So you're saying the devil is in the details? I'm saying the details don't matter because regardless of which you lose the ship.

If that scenario was not true, and I bought a ship, and suicide ganked a miner, I already know, through design, that I'm losing the ship for a specific course of action.

I don't see that defined as "risk" because I know that ship is getting blown up. I define that as cost because of the 100% certainty of that ship getting blown up.

If you're given a ship by someone, for whatever reason, and use it to gank someone else, you put the cost of that hull and its modules on the line to try to get an even bigger payout than if you were to just go to market and sell the ship.

Hrm.... I think we are talking about theoretical opportunity costs. If someone were to give you a ship to go ganking, you could sell it, but then you'd lose out on the opportunity to gank someone.

By that I mean you lose out on the joy of seeing someone elses day ruined.

Hrm.... I think we are talking about theoretical opportunity costs. If someone were to give you a ship to go ganking, you could sell it, but then you'd lose out on the opportunity to gank someone.

By that I mean you lose out on the joy of seeing someone elses day ruined.

But you'd have the isk. Instead, you choose to risk that isk on the gamble that you get a bigger payday.

But there's a risk he won't whine in local, or send you angry emails, or sperg to CCP about how evil you are and how they should totally reimburse him his ship.

And "payday" isn't necessarily just isk, although that's the most common definition.

I said, there is the risk there won't be tears in local. But there is always the reward you know that you caused a loss.

Unless you utterly fail at ganking, then the loss is a 100% certain fact.

I suppose the whole risk versus reward thing is objective.

You can always obtain self congradulating rewards for little or no risk.

[edit]

Kind of like posting on the forums.

I said, there is the risk there won't be tears in local. But there is always the reward you know that you caused a loss.

Unless you utterly fail at ganking, then the loss is a 100% certain fact.

I suppose the whole risk versus reward thing is objective.

You can always obtain self congradulating rewards for little or no risk.

[edit]

Kind of like posting on the forums.

Agreed...


but let me attempt to define:

Risk is the cost you have to pay if you fail. Regardless of what your reward is, risk is always the cost of failing.

The cost of an attempt at failing, is just the investment.

In high sec ganking your cost is the ship you want to use to gank, the risk is not getting your "payday" and your reward is your "payday"

However you define the words in " " is up to you.. some times you feel like a nut some times you don't

So when he says what I've been saying all along, he "gets it", while when I say it, it's "inane metaphors".

Got it.

but let me attempt to define:

Risk is the cost you have to pay if you fail. Regardless of what your reward is, risk is always the cost of failing.

The cost of an attempt at failing, is just the investment.

In high sec ganking your cost is the ship you want to use to gank, the risk is not getting your "payday" and your reward is your "payday"

GǪand when you combine the cost and the probability you get a risk.

GǪand as part of that total risk, you have to calculate the risk of ship loss. No matter what, it still is a risk.

GǪand when you combine the cost and the probability you get a risk.

GǪand as part of that total risk, you have to calculate the risk of ship loss. No matter what, it still is a risk.

Mining permits are already a thing, and have been for a while now, how did you miss the threadnaughts and whinefests about the New Order?

It's not up to CCP to increase the cost of entry, it's down to us, the players to put such things in place. It's already been done in nullsec, maybe it's time it came to highsec.

Because those "permits" don't matter when CONCORD gets involved...?