Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
450
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 21:34:00 -
[151] - Quote
KuroVolt wrote:Dyvim Slorm wrote:Georgina Parmala wrote: ... I guess clone costs add up when you don't use a throwaway alt.
If you're using a throwaway alt then the only risk is one of a known cost if it all goes wrong. Simply put, there is only the cost of the ship you will lose in a suicide gank versus the unknown return in loot from the destroyed ship. In other words its just a cost of doing business, not risk. Isnt that the case for the miner or hauler or whoever is getting ganked too though? Everytime you undock, there is a chance you will be engaged at some point, everyone who plays EVE should know this. That means when you go out mining or you are hauling stuff, it should be a calculated risk, you should always keep in mind that there is a chance your ship wont make it back safely. So *The only risk is one of a known cost if it all goes wrong.* aplies to everyone, be it suicide gankers, miners or haulers.
That's untrue. Miners RISK losing their ships. They MIGHT get blown up.
With suicide gankers there is no "might" unless there is no target. IF they do their job poorly, or well, they will still get blown up.
Concord can no longer be tanked or avoided unfortunately. "But my favourite visual experience in Eve was a pipebombing run on a digital projector. Sure, the aliasing can never match the perfection of a 2160p image - but you can't beat a five metre space volcano on your wall." - Lord Maldoror(RnK)
|
Ekhss Nihilo
Ideal Machine
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 21:34:00 -
[152] - Quote
Plastic Psycho wrote:Ekhss Nihilo wrote:Gealbhan wrote:I don't normally mine ice but when I do, it goes in my whisky Ice in a good single malt == sacrilege! Just a wee splash of water to open it up. This. ^ And by 'wee', I mean 'added with a eyedropper.' You have the right of it, sir. Sl+íinte! "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180)
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8607
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 21:59:00 -
[153] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:That's untrue. Miners RISK losing their ships. They MIGHT get blown up.
With suicide gankers there is no "might" unless there is no target. IF they do their job poorly, or well, they will still get blown up.
Concord can no longer be tanked or avoided unfortunately.
There's also the risk of nothing of value being dropped in a hauler gank. You also risk your looting ship being blown up, even moreso now that you have suspect flags for looting wrecks. There's also the risk of getting your hauler alt suicide ganked on the way to Jita while moving the loot.
Anybody who says this is "risk-free" is just posting fanfic. In the case of miner ganking, how can one argue that it's "risk-free" when you inherently operate at a loss when doing this? Even if it's sponsored by somebody else, somebody is taking a loss unless the secondary effects (i.e. the supply constraint and speculators driving the price of ice and isotopes up) outweigh that loss. Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Captain Tardbar
Sons of Sam
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 22:20:00 -
[154] - Quote
Andski wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:That's untrue. Miners RISK losing their ships. They MIGHT get blown up.
With suicide gankers there is no "might" unless there is no target. IF they do their job poorly, or well, they will still get blown up.
Concord can no longer be tanked or avoided unfortunately. There's also the risk of nothing of value being dropped in a hauler gank. You also risk your looting ship being blown up, even moreso now that you have suspect flags for looting wrecks. There's also the risk of getting your hauler alt suicide ganked on the way to Jita while moving the loot. Anybody who says this is "risk-free" is just posting fanfic. In the case of miner ganking, how can one argue that it's "risk-free" when you inherently operate at a loss when doing this? Even if it's sponsored by somebody else, somebody is taking a loss unless the secondary effects (i.e. the supply constraint and speculators driving the price of ice and isotopes up) outweigh that loss.
Its not really risk. Its the "cost of doing business". You know what you are going to pay upfront. There is the risk of failing, but generally that is not the case if you do your home work.
If you have say 15 catalysts at your disposal, there is little risk of failing to gank a retreiver for example. Unless you are all drunk and target each istead of the retreiver other for some odd reason. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3476
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:21:00 -
[155] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Andski wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:That's untrue. Miners RISK losing their ships. They MIGHT get blown up.
With suicide gankers there is no "might" unless there is no target. IF they do their job poorly, or well, they will still get blown up.
Concord can no longer be tanked or avoided unfortunately. There's also the risk of nothing of value being dropped in a hauler gank. You also risk your looting ship being blown up, even moreso now that you have suspect flags for looting wrecks. There's also the risk of getting your hauler alt suicide ganked on the way to Jita while moving the loot. Anybody who says this is "risk-free" is just posting fanfic. In the case of miner ganking, how can one argue that it's "risk-free" when you inherently operate at a loss when doing this? Even if it's sponsored by somebody else, somebody is taking a loss unless the secondary effects (i.e. the supply constraint and speculators driving the price of ice and isotopes up) outweigh that loss. Its not really risk. Its the "cost of doing business".
