Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1795
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 10:34:00 -
[121] - Quote
Malphilos wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Malphilos wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Malphilos wrote:Goon 101. Next comes the claim that he never intended to make sense. You can be loss averse without being risk averse. No. Re-read your compadre's blurb. You risk nothing but loss. It's like saying you can be purple without being a color. Until you see people self destructing uninsured ships for no reason, it's safe to assume Everybody's loss averse. While I think he overstated by saying they're unconnected, it's like saying you can't be a [nationality] unless you're human. It's technically true, but it's silly to say in an argument. Or, to continue your metaphor, like saying you can't be purple if you're not a color when we're talking about the differences between red and blue. It's true, but not relevant. In other words, you were mistaken. I'll accept that. I wouldn't hold you accountable to the idiocy of the previous poster, only to the defense of it.
Context matters. Read what was around that post. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
nat longshot
New Eden Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 10:43:00 -
[122] - Quote
MasterEnt wrote:Weaselior wrote:MasterEnt wrote: Id appreciate it if you stop making assumptions about other peoples playing styles and motivations. Same difference.
I assure you, we can easily discuss the reams of data showing that highsec miners are incredibly risk-averse (an oddity, in a game all about dealing with risk) and its effect on the game without resorting to crude sexual imagery. 1) Please DO show me the numbers that PROVE HiSec miners are risk-adversed as opposed to doing it for some other reason. Linky with credible conclusions please. 2) Its wasn't sexual imagery, it was copy. You get off here killing people all day and are worried about sex? You must be American.
beening american has nothing to do with anything thing you 3rd world begger. |
MasterEnt
MGroup9
62
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 14:36:00 -
[123] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:being loss-averse is assumed in all discussions of risk aversion because without it the entire discussion makes no sense
Im beginning to understand that your relentless misuse of the term "risk-adverse" may just be due to your inability to form dynamic arguments and the need to follow people like Mittens without question or independent thought.
Germany had the same issue in the late 1930's.
I apologize for confusing and antagonizing you, maybe this is over the Goons head.
Im just going to say that Goons and other hi-sec miner focused gankers are REALLY the ones "risk-adversed"
I mean COME ON.. how much risk can you be willing to take if you are attacking NON COMBAT ships LOL... HAHAHAHAHAH. That is fu@king funny. |
Lustralis
Tiny Holdings
31
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 14:54:00 -
[124] - Quote
Dragon Outlaw wrote:Maybe its a reflection of what humanity is?
Fascinating. +1 for Advanced Philosophising.
|
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
347
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 15:00:00 -
[125] - Quote
nat longshot wrote:MasterEnt wrote:Weaselior wrote:MasterEnt wrote: Id appreciate it if you stop making assumptions about other peoples playing styles and motivations. Same difference.
I assure you, we can easily discuss the reams of data showing that highsec miners are incredibly risk-averse (an oddity, in a game all about dealing with risk) and its effect on the game without resorting to crude sexual imagery. 1) Please DO show me the numbers that PROVE HiSec miners are risk-adversed as opposed to doing it for some other reason. Linky with credible conclusions please. 2) Its wasn't sexual imagery, it was copy. You get off here killing people all day and are worried about sex? You must be American. beening american has nothing to do with anything thing you 3rd world begger.
Beening is that like a wedgie or something ? and why would you want to do that to our poor colonial brothers ? |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 15:13:00 -
[126] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Context matters. Read what was around that post. Other people were equating them.
Other people being goofy doesn't entitle you to a whole new language.
Risk is the possibility of loss. Aversion to loss is aversion to risk. That's an "equals" sign there.
You want to argue degrees of aversion. Probably a little less satisfying. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3243
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 18:30:00 -
[127] - Quote
Malphilos wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Context matters. Read what was around that post. Other people were equating them.
