You have 3 questions, 1 station which is an assumption, and you are claiming I haven't answered your question.

I'm claiming that you haven't answered my question because you haven't answered my question. And no, it's only one. I restate it slightly rephrased for rhetoric effect. I suppose you could try to separate the two, but then I'd like to hear a good explanation for how it's odd, but not a contradiction, or vice versa.

Anyway, here you go:

By your reckoning GÇö by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk GÇö one way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses and higher profits mean more risk?

Yes or no.

I don't have a need to kill anything and everything in my sights. Sometimes I have a different goal in mind. Such as transporting. Or exploring. Sometimes I do go on gank sprees though.

To which?

Mind showing us some of these "gank sprees"? All I see, in hisec, appears to be circumventing concord.

To the one question in the post. The one I wanted to be so clear to you that I asked it twice.

A simple yes or no will do, thank you.

To the one question in the post. The one I wanted to be so clear to you that I asked it twice.

A simple yes or no will do, thank you.

Sure, it's in whatever system I'm in in highsec when I decide to shoot someone.

Feel free to visit minerbumping.com for a list of videos etc.

ng to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes.

[Question 1- Doesn't that seem odd to you?
I think having to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes.

Question 2- Doesn't that seem like a contradiction:
As opposed to it being a contradiction...

Question 3- that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?

I think having to worry about risk assessment and piracy in highsec period is odd, yes.

Which of those are the "one question"?

Not seeing any videos, and I don't believe that you're "james 315".


Hisec is high security, not perfect security. Worrying about risk assessment and piracy while in hisec seems perfectly acceptable and normal to me. If there hadn't been any need for risk assessment, then it wouldn't be called hisec, but perfsec.

[quote=Murk Paradox]If you reject the notion that ship loss is a risk, then you tacitly agree that the best way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses, and higher profits mean more risk?

This one:
By your reckoning GÇö by saying that 100% chance of ship loss is not a risk GÇö one way to increase the risk for gankers is to make sure they lose less and earn more when they gank people. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't that seem like a contradiction: that lower losses and higher profits mean more risk?

Yes or no.

Any further evasions or other stupidity will be interpreted in the only way it can: as a GÇ£yesGÇ¥; as you knowing full well that the ship loss represents a risk and that reducing that risk will not somehow actually increase the risk. Last chance.

I didn't ask for "some hisec ganking", I asked for yours. But I'll just assume that there aren't any, then. vOv

Ship loss is guaranteed; so that is a cost in the equation.

If you are going down the "lose less and earn more" path though you'd have to focus on a single event, wouldn't you? E.g. one encounter. You could increase risk by adding further punishment in the future.

Tippia, let me ask you something....

What's the risk factor in shooting someone in highsec that is based on chance?

You keep saying risk, like there's a chance you wouldn't lose your ship by shooting someone.

Are you insinuating that you can maybe get away without retribution from Concord?

Tippia, let me ask you something....

What's the risk factor in shooting someone in highsec that is based on chance?

You keep saying risk, like there's a chance you wouldn't lose your ship by shooting someone.

Are you insinuating that you can maybe get away without retribution from Concord?

What's the risk factor in shooting someone in highsec that is based on chance?

You keep saying risk, like there's a chance you wouldn't lose your ship by shooting someone.

No. The ship cost is the cost in the equation. The guarantee is the probability. Multiply the two together and you get the risk GÇö in this case the full value of the ship. So, naturally, if we reduce the probability, the risk will go down.

But what Murk is desperately trying to avoid admitting is that if we treat the guarantee as meaning there is no risk, we get the following contradiction: losing the full value of the ship is a lower risk than losing, say, half the value of the ship.

No, we're talking statistics here.

Again, assuming the odd GÇ£non-riskGÇ¥ interpretation of 100% loss, over 10 ganks, you'd lose 10 ships.
To add more risk (more than GÇ£noneGÇ¥), we reduce the probability to only 50% so that there is a risk, and over 10 ganks, you'd lose 5 ships. By losing fewer ships and thus earning bigger profits, you apparently risk more because you have GÇ£a riskGÇ¥ rather than GÇ£no riskGÇ¥.

you're ignoring the fact that probability of 1 is still a probability.

No. The ship cost is the cost in the equation. The guarantee is the probability. Multiply the two together and you get the risk GÇö in this case the full value of the ship. So, naturally, if we reduce the probability, the risk will go down.

To add more risk (more than GÇ£noneGÇ¥), we reduce the probability to only 50% so that there is a risk, and over 10 ganks, you'd lose 5 ships. By losing fewer ships and thus earning bigger profits, you apparently risk more because you have GÇ£a riskGÇ¥ rather than GÇ£no riskGÇ¥.

So what happens if I use a destroyer I got as a reward to gank someone in highsec? What did I risk?

100% is complete. You aren't risking it if you already know there is 0% chance of saving it.

So we've moved on from ignoring the fact concord works as a hisec protector, and on to ignoring what the actual risk in ganking is?

Okay, then.

A destroyer. Its fittings (a separate risk calculation). If you want to see it as a cost, your sec rating.

100% means you have a risk equal to the value of the ship.

casually ignoring a fact when it gets in the way of murk's point is the way it works when you're conversing with him.

The probability is 1 though - there is no reduction possible; which to my mind makes it a meaningless part of the equation. The only risk I see is that you may not earn any ISK from the transaction. Admittedly, I'm doped up on flu medication so my brain is half functional at best

100% means no chance of any other outcome.

Okay, that is a better phrasing of it. The probability is 1 though - there is no reduction possible; which to my mind makes it a meaningless part of the equation. The only risk I see is that you may not earn any ISK from the transaction.

That would be asinine. I did not read that into anything that Murk wrote; rather - it seems to be a viewpoint somebody is trying to paint him with against what is common sense.