So is losing a mining ship in highsec. The guy who was sitting next to me in the first nullsec round table who had obviously not had a shower since before boarding his flight to Iceland, you really stank. You know who you are. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Sweet Sensations Radical Industries
12203
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:28:00 -
[156] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Unless you are all drunk and target each instead of the retreiver other for some odd reason. Is there any other way to fly?
Bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are ~ Harry G. Frankfurt |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8608
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:34:00 -
[157] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Its not really risk. Its the "cost of doing business". You know what you are going to pay upfront. There is the risk of failing, but generally that is not the case if you do your home work.
Nonsense. If I fly a Sabre on a fleet op, I'm only risking that Sabre plus the value of my implants plus my clone cost. There is no way that I can lose more than that unless I don't update my clone.
By your arbitrary BS definition of "risk" every activity in this game is inherently risk-free because in every case you choose how much to put at risk and you simply don't lose more than that. That does not make sense. Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
178
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:45:00 -
[158] - Quote
1- buy a LOT of ice 2- tell everyone you're going to gank every mining barge in caldari space. 3- people buy a lot of ice in Jita knowing price will increase 4- do not gank mining barge 5- sell your ice before price drop 6- profit
Better than Erotica 1's isk doubling. |
Captain Tardbar
Sons of Sam
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:15:00 -
[159] - Quote
Andski wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Its not really risk. Its the "cost of doing business". You know what you are going to pay upfront. There is the risk of failing, but generally that is not the case if you do your home work. Nonsense. If I fly a Sabre on a fleet op, I'm only risking that Sabre plus the value of my implants plus my clone cost. There is no way that I can lose more than that unless I don't update my clone. By your arbitrary BS definition of "risk" every activity in this game is inherently risk-free because in every case you choose how much to put at risk and you simply don't lose more than that. That does not make sense.
I'm not sure if this is clear to you but when you run a fleet OP that there is an assumption that you may survive the event.
Whereas if you gank someone, you know that you will lose your ship. You aren't risking it, because risk assumes that there is some sort of possibility that you will suceed in not losing your ship.
Otherwise, it is like saying WWII Japanese Kamikaze risked their airplanes to hit American aircraft carriers. See that doesn't make sense. They intended goal was to lose their aircraft in the process of hitting the ship. That's not risk. It's intended consequenes. Risk assumes intended survivability.
If a Japanese Zero braved anti-arcraft guns to drop a bomb on an aircraft carrier and then fly home... Then you can say that the pilot risked his plane to bomb the target.
Ganking has no risk other than failure and with 15 catalysts this is 0%.
Dictionary.com defines risk as "exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance"
I bolded the word "chance" so you know that risk requires a chance which assumes possible survivability. When death or destructionis 100% guaranteed, then there is no risk, because it is outcome that has no chance of survivability. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Mekkimaru
Abraxsys Get Off My Lawn
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:18:00 -
[160] - Quote
i too came looking for miner tears, seems they are still only in local
i always love me some grr goon posts though "What you don't get is that EvE is the most handholding, casual game ever. It is like farmville. No competition for people that want to put time in it. EvE is the most casual game of all times." - Caesarion Prime 2013 |
|
Kaylee Clay
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:23:00 -
[161] - Quote
Way back when I first started this game (different account) about 5 years ago or so I used to get upset about suicide gankers and surprise pvp etc. I thought ya'll were the most pychopathic and psychotic people I had ever had the great misfortune to encounter. I hated PvP'rs. Hated suicide gankers and in general hated anybody who would violence my boat when I didn't want to be violated. I was a pathetic carebear.
Then I ran across someone I truly loathed in game. Everything about this person made me hate them with a passion. I wanted nothing else but to see them dead and often. I climbed into my first pvp purposed ship that day and set out to violence HIS boat.
I lost. I got another one, changed my build some and went after him again. I lost again. I grabbed another ship, changed my build with some advice from some local pirate players and went after this guy again. I beat him. I was hooked. Lost. I had turned into a Psychopathic, Psychotic killer. The rush was amazing.
Since then I don't look at PvP of any kind the same way. I've participated in Hulkageddon. lived in the various places you can live in eve. I've done a lot of the game. I'm still a carebear at heart, I prefer to go off and do my own thing, but now if a fight comes my way I don't get angry and scream and yell and shed wild tears all over local. I reship and loose the autocannons.