Other people being goofy doesn't entitle you to a whole new language. Risk is the possibility of loss. Aversion to loss is aversion to risk. That's an "equals" sign there. You want to argue degrees of aversion. Probably a little less satisfying. i suppose miners, being beaten in every way in-game, have decided they'd like to be beaten at basic definitions as well on the forums
your definitions are wrong and they are dumb. you should reread the thread to attempt to learn something from those people who are correct. |
Obsidian Dagger
Nitrus Nine
66
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 18:38:00 -
[128] - Quote
+1 returning to muds because EvE is not sandboxy enough anymore. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1797
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 21:45:00 -
[129] - Quote
Malphilos wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Context matters. Read what was around that post. Other people were equating them.
Other people being goofy doesn't entitle you to a whole new language. Risk is the possibility of loss. Aversion to loss is aversion to risk. That's an "equals" sign there. You want to argue degrees of aversion. Probably a little less satisfying.
Risk is the possibility of a varied result. Loss is loss. Aversion to Risk is accepting a result with a lower expected value because it has a lower variance. Aversion to Loss is avoiding loss where possible.
Risk aversion is investing in T-Bills instead of Stocks. Loss aversion is not setting stacks of money on fire. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
80
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 22:48:00 -
[130] - Quote
I'm sorry, but I got to laugh at all these so called "risk aversed miner" claims. 8000 hulks killed in 1 month. Hardly what I'd call risk averse. The ganker is a different story though. All the ganker risks, is if he fails the gank or not. If he does his homework first even that doesn't become a risk.
There are miners out there now in their hulks. So you saying that miners are risk averse is way of the mark. I cannot begin to tell you how much I am laughing at you, the way you think miners are. The dedicated Hulk pilot, has more ball's than anyone else in this game. He knows he is a target, for every "1337 PvP" scrub out there, but still he mines, and solo at times too.
Please give me more "miners are risk averse" especially when your "pets" are the most risk averse in the game. So I can carryon laughing at you. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1797
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 22:58:00 -
[131] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:I'm sorry, but I got to laugh at all these so called "risk aversed miner" claims. 8000 hulks killed in 1 month. Hardly what I'd call risk averse. The ganker is a different story though. All the ganker risks, is if he fails the gank or not. If he does his homework first even that doesn't become a risk.
There are miners out there now in their hulks. So you saying that miners are risk averse is way of the mark. I cannot begin to tell you how much I am laughing at you, the way you think miners are. The dedicated Hulk pilot, has more ball's than anyone else in this game. He knows he is a target, for every "1337 PvP" scrub out there, but still he mines, and solo at times too.
Please give me more "miners are risk averse" especially when your "pets" are the most risk averse in the game. So I can carryon laughing at you.
40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).
Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
80
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 23:31:00 -
[132] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).
Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that.
Lol. Listen to yourself. Miners are still mining. That blows your "miners are risk averse" arguement out of existance. Period. You could argue that "Some miners WERE risk averse". The drop in actual mining commodities could also be attributed to all sorts of things. D3. Only 1 Hulk, cant afford another, so mission instead. Rage quit. not only risk aversion. Although I am not saying HAG wasn't the major reason. You could argue that it is only sensible to do something safer, while Hulks are at risk.
You think the Hulk Ganker does Ganking for profit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And they say Mining is poor profit. You cannot make a profit using a Nado on a hulk, and you be lucky making a profit Using 2 dessies. Please please, don't ever use that as an arguement for "risk". The Hulk ganker, does what he does because the Goons have deemed it FOTM. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1797
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 23:44:00 -
[133] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).
Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that.
Lol. Listen to yourself. Miners are still mining. That blows your "miners are risk averse" arguement out of existance. Period. You could argue that "Some miners WERE risk averse". The drop in actual mining commodities could also be attributed to all sorts of things. D3. Only 1 Hulk, cant afford another, so mission instead. Rage quit. not only risk aversion. Although I am not saying HAG wasn't the major reason. You could argue that it is only sensible to do something safer, while Hulks are at risk. You think the Hulk Ganker does Ganking for profit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And they say Mining is poor profit. You cannot make a profit using a Nado on a hulk, and you be lucky making a profit Using 2 dessies. Please please, don't ever use that as an arguement for "risk". The Hulk ganker, does what he does because the Goons have deemed it FOTM.
