GÇö it just means you have a risk that has a value equal to the cost.
Quote:Please, make sure you understand how these calculations work Yes, please make sure that you do, because you keep contradicting yourself. So let's go through them. It's very very simple.
risk = probability +ù cost. Probability = 1 GåÆ risk = 1 +ù cost = cost.
If you have a 100% chance of losing $100, your risk is $100. If you have a 50% chance of losing $200, your risk is $100.
In both cases, you have a risk, even though in one case, the loss is a certainty. 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. |
Ender Karazaki
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:27:00 -
[68] - Quote
As a guy who used to work with statistics I can tell you with 99.8% certainty that you all have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to probability, risk and uncertainty. Then again, nobody does. |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
123
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:35:00 -
[69] - Quote
If you are too lazy to grind your ISK maybe you should consider selling a few PLEX. Not PvP enough for you?
Stuffs, I can has? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg-_HeVNYOk
Save Derpy! |
VagabondAlt
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:54:00 -
[70] - Quote
From my test this does not appear to be true.
Death to all miners. |
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1213
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:01:00 -
[71] - Quote
Tippia wrote:If you have a 100% chance of losing $100, your risk is $100. If you have a 50% chance of losing $200, your risk is $100.
In both cases, you have a risk, even though in one case, the loss is a certainty.
The probability of undesired outcome is what you need to look at. Someone suicide ganking a target has some outcome they desire. The outcome might be as simple as "I want to see a Hulk explode". Perhaps they're hoping that the officer small shield booster drops. If the hulk doesn't explode, or the booster doesn't drop, that's the undesirable outcome.
Thus Risk = Cost (of ganking ship) x Probability (of undesirable outcome)
If the only desired outcome is the target exploding, the risk is near 0 ISK because the probability of the hulk not exploding is near 0% because the risk mitigation has been done. Expending ammunition is not a risk, it's a cost. Not destroying the target is an undesired outcome, with some probability of happening. The risk is what percentage of the cost you are likely to lose, in the long run.
Similarly, the Reward = Value (of desirable outcome) x Probabilty (of desirable outcome)
Here's how you evaluate risk as a ganker:
- Target is flying a ship carrying 500M ISK worth of stuff in one pile. When the ship blows up, there will be a 50% probability that the pile will be intact
- To gank that ship we need 5 catalysts, or approximately 20M ISK
- With 5 catalysts, the target will die before CONCORD arrives, even with gate guns
- The Risk is thus 10M ISK, the reward is 250M ISK
- The Risk is less than the reward, so let's go blow that guy up!
The important thing to observe here is that Risk & Reward relate to outcomes and inputs.
(of course, if someone is so shortsighted as to only consider the act of shooting the target, yes the RISK of illegally aggressing a target in hisec is 100% of the cost of whatever you're flying at the time, assuming the only outcome you wanted is for your ship to be intact GÇö even tear miners have longer vision than that, they're after the outcome of the ship exploding, especially if it means another 100 page thread on the forums)
I'm not contradicting myself :P |
Tarsus Zateki
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
455
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:04:00 -
[72] - Quote
This argument is redundant anyhow. This change, assuming its even happened, changes nothing. If someone wants to suicide gank something, its still dies. Nothing has changed. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:20:00 -
[73] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The probability of undesired outcome is what you need to look at. Someone suicide ganking a target has some outcome they desire. The outcome might be as simple as "I want to see a Hulk explode". Perhaps they're hoping that the officer small shield booster drops. If the hulk doesn't explode, or the booster doesn't drop, that's the undesirable outcome.
Thus Risk = Cost (of ganking ship) x Probability (of undesirable outcome) GǪand that's because you're jumping straight to the simplification. I'm doing it in steps.
Total risk of suicide = cost (of suicide) +ù probability (of side-effects of suicide gank). That probability is 1, because so sayeth CCP. Total risk of suicide = cost (of suicide) +ù 1.
Next step: what goes into that cost? Well, the ship for oneGǪ
Cost = ship - risk of rewards.
What are the risk of rewards? Who knowsGǪ but that's where the step you describe come in. Thus:
Total risk = [Cost (of ganking ship) x Probability (of undesirable outcome)] +ù 1
Basically, what I'm saying is that, yes, your calculation is essentially correct, but it is what we end up with when we simplify the compound equation for the whole event (and we can do that trivially because the probability for the total risk is 1). The ship loss is itself a risk, even though it's certain. What the ganker can do is to manipulate the cost part of the equation to reduce that risk. Since the probability for the suicide is 1, all we really have to bother with is the cost directly and/or with the risks (and rewards) encapsulated within it.
GǪand at any rate, we arrive at a non-zero risk because the game mechanics ensure that the probability for the desired outcome is itself non-zero.
