| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
165
   |
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
Andski wrote:there's plenty of risk in suicide ganking, you just chalk it up to an "accepted cost" because you want to frame the argument your way
The downside is completely limited. It is in fact a fixed cost and must be accepted or the process can't happen. One might argue that it turns the "don't fly what you can't afford to lose" rule on it's head as the loss is intended as a cost of business.
You can't lose more than you intend or "accept", unless you're a complete flipping idiot and fail to understand the concept of "suicide". It's all potential upside.
Risk mitigation at it's finest.
|
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
165
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Malphilos wrote:Andski wrote:there's plenty of risk in suicide ganking, you just chalk it up to an "accepted cost" because you want to frame the argument your way The downside is completely limited. It is in fact a fixed cost and must be accepted or the process can't happen. One might argue that it turns the "don't fly what you can't afford to lose" rule on it's head as the loss is intended as a cost of business. You can't lose more than you intend or "accept", unless you're a complete flipping idiot and fail to understand the concept of "suicide". It's all potential upside. Risk mitigation at it's finest. You forgot the loot gods and they are a fickle bunch.
Sure they are, but that's all upside after fixed costs. It's completely possible to lose all your iskies suicide ganking, but you'd have to do it on purpose.
|
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
165
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
Andski wrote:Malphilos wrote:Sure they are, but that's all upside after fixed costs. It's completely possible to lose all your iskies suicide ganking, but you'd have to do it on purpose.
So those dudes that gank a freighter which yields absolutely nothing as far as drops are just losing their ISK on purpose? Explain this new wave of NPC alt logic to me, please.
Yes.
I didn't say it was risk elimination (this is for Tippia as well), it's mitigation. Control if you will.
It's analogous to going to Vegas knowing exactly how much you'll spend. You've decided to spend X, but if you hit the jackpot you'll spend less and may make money.
It's all upside. There's no occasion where you can lose more than you intend.
|
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
165
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:This will introduce a(nother) random element into the equation, and provide the profession with the 'risk' you desire.
I'm not sure why you think I desire more random factors.
Hell, I didn't ask for anything to change. You're having an argument with someone else I think.
|
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
165
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:...therefore going to vegas and gambling is risk free
Is there a gas leak in your immediate vicinity?
I quite clearly said it wasn't risk elimination. It's control.
What the hell is so complex about this that people keep making crap up?
|
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
Andski wrote:Malphilos wrote:Yes.
I didn't say it was risk elimination (this is for Tippia as well), it's mitigation. Control if you will.
It's analogous to going to Vegas knowing exactly how much you'll spend. You've decided to spend X, but if you hit the jackpot you'll spend less and may make money.
It's all upside. There's no occasion where you can lose more than you intend.
hey sup I have a discovery that will enlighten the **** out of you there is literally no situation in eve where you can lose more than you intend *exhales* wisdom
Your wisdom smells funny, kinda like yesterday's lunch. I think most people would use another word for your exhalation.
Likewise, either you're using a truly unique definition of "intend", or you're discounting initiative. You can't lose more than you risk, but it's trivially obvious that it's possible to risk without the intent to lose.
A suicide ganker loses the ship on purpose, it's integral to the process. That's intent. A sane target has no such intent to participate in the gank and significantly less control.
And before the half-brights start squealing that I'm saying this needs to change: I'm not.
|
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Andski wrote:go run some more numbers in spreadsheets and keep adjusting it a bit to arrive at your preconceived conclusion that ganking is absolutely free of risk ...
Stop humping the strawman. It's embarrassing.
|
| |
|