Those are the week before HAG to week after HAG began numbers. At the time I think there were 1k exhumer kills or so. All the other reasons for miners stopping mining are examples of people leaving the market due to their aversion to risk.
But then, individual exceptions aren't relevant. A 40% decrease in mining (in spite of the newly increased income) for a small chance of being ganked (even smaller of actually getting ganked before making a profit) is an irrational overreaction.
Ganking untanked Hulks is profitable. 2 Cats at 5m each for 10m loot avg, 10m salvage avg, and 10m bounty. That's called profitability. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
81
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 00:07:00 -
[134] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Those are the week before HAG to week after HAG began numbers. At the time I think there were 1k exhumer kills or so. All the other reasons for miners stopping mining are examples of people leaving the market due to their aversion to risk.
But then, individual exceptions aren't relevant. A 40% decrease in mining (in spite of the newly increased income) for a small chance of being ganked (even smaller of actually getting ganked before making a profit) is an irrational overreaction.
You still don't get it. Miners are still mining. How can they be "Risk aversed".
RubyPorto wrote: Ganking untanked Hulks is profitable. 2 Cats at 5m each for 10m loot avg, 10m salvage avg, and 10m bounty. That's called profitability.
That bounty only comes into play when you have killed 10 Hulks, and TBH not guarenteed.
You telling me, these are the guys that ridicule the Miners income, when their income is lower? and they do this for profit?. They only Gank hulks, because the Goons have said it is cool to gank them. If they where doing it for profit, they would be Ganking haulers. Come on. you can do better than that. |
EVE Roy Mustang
State War Academy Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 00:07:00 -
[135] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).
Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that.
Lol. Listen to yourself. Miners are still mining. That blows your "miners are risk averse" arguement out of existance. Period. You could argue that "Some miners WERE risk averse". The drop in actual mining commodities could also be attributed to all sorts of things. D3. Only 1 Hulk, cant afford another, so mission instead. Rage quit. not only risk aversion. Although I am not saying HAG wasn't the major reason. You could argue that it is only sensible to do something safer, while Hulks are at risk. You think the Hulk Ganker does Ganking for profit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And they say Mining is poor profit. You cannot make a profit using a Nado on a hulk, and you be lucky making a profit Using 2 dessies. Please please, don't ever use that as an arguement for "risk". The Hulk ganker, does what he does because the Goons have deemed it FOTM.
Yeah, even Goons are mining lol
|
David Cedarbridge
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
220
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 01:15:00 -
[136] - Quote
Dimitryy wrote: Remember, your enterprise is effecting the market, lowering prices, competing with others. YOU are effecting people, and it is only fair that others should effect you right back.
I think the word you're looking for is "affecting." Effecting people and markets is generally beyond the general scope. |
David Cedarbridge
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
220
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 01:17:00 -
[137] - Quote
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:malcovas Henderson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).
Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that.
Lol. Listen to yourself. Miners are still mining. That blows your "miners are risk averse" arguement out of existance. Period. You could argue that "Some miners WERE risk averse". The drop in actual mining commodities could also be attributed to all sorts of things. D3. Only 1 Hulk, cant afford another, so mission instead. Rage quit. not only risk aversion. Although I am not saying HAG wasn't the major reason. You could argue that it is only sensible to do something safer, while Hulks are at risk. You think the Hulk Ganker does Ganking for profit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And they say Mining is poor profit. You cannot make a profit using a Nado on a hulk, and you be lucky making a profit Using 2 dessies. Please please, don't ever use that as an arguement for "risk". The Hulk ganker, does what he does because the Goons have deemed it FOTM. Yeah, even Goons are mining lol The difference is, those Goons who mine take enough of the basic precautions to avoid dying in stupid ways. These basic precautions don't involve docking up and whining on the forums about it. |
Eyezpiddydafooh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 02:05:00 -
[138] - Quote
David Cedarbridge wrote:EVE Roy Mustang wrote:malcovas Henderson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
40% decrease in HS mining in response to a very low risk of being ganked (assuming only 1000 hulks online at any given time, a 20% chance of getting ganked in 24 full hours of mining, during which time you make ~400m. 20%*300m=60m expected loss for 400m income).
Doing your homework on a gank target is a way of managing the risk. The risk is still there, the likelihood of failure has just changed. The risk that loot drops represent to the ganker's chance of profit is also there, and there's no way to mitigate that.
Lol. Listen to yourself. Miners are still mining. That blows your "miners are risk averse" arguement out of existance. Period. You could argue that "Some miners WERE risk averse". The drop in actual mining commodities could also be attributed to all sorts of things. D3. Only 1 Hulk, cant afford another, so mission instead. Rage quit. not only risk aversion. Although I am not saying HAG wasn't the major reason. You could argue that it is only sensible to do something safer, while Hulks are at risk. You think the Hulk Ganker does Ganking for profit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And they say Mining is poor profit. You cannot make a profit using a Nado on a hulk, and you be lucky making a profit Using 2 dessies. Please please, don't ever use that as an arguement for "risk". The Hulk ganker, does what he does because the Goons have deemed it FOTM. Yeah, even Goons are mining lol The difference is, those Goons who mine take enough of the basic precautions to avoid dying in stupid ways. These basic precautions don't involve docking up and whining on the forums about it.
Oh that is just awesome. A Goon saying their miners take "precautions". Yeah, they risk advert by mining in Goon owned systems. What a ball of irony this guy is. Goon miners are totally risk aversed compared to high sec. No wonder the Goons find people like this guy so easy. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
81
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 02:43:00 -
[139] - Quote
David Cedarbridge wrote: The difference is, those Goons who mine take enough of the basic precautions to avoid dying in stupid ways. These basic precautions don't involve docking up and whining on the forums about it.
Even you cannot be dumb enough to compare Hi sec to Null sec. Unless you are stating that Goons are actually Mining in Highsec.
I do not see 8000 miners complaining on these Forums. Linky please.
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1797
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 02:56:00 -
[140] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Those are the week before HAG to week after HAG began numbers. At the time I think there were 1k exhumer kills or so. All the other reasons for miners stopping mining are examples of people leaving the market due to their aversion to risk.
But then, individual exceptions aren't relevant. A 40% decrease in mining (in spite of the newly increased income) for a small chance of being ganked (even smaller of actually getting ganked before making a profit) is an irrational overreaction.
You still don't get it. Miners are still mining. How can they be "Risk aversed".
Never said EVERY SINGLE ONE of them are. But 40% of Miners have stopped. That's kind of a lot of miners who have stopped due to a small increase in risk. I d
Quote:RubyPorto wrote: Ganking untanked Hulks is profitable. 2 Cats at 5m each for 10m loot avg, 10m salvage avg, and 10m bounty. That's called profitability. That bounty only comes into play when you have killed 10 Hulks, and TBH not guarenteed. You telling me, these are the guys that ridicule the Miners income, when their income is lower? and they do this for profit?. They only Gank hulks, because the Goons have said it is cool to gank them. If they where doing it for profit, they would be Ganking haulers. Come on. you can do better than that.
They would do it less if it was running at a loss (proof in the tanked Hulks who are mostly overlooked). Therefore profit is a motivator. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
|
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
81
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 03:40:00 -
[141] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Never said EVERY SINGLE ONE of them are. But 40% of Miners have stopped. That's kind of a lot of miners who have stopped due to a small increase in risk.
Something you have been guilty of is generalization. What went on before HAG, during HAG, and after HAG is passed. What we have left, are the Miners that have adapted, those that have not been caught yet, and some that have the balls to get out there, and mine again, even after losing a Hulk. Miners now are definately not risk averse. They know what they are getting themselves into, but yet still mine.
RubyPorto wrote:They would do it less if it was running at a loss (proof in the tanked Hulks who are mostly overlooked). Therefore profit is a motivator.
You carry on believing that. It definately has nothing to do with the fact, a tanked Hulk is much harder to kill, with 2 dessies. Even though a tanked Hulk has more chance to be "Profitable" |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1797
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 03:49:00 -
[142] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Never said EVERY SINGLE ONE of them are. But 40% of Miners have stopped. That's kind of a lot of miners who have stopped due to a small increase in risk.
Something you have been guilty of is generalization. What went on before HAG, during HAG, and after HAG is passed. What we have left, are the Miners that have adapted, those that have not been caught yet, and some that have the balls to get out there, and mine again, even after losing a Hulk. Miners now are definately not risk averse. They know what they are getting themselves into, but yet still mine.
The only numbers we have are for the first week of HAG. I don't see any reason to believe mining activity has increased since then. Show me some evidence that suggests that mining has increased since the first week of HAG (or that the gank rate has skyrocketed), and you'll be showing evidence that miners are no longer irrationally risk averse.
Also, generalizing is the order of the day when you're talking about demographic issues. Like the 40% decrease in mining attributed to HAG.
Quote:RubyPorto wrote:They would do it less if it was running at a loss (proof in the tanked Hulks who are mostly overlooked). Therefore profit is a motivator. You carry on believing that. It definately has nothing to do with the fact, a tanked Hulk is much harder to kill, with 2 dessies. Even though a tanked Hulk has more chance to be "Profitable"
Never said it wasn't. If you'd been paying attention to what I've been saying when I post on the subject, you'd see that Tanking your freaking Hulk has been one of my 17 patented suggestions for how to deal with HAG. I said that UNTANKED Hulks (which make up most of HAG's KB) are easy to kill with 2 cheapo Catalysts (or a stiff beeze) profitably. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
81
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 04:29:00 -
[143] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
The only numbers we have are for the first week of HAG. I don't see any reason to believe mining activity has increased since then. Show me some evidence that suggests that mining has increased since the first week of HAG (or that the gank rate has skyrocketed), and you'll be showing evidence that miners are no longer irrationally risk averse.
Also, generalizing is the order of the day when you're talking about demographic issues. Like the 40% decrease in mining attributed to HAG.
You're still pulling numbers. Numbers don't mean anything. The fact that there are still Miners, debunks your arguement. So what that Mining has dropped. Those that have decided to mission instead are no longer Miners. They are Missioners. Those that have chosen Exploration, are explorers. You would be more correct in saying "Ex Miners are risk averse"
RubyPorto wrote:
Never said it wasn't. If you'd been paying attention to what I've been saying when I post on the subject, you'd see that Tanking your freaking Hulk has been one of my 17 patented suggestions for how to deal with HAG. I said that UNTANKED Hulks (which make up most of HAG's KB) are easy to kill with 2 cheapo Catalysts (or a stiff beeze) profitably.
If you had been reading my posts, I fully endorse Hulk Tanking. I even do it myself. People that do not protect their ships deserve to lose it.
You think one way, I think another. We can argue all day, and get nowhere with Hulk gankers and profit. It's best left alone. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1798
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 04:50:00 -
[144] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
The only numbers we have are for the first week of HAG. I don't see any reason to believe mining activity has increased since then. Show me some evidence that suggests that mining has increased since the first week of HAG (or that the gank rate has skyrocketed), and you'll be showing evidence that miners are no longer irrationally risk averse.
Also, generalizing is the order of the day when you're talking about demographic issues. Like the 40% decrease in mining attributed to HAG.
You're still pulling numbers. Numbers don't mean anything. The fact that there are still Miners, debunks your arguement. So what that Mining has dropped. Those that have decided to mission instead are no longer Miners. They are Missioners. Those that have chosen Exploration, are explorers. You would be more correct in saying "Ex Miners are risk averse"
Ok, I get it, you're an idiot.
Quote:RubyPorto wrote:
Never said it wasn't. If you'd been paying attention to what I've been saying when I post on the subject, you'd see that Tanking your freaking Hulk has been one of my 17 patented suggestions for how to deal with HAG. I said that UNTANKED Hulks (which make up most of HAG's KB) are easy to kill with 2 cheapo Catalysts (or a stiff beeze) profitably.
If you had been reading my posts, I fully endorse Hulk Tanking. I even do it myself. People that do not protect their ships deserve to lose it. You think one way, I think another. We can argue all day, and get nowhere with Hulk gankers and profit. It's best left alone.
Can we at least agree that untanked Hulks are profitable to gank using Dessies? Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Valya Niell
Lobster of Babel The Dark Nation
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 05:23:00 -
[145] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:The fact of the matter is that highsec miners are driven solely by their risk-averse nature. Unwilling to accept any sort of risk, unwilling to factor risk into their business plans, they engage in an activity that cannot create a real loss of isk (merely an opportunity cost) without intervention from other players. As a result, one can herd them like sheep merely by demonstrating the potential for loss: hulkageddon works because as highsec miners a are risk-averse they are unable to process the likelihood of a risk, and we see that constantly. Trying to explain to a highsec miner how he can reduce his risk of being ganked is often like trying to teach a dog calculus: it simply won't process it. The highsec miner will be told he can buffer tank - but will respond it is still possible to gank him therefore the buffer tank offers no advantage.
We see forms of this argument constantly. It doesn't matter to a highsec miner if he can easily make it so it requires three catalysts (or more) to gank him: since it's possible, it's the same as only needing one catalyst to gank him. To the thinking man, of course, these are different: you may have, on any particular day, a 5% chance of a loss of 300m if you are untanked while a .5% chance of a similar loss if you are, meaning your daily loss to ganking is reduced from 15m to 1.5m - an absolutely huge increase. However, to the highsec miner, all that they see is "300m loss". They can't deal with this, and therefore bleat that it must be made impossible to gank them. Now, many have processed this is unacceptable in this game, but the thrust of their argument is clear: they should not be exposed to risk and anything that does expose them to anything more than "asteroid hitting earth tomorrow" levels of risk is unacceptable. If it's reduced to that, well, they're willing to compromise.
i don't see the validity of this argument unless you're arguing how improbably hulks really are. see if more people got out and mined anyway in their hulks then more people would gank and would make hulks uncostly. sadly it probably wouldn't even drive down the price of hulks enough to make them cost effective. i'm not a mathematician so i don't know how much mining it would take to pay for a hulk. but since the gankers (goons) have a large stake in the hulk market they're not going to lower the price unless a bigger market power does so. and even if they did there's no reason the goons wouldn't just buy them and resale them. so... the risk isn't worth it because it'd be cheaper to buy more coveters and just let them gank you cause they're not making money off of it so much. please if i'm wrong give me valid arguments instead of trolling or flaming this. XTreme Industries: Take back your roids! winners not whiners. If you care about your game experience take it back or find a different game experience to hate. Goonsquad: now offering bounties to troll and flame. inquire within. |
RAP ACTION HERO
55
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 05:27:00 -
[146] - Quote
it don't matter how and why right or wrong keep posting keep ganking |
Valya Niell
Lobster of Babel The Dark Nation
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 05:35:00 -
[147] - Quote
RAP ACTION HERO wrote:it don't matter how and why right or wrong keep posting keep ganking
true the more attention you feed them the more you drive them to gank. deprive a bully (as alot of people see them) of attention and they don't find bullying fun anymore. XTreme Industries: Take back your roids! winners not whiners. If you care about your game experience take it back or find a different game experience to hate. Goonsquad: now offering bounties to troll and flame. inquire within. |
David Cedarbridge
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
220
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 06:07:00 -
[148] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:David Cedarbridge wrote: The difference is, those Goons who mine take enough of the basic precautions to avoid dying in stupid ways. These basic precautions don't involve docking up and whining on the forums about it.
Even you cannot be dumb enough to compare Hi sec to Null sec. Unless you are stating that Goons are actually Mining in Highsec. I do not see 8000 miners complaining on these Forums. Linky please. I think those trendy goggles you have on might be a bit too tight. I'm sure you are all set to list off all sorts of things that only nullsec miners can do to avoid dying that high sec can't. I'll give you a head start on trimming out the dumb ones, null sec miners don't have a swarm of bodyguards. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |