What should should "15 Catas with T2 blasters" not have about a 0% risk of not blowing up. I can't think of many subcaps here.

And?

Risking death doesn't make sense because it was the intended outcome.

Look. I'm not arguing that ganking should be curtailed or even removed from the game or that it doesn't have a cost, but it irks me when people try to call it something its not.

I'm on about how the whole purpose of risk is that it lets us trivially include all kinds of costs (and gains) in a single formula at pretty much no additional cost, because all the GÇ£added variablesGÇ¥ are already there. You add pretty much nothing, computation-wise, but gain tons of robustness by not accidentally leaving out second- or third-order effects that you might not have foreseen.

Being sure is not the same thing as being right.

My argument that if you want to talk about risk, talk about all the risk GÇö don't exclude certain parts you don't like just to make a rhetoric (and incorrect) point, because that paints you as dishonest, ignorant, or both.

The point is incorrect. Anything that is a cost is also a risk (and vice versa). Exactly how high that risk is compared to the cost depends on the probability. Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean the risk goes away, and treating a cost as a risk adds no computational difficulty or complexity while still maintaining a high degree of robustness.

Either way, if you want to talk about risks, talk about all of them and don't arbitrarily leave some out.

Using your logic there is no risk at all in EVE.

The point being that all costs are risks and vice versa GÇö that's the whole point of the risk concept.

So instead of going arbitrarily labelling something as GÇ£not a risk, but a costGÇ¥ (which leads to there being no risks at all since you can put forth the same argument for all risks), we should just include all the costs and their corresponding probabilities, even if those probabilities happen to be 1.

That way, we can actually start with the proper discussion of whether the projected costs and the projected gains are out of whack, rather than this obfuscating and pointless GÇ£your gameplay is simplisticGÇ¥ line of argumentation mud slinging.

I think you're confusing "risk" with "assessment".

You can assess if it's worth doing something, and that assessment will take risk, probability, chance of success, cost, etc into effect.

Taking a risk, is betting against your chances.

You know a suicide gank is an absolute the second you fire your gun or take any other aggressive act Concord will blow you up. That's a cost.

But you don't risk getting blown up by Concord; it's a certainty. It's an absolute.

When your formula produces the same answer regardless of application, it becomes a constant, not a variable.

Constant is not risk, but cost.

You click F1, and get flagged in highsec. Concord shoots you. 100% death.

So a risk of 200k ISK is greater than a risk of 2bn ISK according to this GÇ£sensible definitionGÇ¥? Yeah, no. That's why that particular definition is rejected as nonsensical and replaced with the actual definition of risk.

The 200k versus 2billion is nothing but a smokescreen in regards to the discussion. Your argument was it doesn't matter the number.

You RISK losing that 2b mach to a mission (albeit low), you know it will COST you your mach if you shoot a freighter with it in highsec (without using supplemental mechanics of wardecs etc).

The outcome isn't certain. One thing that does happen is the target goes to ground when you are setting up, even if its not because they saw the impending gank. Mack filling is a trigger for people to make decisions like log off after all. In which case you risk time passing without fun and without making isk (either from bits of dead exhumer or by opportunity cost of not doing other activities).

So I guess we shouldn't point out the risks of the gank failing or the loot fairy giving the middle finger.

How many suicide ganks have you fired at your target in highsec and were able to fly that ship back home?

Would it change whether Concord blew up your ship or not?

How many suicide ganks have you fired at your target in highsec and were able to fly that ship back home?

You're using the collquial or informal meaning of "risk" whilst Tippia is using the actuarial version. The effect is much the same as Creationists saying Evolution isn't proved because it is "just a theory".

Nevertheless it is obviously ludicrous to say that a 99% chance of losing a ship to CONCORD is more of a deterrent or a cost than a 100% chance of losing one.

tl;dr: there is a such thing as a "100% risk" and it's you who are being obtuse in arguing that there isn't.

Would it change whether Concord blew up your ship or not?

The risk in ganking is that the target lives. We minimise that risk by knowing what we are doing, but it doesn't mean the risk isn't there. Just yesterday someone jumped the gun and nearly got us all rapidly killed before out target dropped. We literally got it just as the last ship popped. I've seen many less experienced gank squads fail to execute a gank, or get blapped off the field too quickly to finish it. I've also seen ECM ships suppress a gank enough to save the target ship.
If you fail a gank, you are stuck with a blown up ship and a GCC with a failed objective. That's the risk.

And it's no different from the mining risk. I've NEVER had a miner ganked in high sec, even though I've run many a mining operation. Careful choices of location and a keep eye out for gankers and scouts can minimise the risk there too.

So the long and short of it is, don't mistake well performed actions with risk purposely minimised as being inherently risk free activities.

Saying 100% risk is being obtuse.

0% chance is another fine example.

"Guys suicide ganking is super easy" - people who have never suicide ganked

How many suicide ganks have you fired at your target in highsec and were able to fly that ship back home?

Since we're agreed that the loss of the gankers ship to CONCORD is not a risk and serves no purpose in deterring ganking, shall I go ahead and ask CCP to remove this useless mechanic? It's rather demanding of system resources, and takes up development and code maintenance resources that could be applied on more useful mechanics

You could still get no loot. The risk in EVE is not only linked to losing ships.

The majority of suicide attempts fail.

It does when you're killing to kill. Or at least for the nature of "ganking".

GǪand presumed certainty does not preclude it from being a risk.

Quote:

Yep, but that suicide cat is going to die the second it engages an aggression act 100% of the time.

GǪbut committing a ship to a suicide gank does not mean it faces a 100% chance of destruction, and even if it did, it would still be a risk. If you want to argue that it's not a risk, but a cost of doing business, then there are no risks anywhere in EVE: they're all costs of doing business.

That doesn't really clarify anything since you keep using the wrong word. What you mean to say is that:

1 Cata with T1 has a chance of not killing a Mack if it has a tank which the Cata could have checked.
15 Catas with T2 blasters have about 0% chance of not blowing up a Mack (which may be true for that particular probability and is about the correct level for that kind of application of force, but doesn't remove the risk involved GÇö if anything, it makes it even bigger).

I always find it interesting that someone who PvPs as little as you do has so much to say about it.

GǪin other words, it's a risk.

Which gank ship survived Concord?

No. Not "other words". It is a constant. No variable, no "other". It's an absolute. It's either, to use your terms, a 0 or a 1.

0=false.

1=true.

When you shoot someone, Concord will blow you up. 0 or 1?

If you want to be "technical" and analytical, then please answer truthfully and honestly with a simple true or false.