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. 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. |
EVE Stig
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
99
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:25:00 -
[74] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:That's not an edge case at all. A probability of 1 means that you are dealing with a certainty. The edge case is that it's still a risk in spite of it being a certainty, which is a bit contrary to how the word is commonly used. Quote:And the mistake that you are making is confusing "cost" with "risk". Except that I'm not doing that. I'm saying that if the probability is 1, then the risk will have the same value as the cost. Quote:Cost is not Risk. Risk is not Cost. Risk is Cost multiplied by Probability of Failure. A 100% chance of achieving the desired outcome means you have a certainty, and there is no risk. GǪand again, I'm not saying that cost and risk are the same. I'm saying that at 100% probability, the value of the risk is the same as the value of the cost. I'm also saying that just because you have a certainty (a 100% probability), doesn't mean that you no longer have a risk GÇö it just means you have a risk that has a value equal to the cost. Quote:Please, make sure you understand how these calculations work Yes, please make sure that you do, because you keep contradicting yourself. So let's go through them. It's very very simple. risk = probability +ù cost. Probability = 1 GåÆ risk = 1 +ù cost = cost. If you have a 100% chance of losing $100, your risk is $100. If you have a 50% chance of losing $200, your risk is $100. In both cases, you have a risk, even though in one case, the loss is a certainty. Or, in EVE terms, just because the probability of losing your ship when you suicide gank is 100% doesn't mean that your ship loss isn't a risk. It is, in fact, a total / complete / 100% risk, and as such it's something you'll probably want to mitigate by reducing the one thing you can reduce GÇö the cost.
tippia's specialty
"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"! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:34:00 -
[75] - Quote
EVE Stig wrote:tippia's specialty Nah. My speciality is crisis managment and the cognitive issues of knowledge transfer under stressGǪ
GǪbut risk evaluation is a common puzzle piece in that.
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. |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
1090
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:35:00 -
[76] - Quote
Since when is risk = reward * probability ? Try using the dictionary definition. Don't tie in a formula with specific, niche and irrelevant concepts to EVE. Spaceships is not real. Especially when the ganker is after miner tears or personal happiness. There is no price on that.
I, too, could attach an arbitrary formula to a concept. However, I won't, because it is meaningless.
Suicide ganking is not a risk because there is no chance of failure. Once you decide to suicide gank you are guaranteed what you are after.
Suicide ganker loses a couple of mil, miner loses several hundred mil, suicide ganker gains a few dozen 'fun and happiness' units. This process is a complete certainty.
Don't beat around the bush. Do you agree that suicide ganking has unbalanced risk vs reward? What is the price on fun? |
Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
103
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:40:00 -
[77] - Quote
If I troll the forums and might not get any bites, am I taking a risk? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:41:00 -
[78] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Since when is risk = reward * probability ? Since ages ago (wellGǪ 1960s or so, when a need arose to be able to quantify potential damages from disasters).
Quote:Suicide ganking is not a risk because there is no chance of failure. Once you decide to suicide gank you are guaranteed what you are after. GǪexcept that there is indeed a chance of failure. Your fun units may not appear for any number of reasons (no target, no kill, no tears, etc). Yes, it's easier to mitigate the risk when the reward is intangible, but the risk is still there. If the reward is in terms of ISK or assets, the risks quickly increase. 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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3332
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:49:00 -
[79] - Quote
So what I'm hearing is that CCP should change the way that CONCORD works so that there is a 1% chance that they don't kill gankers. Ganking now has risk: everyone is happy! Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
246
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:51:00 -
[80] - Quote
When I go to the supermarket to get a gallon of milk I run the risk of having to pay for it.
That's how much sense those of you justifying that cost = risk are making. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:54:00 -
[81] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:When I go to the supermarket to get a gallon of milk I run the risk of having to pay for it. Yes, but since you end up with something for your money, your net cost is zero, so there is no risk.
GǪwell, until we include the probability that you're not getting value for your money. 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. |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
1090
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:56:00 -
[82] - Quote
Consider how suicide ganking impacts on the balance of power in EVE, in the most basic sense - ISK.
Suicide ganker loses something like 10mil. Miner loses something like 100mil.
And in addition: Suicide ganker gains fun. Miner loses some fun.
For the price of 10 mil, the suicide ganker (With no difficulty or skill) strikes an extremely disproportionate punch ISK-wise. Furthermore, they even gain some priceless fun.
What is certain is that the amount of fun gained is too high given the ISK cost. It's time to either reduce the fun gained, increase the cost to the ganker, or reduce the cost to the miner.
The balance of 'fun vs ISK cost' is not self-balancing, and so suicide-ganking is overly lucrative given the rewards offered.
CCP agree, and are making changes, so there's no point arguing otherwise. |
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:58:00 -
[83] - Quote
Business voodoo magic doesnt apply here damn it!