I understand the carebear point of view because I was the ultimate carebear. But now I also understand the PVP point of view and why it is such an addicting rush.
If you have never PvP'd you have not engaged in the best that EVE has to offer. The game is so much broader than mining, missions and industry.
This is just my opinion. Yes I am still pretty much a carebear. But now I have teeth and claws. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3476
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:23:00 -
[162] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Dictionary.com defines risk as "exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance"
I bolded the word "chance" so you know that risk requires a chance which assumes possible survivability. When death or destructionis 100% guaranteed, then there is no risk, because it is outcome that has no chance of survivability.
As has been explained, ship loss isn't the only factor that we have to take in to account for suicide ganking. There are plenty of things left to chance. The guy who was sitting next to me in the first nullsec round table who had obviously not had a shower since before boarding his flight to Iceland, you really stank. You know who you are. |
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
37875
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:58:00 -
[163] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Dictionary.com defines risk as "exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance"
I bolded the word "chance" so you know that risk requires a chance which assumes possible survivability. When death or destructionis 100% guaranteed, then there is no risk, because it is outcome that has no chance of survivability. As has been explained, ship loss isn't the only factor that we have to take in to account for suicide ganking. There are plenty of things left to chance. You're trying to pidgeon-hole the definition of risk in to 'ship loss only'.
It's practically the same idiocy as the statement "the minerals you mine aren't free so buy them on the market".
Obviously nothing can be had ingame or in real life without economic or material exchange of some sort....even if its the energy used to go to the kitchen for more coffee.
Assigning the word "free" to the main argument is erroneous in that it assigns a value of zero to something which has already even been declared of a value, simply by default of its very existence.
It is not an argument.
It is a semantic derp. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8609
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 01:21:00 -
[164] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Ganking has no risk other than failure and with 15 catalysts this is 0%.
Dictionary.com defines risk as "exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance"
I bolded the word "chance" so you know that risk requires a chance which assumes possible survivability. When death or destructionis 100% guaranteed, then there is no risk, because it is outcome that has no chance of survivability.
So if CCP changed hisec aggression mechanics and introduced a diceroll that determines whether you get CONCORDed after getting a GCC, or removed CONCORD entirely and put the onus of dealing with criminal flagged players on other players, you'd shut up about suicide ganking being risk-free?
We'll take that! Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8609
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 01:23:00 -
[165] - Quote
Like really what you're saying here is that suicide ganking is risk-free because there's no chance of the aggressor surviving the event Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8609
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 01:25:00 -
[166] - Quote
"It's risky to mine in hisec because you might get suicide ganked. On the other hand, if you're suicide ganking, getting your suspect flagged looter blown up or having the loot diceroll work against your favor is just the cost of business" - Captain Tardbar Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Shederov Blood
Wrecketeers
381
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 01:33:00 -
[167] - Quote
Being ganked by 15 catalysts = risk free mining! No chance of survival. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4204
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 03:27:00 -
[168] - Quote
Andski wrote:"It's risky to mine in hisec because you might get suicide ganked. On the other hand, if you're suicide ganking, getting your suspect flagged looter blown up or having the loot diceroll work against your favor isn't the result of it being a risky activity, but the cost of business" - Captain Tardbar
Tell us more about your way of thinking here
Shederov Blood wrote:Being ganked by 15 catalysts = risk free mining! No chance of survival. We might be on to something here. There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16159
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 03:47:00 -
[169] - Quote
As always, risk = cost +ù probability. Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean it's not a risk GÇö it just means that the risk is so hight that it has the same value as the cost. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
118
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 03:51:00 -
[170] - Quote
Tippia wrote:As always, risk = cost +ù probability. Just because the probability is 1 doesn't mean it's not a risk GÇö it just means that the risk is so hight that it has the same value as the cost.
Too lazy to read the entirety; are you still arguing that suicide cats (which work out to about the isk/hour of BS ammo) are inherently risky?
Like most people, I tend not to factor ammo costs into my risk assessment. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16160
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 03:56:00 -
[171] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Too lazy to read the entirety; are you still arguing that suicide cats (which work out to about the isk/hour of BS ammo) are inherently risky? Maybe you should read the entirety so you can check your assumptions.
No. I'm stating that risk = cost +ù probability, and that probabilities range from 0 to 1. The only way for the risk to be zero is if at least one of the two factors GÇö the cost or the probability GÇö is zero. In ganks, both are non-zero; in fact, one of them is as far from zero as it will go.
Quote:Like most people, I tend not to factor ammo costs into my risk assessment. If you choose to assess your risk incorrectly, then that's your problem. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
269
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 04:13:00 -
[172] - Quote
It's different risks Tippia.
You're mixing up the definitions. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
118
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 04:17:00 -
[173] - Quote
Tippia wrote:S Byerley wrote:Too lazy to read the entirety; are you still arguing that suicide cats (which work out to about the isk/hour of BS ammo) are inherently risky? Maybe you should read the entirety so you can check your assumptions. No. I'm stating that risk = cost +ù probability, and that probabilities range from 0 to 1. The only way for the risk to be zero is if at least one of the two factors GÇö the cost or the probability GÇö is zero. In ganks, both are non-zero; in fact, one of them is as far from zero as it will go.
Using that definition, nothing in the game is risk-free, making the concept useless in discussions. Perhaps it makes more sense to consider context. By Eve standards, catalyst ganking is risk-free - moreso than any of the hisec activities you tend to disdain if you don't mind me saying.
Tippia wrote:Quote:Like most people, I tend not to factor ammo costs into my risk assessment. If you choose to assess your risk incorrectly, then that's your problem.
If you waste time considering trivial factors, that's your problem, please don't burden us with your distorted/feigned appreciation of scale. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16160
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 04:21:00 -
[174] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:It's different risks Tippia.
You're mixing up the definitions. I guess.
Sometimes, I get this whole GÇ£risk as defined by every risk assessment standard everGÇ¥ with GÇ£risk is what I say it is because it serves my purposes to arbitrarily paint something as risk-free because I don't like itGÇ¥ mixed up. It's just that I think the former is actually relevant and the latter is idiotic and dishonest so if people choose to discuss something different than the actual risk, I just skip over that bet and keep using the correct way of calculating it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
118
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 04:27:00 -
[175] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sometimes, I get this whole GÇ£risk as defined by every risk assessment standard everGÇ¥ with GÇ£risk is what I say it is because it serves my purposes to arbitrarily paint something as risk-free because I don't like itGÇ¥ mixed up. It's just that I think the former is actually relevant and the latter is idiotic and dishonest so if people choose to discuss something different than the actual risk, I just skip over that bet and keep using the correct way of calculating it.
Forgive me for not knowing all your fancy business major lingo, but I'm pretty sure when an expense is certain you don't run a risk assessment on it; rather you consider it overhead/operating cost/ w/e |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16160
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 04:33:00 -
[176] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Forgive me for not knowing all your fancy business major lingo, but I'm pretty sure when an expense is certain you don't run a risk assessment on it; rather you consider it overhead/operating cost/ w/e Sure you do, because transforming it into a risk means you can slot it into the overall risk assessment and not accidentally miss out on unexpected compound effects of complex risks.
Total risk exposure is far better a foundation for decisions than having two baskets of GÇ£things we think might be risksGÇ¥ and GÇ£things we think might not beGÇ¥ and having no idea of how the two tie together. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
118
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 04:41:00 -
[177] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Total risk exposure is far better a foundation for decisions than having two baskets of GÇ£things we think might be risksGÇ¥ and GÇ£things we think might not beGÇ¥ and having no idea of if or how the two tie together.
Really? No idea how the two tie together? Do business peoples have trouble with the concept of constant offsets? They're much more efficient than introducing a meaningless variable; pretty sure they're preferred in engineering. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16160
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 04:47:00 -
[178] - Quote
S Byerley wrote:Really? No idea how the two tie together? Do business peoples have trouble with the concept of constant offsets? I have no idea what business people have trouble with (other than predicting economic trends), but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to calculate total risk, you include all risks GÇö even the ones with a an astronomically high probability.
That's the whole beauty of the risk concept: that it trivially allows you to include such high-probability costs and get the right number immediately rather than having to figure out after the fact where it goes in the equation. Thus you avoid the problem of accidentally counting a 0.01% probability of incurring a given cost as a higher risk than a 100% probability of incurring the same cost.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Spectatoress
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 04:50:00 -
[179] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Came to the thread looking for miner tears.
Left disappointed Give it a week before we get a good one. Right now its just the grr goon brigade.
Oh, at this time your comrades get disappointed that near no one cares about their doing besides some babbling in local that they continue to open threads with highsec-alts where you/they can post with their goon-twinks about "farming tears from pubbies" desperately looking for e-fame for zerging despite being the incompetent player they are? |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
118
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 05:01:00 -
[180] - Quote
Tippia wrote:you include all risks GÇö even the ones with a an astronomically high probability.
You don't have to wedge it into a risk to include it in the assessment (and you really shouldn't because dimensions are expensive, computation wise, and offsets are cheap). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |