This is why I don't buy a freighter, too fat and slow not enough HP and hell I'd never move too much valuables in one move, I break it into 1/10 pieces cause as the old saying goes "all your eggs in one basket" I'm not that lazy I will move it slowly and with planning.

He only wanted to build a nomad so hes gutted now

You're somewhat ignorant of what the word risk means.

Again, risk assumes a possibility, but not a guarantee.

o_O

That hurts.

What you say is EXACTLY what people are asking for with freighters. They are asking for the cargo to be nerfed, so that they can choose between cargo & EHP. At which point people who fly an all cargo fit have made a CHOICE to be vulnerable. Even if they then whine afterwards. Currently there is no choice.

As for 'escorts'. Thats a laughable suggestion. If it was low/null and they could engage any potential threat, you (being those suggesting them, not Tippia) might have a point, but if the Rook/etc tries to ECM anyone before they actually fire, the Rook gets blown up by concord.

What you say is EXACTLY what people are asking for with freighters. They are asking for the cargo to be nerfed, so that they can choose between cargo & EHP. At which point people who fly an all cargo fit have made a CHOICE to be vulnerable. Even if they then whine afterwards. Currently there is no choice.

As for 'escorts'. Thats a laughable suggestion. If it was low/null and they could engage any potential threat, you (being those suggesting them, not Tippia) might have a point, but if the Rook/etc tries to ECM anyone before they actually fire, the Rook gets blown up by concord. A gank takes 10-15 seconds, any longer and they have failed because Concord has gotten them, so the escorts have to pull off their defensive locks, and disrupt the targets inside that window. While the attackers since they are using the infinite time 'bump the freighter so it can never warp to anywhere so it doesn't matter how many safe spots the freighter has bookmarked' method typically, can pick their engagement whenever they want.

that's not really a problem.

the problem is them feeling entitled to 0 risk hauling.

Well the goons are still ganking freighters http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=17862115

I've been playing for about 2 months, and thanks to reading the forums and *repeated* posts by the following:

baltec1
Natsett Amuinn
Tippia

Plus a lot of others, even nooby me knows to fly with WAY under 1 bil.. I've flown right past them 1 or 2 times, carrying 5-20 mil of hard earned loot, crapping my pants and GǪ. wait for it GǪ. no problemsGǪ.

What is so hard to figure out? Right now, these are the 'rules' of the sandbox. Figure out how to change it in-game or don't complain.

Nooby-1, out.

see, this guy gets it.

don't fill your cargo full of expensive shiny stuff and the magpies will leave you alone.

Dont stuff 20 bil in the hold?

If I put 2 bil isk to Damnation nobody is going to gank it. It has way lower base EHP than freighters.

A bit funny since you can gank 600k EHP Damnation with few Nados.

If I put 2 bil isk to Damnation nobody is going to gank it. It has way lower base EHP than freighters.

A bit funny since you can gank 600k EHP Damnation with few Nados.

GǪto be fair, flying past me is thoroughly risk-free, since I don't gank. I just impart the sensible approach I've picked up, which strangely enough puts me on the same side of the argument as those who do blow people up.

Yes, if by GÇ£ignorantGÇ¥ you mean GÇ£using the exact definitionGÇ¥, otherwise no. It means exactly that: cost +ù probability. I think you're confusing me with all those people who think that there risk is equivalent to uncertainty. They're not. That's part of the point of having the risk concept.

Something with 100% probability is still a risk. The value of that risk is the same as the cost.

Let me try to explain this again. What risk means is that there is also a chance the loss will not occur. There is no risk involved in the situation. Instead it is a gamble.

No. What risk means is that there is a probability to incur a cost (or a gain). That probability can be anywhere between (and including) 0 and 1.

The risk is the anticipated (statistical) cost/gain of such an event.

There is plenty of risk in this situation, especially since it's such a gamble.

Let me try to explain this again. What risk means is that there is also a chance the loss will not occur. There is no risk involved in the situation. Instead it is a gamble.

At probabilities of 0, and 1 risk is said to be non-existent.

Fieriy--If you lined up every person on the Earth and reached a consensus that risk was defined by such and such a definition, except for Tippia, and then tried to convince Tippia that risk was defined in such a way, she would still disagree with you. Arguing with her is like shoving a red-hot poker into your eye and trying to enjoy it. Even if you succeed, you lose.

At 0, yes, because obviously that means the risk is zero as well. At 1, no, because then risk = cost.

It's all in the risk formula. The risk does not go away just because the probability is 100%. Quite the oppositeGǪ
What you are talking about is uncertainty GÇö not risk.

As luck would have it, a consensus (of sorts) was reached on the matter.

That consensus is risk = probability +ù cost (or R(=¥¢+,=¥¢+) = =¥ö+ߦºL(=¥¢+,=¥¢+(X)) = Gê½GéôL(=¥¢+,=¥¢+(X))dPߦº(X), if you want to be really thorough). No special cases exist for probabilities of 1 or 0 GÇö they're just very trivial cases.

Nope.

At 0, yes, because obviously that means the risk is zero as well. At 1, no, because then risk = cost.

It's all in the risk formula. The risk does not go away just because the probability is 100%. Quite the oppositeGǪ
What you are talking about is uncertainty GÇö not risk.

Compelling argument. Take it up with the ISO board. And with every risk analysis since the concept was invented.

The fact remains: risk = probability +ù cost, where probability lies in the [0,1] span.

With this you've made it somewhat easier for me to explain. What you don't get is that the word risk is only used when uncertainty is involved...

"One of the key paradigm shifts proposed in ISO 31000 is a controversial change in how risk is conceptualised. Under the ISO 31000:2009 and a consequential major revision of the terminology in ISO Guide 73, the definition of "risk" is no longer "chance or probability of loss", but "the effect of uncertainty on objectives"

Looks like you're behind the times :)

Nope. I'm just using the common way it's used. The update simply allows for gains to be included as well as costs, since everyone was using the same formula for that anyway (either by counting gains as negative costs or by changing the signs and seeing risk as something innately positive instead).

The uncertainty in question still allows for 0 and 1, and they're still merely trivial cases.

You're calling probabilities of 0 and 1 uncertainties?

No. I'm calling them probabilities, as does the risk formula.

Now you believe that the risk formula has achieved sentience.

Solutions dont include learn the game. Thats old and lame. Post something exciting.

Perhaps the reason why "learn the game" is "old and lame" is because it applies to almost every whinge about it, and is therefore used frequently. This might come as a shock to you, but people who "learn the game" well often do well at it themselves.

You have to adapt to survive - you can't stop a storm bearing down on New York City, you prepare for its arrival.