Risk is the potential that a chosen action or activity (including the choice of inaction) will lead to a loss (an undesirable outcome). The notion implies that a choice having an influence on the outcome exists (or existed). Potential losses themselves may also be called "risks". Almost any human endeavor carries some risk, but some are much more risky than others.
If there is no potential/certainty ship loss is not a risk. failure is. |
Nedes Betternaem
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
141
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:59:00 -
[84] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:When I go to the supermarket to get a gallon of milk I run the risk of having to pay for it. Yes, but since you end up with something for your money, your net cost is zero, so there is no risk. GǪwell, until we include the probability that you're not getting value for your money. Don't forget the possibility that someone might run into the store with a bomb strapped to their chest and blowing you up. Afterwards of course the bomber's alts will walk into the store pick up the milk you just bought. Oh wait no, that only happens in EVE. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 02:00:00 -
[85] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:For the price of 10 mil, the suicide ganker (With no difficulty or skill) strikes an extremely disproportionate punch ISK-wise. This is by design. Paying more doesn't guarantee anything.
Quote:CCP agree, and are making changes, so there's no point arguing otherwise. They're not making any changes to suicide ganking. They have made some changes that make it easier to perform that disproportionate strike, though, and they're continuing to do so, but those changes are related to other combat situations.
Kattshiro wrote:Risk is the potential that a chosen action or activity (including the choice of inaction) will lead to a loss (an undesirable outcome). The notion implies that a choice having an influence on the outcome exists (or existed). No, it really doesn't. A certain loss is still a risk GÇö a substantial one. It has nothing to do with GÇ£business voodooGÇ¥ and everything to do with how risk is quantified. 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. |
Jonah Gravenstein
140
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 02:02:00 -
[86] - Quote
The only risks that a suicide ganker takes are that they fail to pop the target, the loot doesn't drop or the target doesn't cry, the ship loss is not a risk it's a guaranteed outcome and is simply the cost of doing business, it's the same as office rental, a cost that can't be avoided without exploiting the system or choosing not to do business in that fashion.
If gankers don't like the cost of doing business, they should choose a less aggressive profession. Miners & haulers accept that there is a risk of getting ganked, usually to amuse those who find it funny to shoot up defenceless ships, and the sensible ones will factor that into the cost of doing business. I haul and trade on an alt, I factor in the risk of being ganked into my costs and price my goods on the market accordingly, if in fact I do get ganked and lose a load it makes a dent in my wallet but doesn't take long to make back up out of my profit margins. Though TBH I never carry enough to make it worthwhile ganking me. 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. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
246
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 02:02:00 -
[87] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:When I go to the supermarket to get a gallon of milk I run the risk of having to pay for it. Yes, but since you end up with something for your money, your net cost is zero, so there is no risk. GǪwell, until we include the probability that you're not getting value for your money. Again, you're confusing risk with cost. Losing your ship to Concord after an intentional suicide isn't a risk, it's a cost. It isn't something that may end up costing you. It will cost you.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 02:08:00 -
[88] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Again, you're confusing risk with cost. Again, I don't. I am simply compounding your risks and adhering to your exact description of the probabilities.
In your scenario:
Risk of paying = $lots +ù 100% (because they have shoplifting-proof milk). Risk of having milk = -$lots +ù 100% (because they have very good milk QA and you get exactly what you're paying for).
The milk risk is -1 because it's a GÇ£negative costGÇ¥, aka a gain GÇö you gain $lots worth of milk.
Total risk = $lots - $lots = 0.
Quote:Losing your ship to Concord after an intentional suicide isn't a risk, it's a cost. No. It's a risk. It's the cost of the ship multiplied with the likelihood of losing the ship (100%). The value of the risk ends up being the value of the cost of the ship. Just because it's a certainty doesn't mean it's not a risk, and just because the two values end up being the same doesn't mean I'm confusing the two concepts. 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. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
246
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 02:14:00 -
[89] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Again, you're confusing risk with cost. Again, I don't. I am simply compounding your risks and adhering to your exact description of the probabilities. In your scenario: Risk of paying = $lots +ù 100% (because they have shoplifting-proof milk). Risk of having milk = -$lots +ù 100% (because they have very good milk QA and you get exactly what you're paying for). The milk risk is -1 because it's a GÇ£negative costGÇ¥, aka a gain GÇö you gain $lots worth of milk. Total risk = $lots - $lots = 0. Quote:Losing your ship to Concord after an intentional suicide isn't a risk, it's a cost. No. It's a risk. It's the cost of the ship multiplied with the likelihood of losing the ship (100%). The value of the risk ends up being the value of the cost of the ship. Just because it's a certainty doesn't mean it's not a risk, and just because the two values end up being the same doesn't mean I'm confusing the two concepts.
Bullshit * 100% = $lots of $Bullshit - Credibility = 0 (because credibility is negative).
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 02:23:00 -
[90] - Quote
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. 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. |
|
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. |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
299
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 12:05:00 -
[121] - Quote
Schalac wrote: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.
Thats why I gank in T2 Tornados. |
EVE Stig
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
116
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 12:25:00 -
[122] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Schalac wrote: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. Thats why I gank in T2 Tornados.
you dont even log Youve said as much, stop trollin "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 Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
299
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 12:42:00 -
[123] - Quote
EVE Stig wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Schalac wrote: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. Thats why I gank in T2 Tornados. you dont even log Youve said as much, stop trollin
Thats why I gank(ed) in T2 Tornados, until CCP got nerf happy around April 1.
Just a short break, though. I herd somewhere there are going to be some explosions in a couple weeks. Wouldn't want to miss that.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 12:46:00 -
[124] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: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
I don't know exact methods you guys use, but I've seen killmails of Tornado solo killing tanked Orcas and freighters in highsec before it gets destroyed by Concord. I've also heard about some stories how you guys use Orca's SMB to avoid losing your ship.
Why you guys just don't do real pvp? For example go 1vs1 against Curse in interceptor. Should be easy Curse kill for leet pvper. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6090
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 13:47:00 -
[125] - Quote
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?
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Can you stop talking about stuff you have no idea about Sure. However, in this thread we're talking about risk, which I have a very good idea about GÇö in fact, it's part of how I earn my real-life salary. People calling something a cost of doing business doesn't change the fact that it's a risk. Quite the opposite: all costs of doing business are risks GÇö it's just risks that we see as unavoidable; that require mitigation; and that we should always remember to include in our calculations. Calling it anything else means you're missing out a huge part of the cost-benefit analysis to the point where any such analysis is just plain old wrong.
Again, for the n:th time: a risk is simply the cost of an event multiplied with the probability of it happening. If the probability is 100%, then the risk tends to be very high (as in: equal to the value of your cost). Just because the risk is very high doesn't mean it's not a risk. As Malc pointed out, by your logic, if CONCORD spawned only 99% of the time, gankers would have a higher risk than if it spawned 100% of the time (or, even worse, you're essentially saying that if CONCORD had a 1% chance of spawning, it would be more risky than at a 100% spawn rate). By your logic, a very high risk is not a risk. Put quite bluntly: your logic makes absolutely no sense. I would like to hear you explain how something equally bad occurring more often means it's actually less risky. Just because you're unaccustomed to the proper use of the term doesn't mean I'm using it improperly.
Schalac wrote:Risk is the "dangers" of any action that you will take. For instance, when you suicide gank, one of the dangers is the 100% chance that you will lose your ship. The base risk of this action is the cost of your ship. This risk can be mitigated, but it's always there and it's always a risk. Of course losing a ship to CONCORD is a risk factor GÇö it's factor that determines the risks you need to try to reduce to zero, or preferably even reverse into a reward by manipulating the expected costs and gains.
Jorma Morkkis wrote:I don't know exact methods you guys use, but I've seen killmails of Tornado solo killing tanked Orcas and freighters in highsec before it gets destroyed by Concord. I've also heard about some stories how you guys use Orca's SMB to avoid losing your ship. GǪand all of those are generally deemed as exploits and are being shut down at aGǪ ehmGǪ leisurely pace (which could indeed be improved). The whole point about CONCORD is that it is meant to generate a 100% probability of ship loss. 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. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 14:00:00 -
[126] - Quote
Tippia wrote:and all of those are generally deemed as exploits and are being shut down at aGǪ ehmGǪ leisurely pace (which could indeed be improved). The whole point about CONCORD is that it is meant to generate a 100% probability of ship loss.
If the only thing you want is losing ships I have a good solution for you:
1) Get a titan 2) Fit it with civilian modules 3) Go to hostile space 4) ??? 5) Profit! |
Elsa Nietchize
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 15:09:00 -
[127] - Quote
ganker tears are best tears |
Vito Antonio
State War Academy Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 15:15:00 -
[128] - Quote
It's called a stealth nerf, not a shadow nerf!
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
567
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 15:54:00 -
[129] - Quote
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.
Tippia wrote:Quote:Can you stop talking about stuff you have no idea about Sure. However, in this thread we're talking about risk, which I have a very good idea about GÇö in fact, it's part of how I earn my real-life salary. People calling something a cost of doing business doesn't change the fact that it's a risk. Quite the opposite: all costs of doing business are risks GÇö it's just risks that we see as unavoidable; that require mitigation; and that we should always remember to include in our calculations. Calling it anything else means you're missing out a huge part of the cost-benefit analysis to the point where any such analysis is just plain old wrong.
I have lived for decades with "certified" people including with degrees who still were totally clueless, I don't care what you do for a living. I trade securities in RL, I LIVE risk every day and one mistake = I can lose a lifetime of work.
I also don't care about your textbook schooling and apparently so do most in the thread, everyone can discern what is real risk from real cost.
You ALWAYS lose the ship. It's a risk = 100%? Maybe in your textbook, but everybody knows that it's a commoditized risk, that is a fixed or variable cost of operating a business.
Those who own the facility doing car crash tests, are they risking 100% when a car crashes against a concrete wall? Do those who give them the cars to crash risk 100%?
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.
The risk is in the many ways the cost can be wasted: getting a target not to pop, getting a ninja steal the loot and / or salvage, getting podded and losing the implants. Those are some of a range of risks. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Gorki Andropov
Kerensky Initiatives
301
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:13:00 -
[130] - Quote
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.
I love how someone from TEARS of all places is going around wailing 'Carebears, oh carebears, I hate your gameplay style so, it maddens me to no end'. |
|
Bluddwolf
Heimatar Military Industries
18
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:14:00 -
[131] - 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.
I recall the period that you could continue shooting was so short, that being instantly jammed (once CONCORD arrives) is not a big issue.
Suicide Gankers will just have to use multiple ships or rig and fit their ships so that they can one-shot their targets; then immediately eject to pod (hopfully preventing CONCORD from popping their ship).
Or, if they can't find a way, they could just leave HiSec for PVE and War Dec PVP as CCP intended, and go out to low sec and 0.0 for all the pvp they want. To join Heimatar Military Industries-á visit website or conatct Bluddwolf in-gamewww.hmi.guildlaunch.com |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6090
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:16:00 -
[132] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:How do you know? Because they have been quite clear about it whenever they do balance passes on ships, and they've also been quite clear about barges not being the ones to be the first ones out in the upcoming pass.
Quote:everyone can discern what is real risk from real cost. Yes, and that's exactly what I'm doing here. Are you really going to go down that road too? I've done this three times already in the thread. I'm not confusing risk and cost. I'm using the cost to calculate the risk. Since the probability is 100%, the value of the risk will turn out to be the value of the cost. Just because the two have the same value doesn't mean they are the same concept. Just because you can tell the concepts apart doesn't mean you can always tell the values apart.
Quote:You ALWAYS lose the ship. It's a risk = 100%? No. 100% is the probability of incurring the cost. The risk is the probability multiplied with the cost. Thus, for suicide ganks, the risk in question is equal to the value of the ship, since you multiply that value by one to get the risk. So the risk would probably be somewhere along the lines of 5M ISK before you include expected returns. The risk will not be 100% because that doesn't make any sense GÇö then you're saying that your cost has no unit, so what on earth are you wagering at that point?
Quote:Maybe in your textbook, but everybody knows that it's a commoditized risk, that is a fixed or variable cost of operating a business. Exactly. It's a risk. That's why the whole risk concept was invented: so you could calculate all of those GÇ£costs of doing businessGÇ¥ whether they were 100% certain or not. Your nuclear plant blowing up, killing millions and starting a war with the neighbouring nation as your fall-out decimates their crops is a cost of doing business. That cost may only be $2.50, because of the insanely low probability, but it's a cost of doing business nevertheless, just like the cost of supplying the staff with toilet paper. Risk lets us calculate all of those costs, from the most improbable ones to the ones that are an absolute certainty (assuming, of course, that we can imagine the implausible and give it a good value).
Ignoring risks just because they are certain is very bad for your business because it leaves out things you actually really need to care aboutGǪ
Quote:For everybody else it's a cost. The cost is 100%, the outcome is certain. No. The cost is whatever the cost is. The probability is 100%. Multiply the two together and you get the risk. You're confusing the concepts and values a whole lot here. If everyone treats it as not-a-risk just because it has a 100% chance of occurring, then those everyone will end up with incorrect risk analyses since they forget to include a pretty significant factor.
The ganker risks his ship at 100% of the cost of the ship. He may also risk a couple of modules at a much lower percentage, and he may risk a set of negative costs to counteract that initial risk and thus turn the whole thing into a venture with a predicted nice windfall (ok, so that part is a bit screwy GÇö the whole point of windfalls is that they're not predicable, but still, you get the point). 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6090
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:21:00 -
[133] - Quote
Bluddwolf wrote:I recall the period that you could continue shooting was so short, that being instantly jammed (once CONCORD arrives) is not a big issue. That period is supposed to vary with the system security rating, and it's not being touched by the crimewatch revamps. If anything, it's being made more consistent. The worry in the OP was that they had accidentally broken that mechanic, but now testing seems to show that it's still intact GÇö you still get the intended period of trying to get the kill GÇö and that it's probably only a matter of the OP being inattentive to CONCORD already being on the spot that caused the apparent GÇ£bugGÇ¥.
Quote:Or, if they can't find a way, they could just leave HiSec for PVE and War Dec PVP as CCP intended Good thing, then, that CCP never intended it to be that wayGǪ
GǪthat's why they're leaving the kill window intact even with the new changes in place. 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. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
567
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:25:00 -
[134] - Quote
If you are in low sec or wardec and shoot a 3M cost projectile to an exhumer and pop it, do you say that risk is 100%? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Serene Repose
Perkone Caldari State
582
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:28:00 -
[135] - Quote
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. It's not mechanical. Their presence so awes your crew all they can do is stare till they drool.
Smokestack lightnin' shinin' just like gold |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6090
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:32:00 -
[136] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:If you are in low sec or wardec and shoot a 3M cost projectile to an exhumer and pop it, do you say that risk is 100%? No. I would say that the risk is 3M ISK.
Nitpicking aside, yes, even at a 100% chance of it being expended, it's a risk, especially when looking at the total, since the return for that investment is quite random and might not fully live up to what I expected from that projectile. 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. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:32:00 -
[137] - Quote
Flying around in a pod if you have expensive implants or you forgot to upgrade your clone is a risk. Doing missions in 2 bil Tengu if you have unstable internet connection is a risk. Jumping to lowsec in freighter full of deadspace modules is a risk. Just a few risks you can take in EVE. There is a lot more.
Certain loss of ship isn't a risk. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6090
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:34:00 -
[138] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Certain loss of ship isn't a risk. Of course it is. You're confusing the word GÇ£riskGÇ¥ with the word GÇ£uncertaintyGÇ¥. The two are not the same.
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. |
Nephilius
Grey Legionaires
334
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:35:00 -
[139] - Quote
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] +ù [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 itGǪ 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.
The definition of Risk:
riskGÇé GÇé
noun 1. exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance: It's not worth the risk. 2. Insurance . a. the hazard or chance of loss. b. the degree of probability of such loss. c. the amount that the insurance company may lose. d. a person or thing with reference to the hazard involved in insuring him, her, or it. e. the type of loss, as life, fire, marine disaster, or earthquake, against which an insurance policy is drawn.
verb (used with object) 3. to expose to the chance of injury or loss; hazard: to risk one's life. 4. to venture upon; take or run the chance of: to risk a fall in climbing; to risk a war.
Risk is not about money. Even in the definition when referring to insurance, the words chance, probability, and may are the key points there. When you suicide gank, the chance and probability are 100%. There is no may. Of course, by embarking on such a venture, you prematurely know that you will lose what you have invested in your ship, thus negating any actual risk and turning it into acceptable losses. If you don't want to risk your ship on such a venture, it becomes unacceptable losses, and you do not embark on the venture.
Besides, anyone with any degree of honesty knows that the vast majority of ganks are against ships that have little to no chance of defending against the attack. In terms of a ship carrying high dollar goods, the only risk taken by the aggressor is whether or not aforementioned goods will be destroyed or not. Sometimes, the reward far outweighs the risk.
So maybe it's high time that the risk equal the reward. To stand before a man at an inquisition, knowing that he will rejoice when we die, knowing that he will commit us to the stake and its horrors without a moment's hesitation or remorse if we do not satisfy him, is not an experience much less cruel because our inquisitor does not whip us or rack us or shout at us. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
299
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:43:00 -
[140] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:If you are in low sec or wardec and shoot a 3M cost projectile to an exhumer and pop it, do you say that risk is 100%?
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?
And further, its a risk that is simply left to a random number generator and cannot be predicted or modified in any way until the act is complete? I mean, you are literally just throwing dice here.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6091
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:49:00 -
[141] - Quote
Nephilius wrote:Risk is not about money. Not necessarily, no. It's about the chance of incurring a cost. Whether that cost is in money or goods or good-will or anything else is quite besides the point. Hell, the cost doesn't even have to be an actual cost GÇö it could be a gain (negative cost), and the whole thing still works the same. Your risk calculation could be about you being absolutely certain that the sun will rise in the morning, but it's still a risk calculationGǪ albeit a very trivial, and slightly odd one.
Quote:Even in the definition when referring to insurance, the words chance, probability, and may are the key points there. When you suicide gank, the chance and probability are 100%. There is no may. GǪand even without the GÇ£mayGÇ¥, the risk is still there, because you still have the chance and probability of a loss GÇö it's just that they are unreasonably high, so you're not likely to be allowed to insure whatever you're trying to insure.
Quote:Besides, anyone with any degree of honesty knows that the vast majority of ganks are against ships that have little to no chance of defending against the attack. In terms of a ship carrying high dollar goods, the only risk taken by the aggressor is whether or not aforementioned goods will be destroyed or not. Sometimes, the reward far outweighs the risk. Of course not GÇö that's how you turn the risk of being certain to lose your ship into something that might instead turn a profit: by reducing the chance of your return coming up as lower than the investment you're risking. No-one is arguing that you can't make a profit, just that you have to include the risk of ship loss in that calculation of the expected outcome to see if it's worth it.
The calculation is the same regardless of whether you do it to a wartarget or jump some unsuspecting ******* on gate in lowsec or if you alpha him on the Jita 4-4 undock: each case offers a different probability of you losing your ship in the process and of picking up enough goods to make up for that loss.
Quote:So maybe it's high time that the risk equal the reward. Maybe, but that's a different discussion altogether.
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. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
567
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:53:00 -
[142] - Quote
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.
Tippia wrote: Nitpicking aside
Pot met kettle? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
18
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 17:03:00 -
[143] - Quote
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. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 17:04:00 -
[144] - Quote
Tippa, can I get some of that stuff you're smoking? Must be good stuff.
By your definition for example investment risks aren't actual risks. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
250
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 17:05:00 -
[145] - Quote
This is ridiculous.
Tippia,
Quantum Mechanics acknowledges the (very statistically low) probability that you may at any moment turn into a tomato. Do you take that into account when you shop for vegetables at the supermarket?
You need to stop arguing semantics and use common sense. Lay off that textbook or at the very least, use it when it's appropriate to use it. I don't bring out my quantum mechanics book when accounting for a monthly tomato budget. And I don't fix my clock every day to account for the fact that there aren't exactly 24 hours in a day.
Or, if you insist in calling the inevitable loss of a suicide gank ship a "risk" instead of a cost, then fine. But you're better off arguing that a risk to suicide is a failed attempt or even loot loss. Those are, at least more practical and tangible.
Just sayin. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6091
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 17:16:00 -
[146] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:By your definition for example investment risks aren't actual risks. Really? Care to explain why?
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:You need to stop arguing semantics and use common sense. Lay off that textbook or at the very least, use it when it's appropriate to use it. Ok. This is a very appropriate point to use it: we want to know what risks a ganker faces. So let's start with the glaringly obvious one, that he has to risk his ship in order to have any chance of getting the desired outcome. We can then go into the really interesting part and try to figure out what other risks there are (module losses, risks incurred by sec losses, risk of vindictiveness etc) and what the projected gains might be (which, as mentioned, are also risk calculations, but with a different sign in front of the cost).
Quote:Or, if you insist in calling the inevitable loss of a suicide gank ship a "risk" instead of a cost, then fine. But you're better off arguing that a risk to suicide is a failed attempt or even loot loss. Those are, at least more practical and tangible. Those are some of the other risks, yes, and as mentioned, they fall into the GÇ£interestingGÇ¥ category. That doesn't mean that we should forget the initial risk GÇö that thing that means we actually have to care about all that interesting stuff since we have a huge risk that needs to be mitigated to begin with.
My entire point really comes down to that: just because the ship loss is a trivial case (trivial as in GÇ£we can trivially calculate its probability and costGÇ¥, not necessarily as in GÇ£it's so small it doesn't matterGÇ¥) doesn't mean we shouldn't include it in our calculation of the risks.
If we start to ignore that trivially calculated risk, then we suddenly have to ignore a number of risks on the receiving end as well, and that would be just as silly (as in, GÇ£no, you losing your 300M Hulk to a 5-man gank is not a riskGÇ¥). 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. |
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
97
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 17:22:00 -
[147] - Quote
Tippia wrote:risk of vindictiveness Tippia, you know a miner or Tengu pilot would never actually try to fight back, right? That's not a risk the suicide ganker takes. "Fun fact: carebears are not necessary for the game to function." --áTippia |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 17:26:00 -
[148] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:By your definition for example investment risks aren't actual risks. Really? Care to explain why?
It's you who say those aren't actual risks. Why would I have to explain it? |
Hatt0ri Hanz0
Life sucks then you die Ltd.
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 17:30:00 -
[149] - Quote
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?
No that's not risk at all, because you know 100% that it will happen, so you can choose the time, means, and method. What's wrong with you?
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
250
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 17:32:00 -
[150] - Quote
Tippia,
You're attempting to hold on to strings so you can justify suicide ganking as a "risky" profession.
|
|
Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
232
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 17:57:00 -
[151] - Quote
Quote: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
The only risk (uncertaincy) a ganker deals with is the loot that drops. They are doing it for the loot right? Not to E-grief? That would be lame and a waste of play time for all involved
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6092
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 18:18:00 -
[152] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Tippia, you know a miner or Tengu pilot would never actually try to fight back, right? That's not a risk the suicide ganker takes. I know that the risk is small. It's in the list anyway and is interesting to figure out.
Jorma Morkkis wrote:It's you who say those aren't actual risks. Nope. You're the one who's saying that, so I'm asking you: care to explain why they aren't actual risks by the standard definition?
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tippia, You're attempting to hold on to strings so you can justify suicide ganking as a "risky" profession. Nope. I'm holding on to a well-established, long-used, and very solid definition of risk to generate a list of the risks a ganker might face. The actual riskiness of the profession is left unanswered, but the simple fact that it's not risk-free is enough of a start, since that's such a common and such a silly claim.
Spurty wrote:The only risk (uncertaincy) No. I'm going to have to cut you off right there. Risk is not the same thing as uncertainty. Risk is an attempt to quantify how probabilities affect costs (and gains). 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. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 18:32:00 -
[153] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Nope. You're the one who's saying that, so I'm asking you: care to explain why they aren't actual risks by the standard definition?
I have never said buying stocks or other investments aren't risks.
For you risk always includes 100% loss of investment. That's the difference between your world and real world. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6092
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 18:37:00 -
[154] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:For you risk always includes 100% loss of investment. That's the difference between your world and real world. Ok, then you should probably go back to the post that gave you that impression (and please provide a link so I can see if I can make it clearer), because that's not what I said.
I said that, like all investments, the losing your ship in a suicide gank is a risk, even though you're looking at a 100% probability of initial loss when you're doing that. I'm not saying that all investments are like that GÇö I'm saying that this particular investment is like that. 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. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 18:43:00 -
[155] - Quote
Tippia wrote:I said that, like all investments, the losing your ship in a suicide gank is a risk, even though you're looking at a 100% probability of initial loss when you're doing that. I'm not saying that all investments are like that GÇö I'm saying that this particular investment is like that.
Risk =/= Certainty |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6092
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 18:47:00 -
[156] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Risk =/= Certainty GǪwhich no-one is saying.
Risk = probability +ù cost. If you're certain (probability = 1), then risk = 1+ù cost. Just because you're certain doesn't mean it's no longer a risk. Instead, it means the risk is at its maximum value. 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. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 19:15:00 -
[157] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Risk =/= Certainty GǪwhich no-one is saying. Risk = probability +ù cost. If you're certain (probability = 1), then risk = 1+ù cost. Just because you're certain doesn't mean it's no longer a risk. Instead, it means the risk is at its maximum value.
If you lose 100% of your investment and gain something at the same time it's not a risk. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6092
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 19:21:00 -
[158] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:If you lose 100% of your investment and gain something at the same time it's not a risk. Sure it is. See the previous discussion of combined risks and negative costs. How large that risk is, and what sign it ends up having, will depend on the gain it the probabilities of it happening.
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. |
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
19
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 19:29:00 -
[159] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Tippia wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Risk =/= Certainty GǪwhich no-one is saying. Risk = probability +ù cost. If you're certain (probability = 1), then risk = 1+ù cost. Just because you're certain doesn't mean it's no longer a risk. Instead, it means the risk is at its maximum value. If you lose 100% of your investment and gain something at the same time it's not a risk.
If I risk my entire life savings on the stock market and lose it all. Every penny leaving me flat broke BUT I gained a life lesson; are you saying I did not take a risk because I gained some sort of a life experience? |
EVE Stig
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
121
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 19:39:00 -
[160] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tippia wrote: Nitpicking aside
Pot met kettle?
yah thats a joke right tippia?
"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"! |
|
EVE Stig
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
121
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 19:42:00 -
[161] - Quote
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 Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
300
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 19:42:00 -
[162] - Quote
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.
The concept is no different than with standard T2 fittings. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6092
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 19:43:00 -
[163] - Quote
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. 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. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 19:52:00 -
[164] - Quote
Not really profitable profession if you worry about few million. 1 mil... That's like killing one belt rat in null... |
EVE Stig
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
121
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 19:54:00 -
[165] - Quote
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
143
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 20:03:00 -
[166] - Quote
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. 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6092
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 20:04:00 -
[167] - Quote
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 GÇ£pot and kettleGÇ¥ idiom, right? 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. |
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
110
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 20:17:00 -
[168] - Quote
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
6092
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 20:24:00 -
[169] - Quote
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. GǪwhich 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.
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. |
MeestaPenni
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
207
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 20:24:00 -
[170] - Quote
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".
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore. |
|
EVE Stig
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
121
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 20:40:00 -
[171] - Quote
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 GÇ£pot and kettleGÇ¥ idiom, right?
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
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 21:51:00 -
[172] - Quote
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.
3335
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 22:01:00 -
[173] - Quote
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. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
March rabbit
Trojan Trolls Red Alliance
154
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 22:16:00 -
[174] - Quote
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!
because of risk...... |
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
114
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 22:20:00 -
[175] - Quote
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 Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
301
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 22:25:00 -
[176] - Quote
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
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 00:39:00 -
[177] - Quote
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
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
265
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 01:45:00 -
[178] - Quote
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. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |