As I predicted and posted on GD months ago, the new ice mining mechanic would adversely affect gankers much more than miners.

So, you and your friends sat for hours, watching some ppl mine ice, in the hopes of stealing more of the loot?

So, you and your friends sat for hours, watching some ppl mine ice, in the hopes of stealing more of the loot?

Hey OP... instead of whining because people aren't killing them, you grow some balls and you and your friends do the killing. Or aren't you man enough?

I thought it was starting until after down-time today.. so you could be jumping the gun with that assessment.

So I had eyes on a Caldari Ice belt last night... Prime Time too.

Everyone is minding their own business for a an hour or two and then I finally see 4 catalysts pop a Mack. This is actually not that unsual for the system.

As my friends quickly snag all the loot, we wait for more of a show to happen.

Then a covertor shows up in the belt and for the rest of the night (probaly 2 hours) it mines away with impunity.

We were waiting for them to get concord to show up somewhere else by using an Ibis to pull them away, but sadly no one did anything for the rest of the night even after another belt spawned.

There were plenty of retreivers and mack shooting their lasers at the Ice roids.

Some friends in the belt (AKA Those who were in the category of caution) were using Skiffs with 75K EPH getting boosts with their bulk head tanked Orcas sitting off 0m from the a nearby station so they could quickly warp to it and dump there loads.

I saw a few Skiffs have the balls to bring out an indy and can mining yet no one was molesting them.

So this whole Ice Belt mining doesn't really seem to be stopping the flow of Ice.

Plenty of people still ice mining in non-skiffs and there was 1 gank for about 4 hours of watching.

So I can only assume the rise in Ice prices has something to do with market speculation because even though the belts may not have bot balls (which I think is maybe the nicest thing about this) but the belts are still being mined out and the ice is still flowing.

Which is just making the ice miners rich with the current prices. Whooptie doo.

Yep, the interdiction was all talk and bluster and no action, continue mining safely folks. Don't worry about fitting extra tank you won't need it.

I heard there are freighters dying in the ice belts and the carnage is ramping up

No ganker worth his salt wants to sit in a system wait 4 hours until a belt spawns.

Because suicide ganking is manly. Suicide ganking is like, the lowest form of PvP.

Lowest? Ha, gate camp says hi.

I heard there are freighters dying in the ice belts and the carnage is ramping up

So I had eyes on a Caldari Ice belt last night... Prime Time too.

buy my topes

You're assuming that ice is actually moving at the increased prices. No trade volume = no profit.

The interdiction only started officially today. What you have been seeing is just some individuals jumping the gun.

Check the killboards, you'll see more than a few orcas popping up on there, and more exhumers and barges than I can be bothered to count.

Also, not every belt will be hit at the same time. Obviously covering 100% of belts would not be possible, but there are definitely enough already going down to make a dent.

Because suicide ganking is manly. Suicide ganking is like, the lowest form of PvP.

That's why I just sacrifice my ship instead of my life.

And Ice mining is the lowest form of PvE, so it only seems fitting, n'est-ce pas?

Lowest? Ha, gate camp says hi.

I'm in chill mode at the moment.

Yea, not so much. Gate camping may be pretty low on the list, but nowhere near suicide ganking. At least gate campers take the risk of people being able to PvP them back, and kill people who are mostly at their keyboard.

Yea, not so much. Gate camping may be pretty low on the list, but nowhere near suicide ganking. At least gate campers take the risk of people being able to PvP them back, and kill people who are mostly at their keyboard.

You're assuming that ice is actually moving at the increased prices. No trade volume = no profit.

We arn't even past day one.

Having a ball with this ice interdiction thing, I look forward to more.

You might pass it down the line to the FCs of the bigger ganks to have the fleet turn off auto-target-back. The last thing you want to have happen is some guy with his guns primed accidentally lock that Ishtar that pre-locked him and blow his wad early.

I'm sorry, did we hurt your e-honoure ~ ?

I don't normally mine ice but when I do, it goes in my whisky

If a decent group of suicide gankers wants one of your ships dead there is literally nothing you can do about it. It is the only area in Eve where someone gets to PvP risk free.

Except for that whole part where they lose their ships to CONCORD.

Hey OP... instead of whining because people aren't killing them, you grow some balls and you and your friends do the killing. Or aren't you man enough?

I very rarely disagree with you Tippia, but here I have to. In the vast majority of cases, you don't have time to shoot a suicide ganker back, and even if you did it wouldn't help. If a decent group of suicide gankers wants one of your ships dead there is literally nothing you can do about it. It is the only area in Eve where someone gets to PvP risk free.

A bit dissapointed ! Not the chaos that I expected.

I very rarely disagree with you Tippia, but here I have to. In the vast majority of cases, you don't have time to shoot a suicide ganker back, and even if you did it wouldn't help. If a decent group of suicide gankers wants one of your ships dead there is literally nothing you can do about it. It is the only area in Eve where someone gets to PvP risk free.

ugggh lol yea bc killing miners is REAL pvp.

dude, even the forums are pvp grounds in this game.

Goons were getting spanked.

They refused to come up to the ice belts after a while.

L O S E R S

look at you talking trash hiding behind an npc alt

lol

Sorry, this is my main lamer. I was up in Osmon most of the weekend along with you goonpussies. Just ask the ones that were there.

look at you talking trash hiding behind an npc alt

lol

... I guess clone costs add up when you don't use a throwaway alt.

Sorry, this is my main lamer. I was up in Osmon most of the weekend along with you goonpussies. Just ask the ones that were there.

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.

Also, you hide behind an alliance that has over half of the server population so who is the real coward.

Goons were cowering in the stations last night, and would not come up to the ice belts.

Also, you hide behind an alliance that has over half of the server population so who is the real coward.

Goons were cowering in the stations last night, and would not come up to the ice belts.

most people don't suicide gank with throwaway alts, sorry

The point remains the same though, it's still just a costing exercise the known cost of the ship sacrificed versus the value of the loot (assuming you don't bungle the hit of course).

Wow, a lot of Suicide Ganker tears in this thread. Epic PvPers with a point to prove.

"omg suicide ganking does take some skilz!"

No, it really doesn't. It's all pre-calculated. Scan the ship first, warp in with one more catalyst than is strictly required (use a cloaked warp-to), blow them up and then dock up. Worried about ECM or logi? Why? It's not a viable tactic. Unless they baited you there, they are not going to have anything like that. As for people killing gankers, yea I do it myself if I can catch one. If you got caught then your a complete idiot.

You're just bitter about your "Grrr Goons" thread getting locked.

So, really. What is the point in playing this game.


There is no game here. It's already over.

GSF has all 10,000 members online at all times. News at 11.


Make sure to contract me all of your stuff before your character gets biomassed. We wouldn't want all that good mining equipment to go to waste, now would we?

"omg suicide ganking does take some skilz!"

No, it really doesn't. It's all pre-calculated. Scan the ship first, warp in with one more catalyst than is strictly required (use a cloaked warp-to), blow them up and then dock up.

Worried about ECM or logi? Why? It's not a viable tactic.

Also, you hide behind an alliance that has over half of the server population so who is the real coward.

GǪall of which requires a fair amount of skillz to do and execute in unison.

So on the one hand, you're saying that they're bringing one more catalyst than is strictly necessary, and on the other hand, a ship that puts 3GÇô4 catalysts out of the fight is somehow GÇ£not a viable tacticGÇ¥? Of course ECM or logis are a worry, since they trivially tip the scale in favour of the gankee.

Probably the person who have to exaggerate the number of opponents by an order of magnitude, and then some, in order to justify his giving up.

No. There are not 250,000 goons in the game.

That little number where you type your name and password in never goes above 50k. You are the one exaggerating.

Twist the numbers moar.

May and June regularly had the daily login approaching 60,000.

It is back to school and university time you know. Every. Single. Year.

In fact on May 6 it broke 63,000.

Why are you trying so desperately hard here, and only failing?

That little number where you type your name and password in never goes above 50k.

GǪall of which requires a fair amount of skillz to do and execute in unison.

So on the one hand, you're saying that they're bringing one more catalyst than is strictly necessary, and on the other hand, a ship that puts 3GÇô4 catalysts out of the fight is somehow GÇ£not a viable tacticGÇ¥? Of course ECM or logis are a worry, since they trivially tip the scale in favour of the gankee.

Probably the person who have to exaggerate the number of opponents by an order of magnitude, and then some, in order to justify his giving up.

No. There are not 250,000 goons in the game.

You mean the one that counts online users, not the total server population?
The one that regularly goes above 50k?
The one that would still require the goons to have 15GÇô25,000 members for them to be GÇ£half the [players online]GÇ¥, which they still don't?

Yeah, you're still exaggerating to justify your decision to give up.

Oh, and you conveniently omitted your pets, aka Clusterfuck Coalition. Sorry, you are either stupid or hopping I am.

You go play your skewed little game and take pride in your warped little accomplishments.

Never seen it go above 50k. Cry moar.

Butt hurt?

Wow, a lot of Suicide Ganker tears in this thread. Epic PvPers with a point to prove.

"omg suicide ganking does take some skilz!"

No, it really doesn't. It's all pre-calculated. Scan the ship first, warp in with one more catalyst than is strictly required (use a cloaked warp-to), blow them up and then dock up. Worried about ECM or logi? Why? It's not a viable tactic. Unless they baited you there, they are not going to have anything like that. As for people killing gankers, yea I do it myself if I can catch one. If you got caught then your a complete idiot.

You are the worst Troll ever to appear in these forums by a long shot. And I've been readin' and postin' for over 3 years.

Congratulations I guess.

Sorry you are so angry about yourself inside. I know. It hurts. And from WAY back.

As for goons. How does anyone in this organization come out as being a skilled gamer? You would never convince me of anyone in goons being or having any skill in this game. You all hide behind and have more than half of the server population in either the alliance or clusterfuck.

yes hisec ice mining is a skill-intensive profession

You've been a good goon pet. No go lie in the corner.

yes hisec ice mining is a skill-intensive profession

A goon talking about skill. I had to laugh.

I don't care what you think if you ever think at all.

Your posting habits prove otherwise.

I don't have any pets (in-game that is), and no, CFC are not goons. Even if you incorrectly label CFC as goons, they're still not more than half the server population no matter how you count, so you're still exaggerating to justify your decision to give up.

I don't particularly need to hope for something that is already true. What I am hoping for is that you're capable of taking in information and learning, but that hope is slowly waning as we speakGǪ

So why the lies? Who are you trying to convince with your obviously and hilariously wrong numbers?

How is the game skewed, and how is having fun with my friends in any GǣwarpedGǥ? It's kind of what well-adjusted human beings do, you knowGǪ but if you consider that warped, it would explain a lot.

CFC are not goons.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Clusterfuck_Coalition_(Player_coalition)

lie moar.

CFC are not goons.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Clusterfuck_Coalition_(Player_coalition)

lie moar.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Clusterfuck_Coalition_(Player_coalition)


RAZOR Alliance (-RZR-)
Fatal Ascension (-FA-)
Tactical Narcotics Team (TNT)
Fidelas Constans (FCON)
SpaceMonkeyGÇÖs Alliance (SMA)
Executive Outcomes (.EXE)
Gentlemen's Agreement (GENTS)
Get Off My Lawn (LAWN)
Circle-Of-Two (CO2)
Li3 Federation (L3F)

These are goons? My goodness...

So on the one hand, you're saying that they're bringing one more catalyst than is strictly necessary, and on the other hand, a ship that puts 3GÇô4 catalysts out of the fight is somehow GÇ£not a viable tacticGÇ¥? Of course ECM or logis are a worry, since they trivially tip the scale in favour of the gankee.

Correct.

A Gèé B Gëá B Gèé A

Love the propaganda.

Goonswarm Federation (CONDI)
RAZOR Alliance (-RZR-)
Fatal Ascension (-FA-)
Tactical Narcotics Team (TNT)
Fidelas Constans (FCON)
SpaceMonkeyGÇÖs Alliance (SMA)
Executive Outcomes (.EXE)
Gentlemen's Agreement (GENTS)
Get Off My Lawn (LAWN)
Circle-Of-Two (CO2)
Li3 Federation (L3F)

as you can see on the wiki.

Love how you take what I say out of context. Which is exactly anything you say means nothing.

Goons are a member of clusterfuck as posted on the wiki. Where is your proof?

The logistics boat perhaps. The ECM boat will need to have a very fast lock time and the pilot will need incredibly quick reflexes if they are going to jam a suicide ganking catalyst before the gank victim is blown up.

For some reason I'm reminded of fifth grade math.

"All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares"

There was that one kid with their finger up their nose and they just didn't get it.

Good times.

I have a juicebox and apple that I will trade for a snackpack. Any takers?

In other words its just a cost of doing business, not risk.

"omg suicide ganking does take some skilz!"

No, it really doesn't. It's all pre-calculated. Scan the ship first, warp in with one more catalyst than is strictly required (use a cloaked warp-to), blow them up and then dock up. Worried about ECM or logi? Why? It's not a viable tactic. Unless they baited you there, they are not going to have anything like that. As for people killing gankers, yea I do it myself if I can catch one. If you got caught then your a complete idiot.

How is that any different from getting into (insert ship here) that you are willing to lose and undocking to (insert pvp activity). It's a calculated cost of doing business. If there is risk associated with your pvp you are doing it wrong. With ganking, it's just a guaranteed cost where otherwise you might get lucky and make it back to dock.



Yup, it's dead easy. Undock, right click warp, lock, F1. Oh wait, that's mining.

Just scan the ship first - without spooking the prey.
But you can't just warp in you see. First you have to figure out how many to use. Hope he doesn't dock up and refit in the mean time. Sure you got the math right? It takes no skill. Just don't forget to include shield links. And armor links. And implants.
Then "just" warp in on a moving barge to your cloaked scout navigating between ships, drones and rocks. That part takes no skill either.

Then you get to lock and F1. Don't worry about that Falcon you never saw. You brought an extra catalyst. It will only jam out one.. per module. It doesn't even need SeBo's to lock a cat in 6 seconds. Your no skill math requires at least double that in dps time to get the kill.

Don't forget to get your pod out. It would suck making a couple mil split X+1 ways just to pay 5-10mil for a new med clone. Wait why the +1 again? Extra welp less profit and an extra share to split. I though the math is easy and there's no risk? Then why do you need to waste resources and bring an extra pilot in on it "just in case"?

clusterfuck = goons + Allies

No. There are not 250,000 goons in the game.

Stupid is as stupid does. Seems some don't actually play the game, they play symantecs on the forums.

clusterfuck = goons + pets

So you agree, then, that CFC is not the same as goons.

My proof is in the wiki and in the simple fact that one thing being a subset of another is not equivalent to the other being a part of (or the whole of) the one. The proof was right in the post you quoted: A Gèé B Gëá B Gèé A

Oh, and I didn't take what you said out of context. I was merely being kind and quoted the part you got right.


Oh, I don't know. Ewar ship tend to have fast lock times, and he needs luck more than quick reflexes, but that depends on how he chooses to spread the jams and what kind of ship he's in. A Rook with three SDAs will have a 100% jam chance against a non-ECCMed Catalyst (or with no SDAs if he overheats) so he could just go hog wild, and he should have 2s-ish lock times with a bit of sensor boosting.

Seems some don't actually play the game, they play symantecs on the forums.

So you agree, then, that CFC is not the same as goons.

Wow...you almost *get* goons.

Now, let's try to understand reddit. It's about posting cat pictures and image macros, right?

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.

Now, let's try to understand reddit. It's about posting cat pictures and image macros, right?

Hot GANKING action. See blasters overheat, EVE is real.

Just fought in a war, I'm in chill mode at the moment. Please forgive me for not providing enough content for you as you warp from mission to mission.

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

Im still missing the answer from Mr. SuperPro Andski whats the rocket science in suicide ganking.

Its only as easy as people let it be and miners make it very easy for us.

"people who have never suicide ganked" - people who don't check their facts.

Edit: Just to get things streight, I think suicide ganking is an important part of the game. I have no problem with suicide gankers. I have suicide ganked myself. Couple of times with my main, a great deal more than a couple of times on alts, and I have frequently been in corps who have regularly suicide ganked.

The problem I have, is when people whine that suicide ganking is hard, or requires any skill. No one I have ever suicide ganked with has been under the illusion that it's difficult. People make the argument that it's difficult to make a profit now, but frankly I never knew anyone who suicide ganked for profit, at least not on a single person scale. It's about the grief. Also, when people argue that miners deserve it for being afk, that pisses me off because that's just stupid. I don't even like mining. I haven't mined in literally years. Basically, people spreading crap so confidently pisses me off.

Still plenty of afk ice miners, I see.

We should give them a little poke to see if they are awake.

why do you waste so many catalysts on Orcas when half of them could do the job?...or 2 orcas could get ganked simultaneously?

why do you waste so many catalysts on Orcas when half of them could do the job?...or 2 orcas could get ganked simultaneously?

We dont want to stop people from blowing stuff up if they want to.

lol, this!
I throw my alt into pretty much any kill. Even if there's already 60 people queuing up to kill that orca, I'll make it 61! because... why not.
It's not like it's costly to lost a destroyer, like 2M i can make back in minutes. I have more already fitted gank ships dotted all over the place, so it's not even like I have to spend time fitting, and when you are at -10, you can't get any lower.
It's quite a sight to see a massive blob of destroyers overkill an orca though then blap anything in range on the way out. You should try it Eugene.

been there....but we try to kill as many ships as possible at once.
Its all about efficiency when you earn your money from loot. So I can understand that you might not have that perspective.
Nevertheless carry on with doing this important work!

We dont want to stop people from blowing stuff up if they want to.

dude, even the forums are pvp grounds in this game.

But is it REAL pvp?

Some form of pvp being easyer does not mean they are not real...

Just fought in a war, I'm in chill mode at the moment. Please forgive me for not providing enough content for you as you warp from mission to mission.

An update of sorts...

I have alts in two different Caldari ice belts and it seems there are plenty enough miners to deplete the belts just as before the ice interdiction.

What I do notice is that there is a lack of Orcas and Freighters involved along with the usually ball of botters.

So suffice to say this ordeal has made it easier for the little man who solos to get his fair share of the ice.

Thanks for that interesting turn of events.

I mean all you need is a 11 million isk procurer and a clone with no implants and you can make your ships worth in 3 loads and everything else is just money in your pocket. So if you are killed and podded you can just keep mining.

An update of sorts...

I have alts in two different Caldari ice belts and it seems there are plenty enough miners to deplete the belts just as before the ice interdiction.

What I do notice is that there is a lack of Orcas and Freighters involved along with the usually ball of botters.

So suffice to say this ordeal has made it easier for the little man who solos to get his fair share of the ice.

Thanks for that interesting turn of events.

I mean all you need is a 11 million isk procurer and a clone with no implants and you can make your ships worth in 3 loads and everything else is just money in your pocket. So if you are killed and podded you can just keep mining.

A procurer with the best mining yield fit and a T2 orca boosting, mining inflated Caldari ice still only makes 17.8m/hour. you'd make MUCH more simply mining regular ore in another region.

Hrm... My calculations of an unboosted Procurer gets around 20 million per hour with current ice prices with a cycle time of 50 secs.

Anyways.

I'm talking about people who don't own Orca's, freighters, and massive fleets of macks. People who run those large fleets are the people I don't like.

Max yield again. Might want those deadspace shield boosters for the rats, you know ~

Ice in a good single malt == sacrilege! Just a wee splash of water to open it up.

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.

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.

This. ^

And by 'wee', I mean 'added with a eyedropper.'

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".

Unless you are all drunk and target each instead of the retreiver other for some odd reason.

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.

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'.

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.

"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

Being ganked by 15 catalysts = risk free mining!
No chance of survival.

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.

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.

If you choose to assess your risk incorrectly, then that's your problem.

It's different risks Tippia.

You're mixing up the definitions.

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

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?

Give it a week before we get a good one. Right now its just the grr goon brigade.

you include all risks GÇö even the ones with a an astronomically high probability.

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 that need afk-targets to polish their kb?

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).

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.

You are correct. When suicide ganking the ship is the expendable ammo. A risk is not a risk if the outcome is certain. A risk requires an element of chance.

So there is no risk in ganking. Just expenditure.

You should transform it to a risk, since it's silly cheap, computation-wise,

and since it means you don't have to worry about missing compound effects of complex linked probabilities. Sure, you don't have to, but it's pretty stupid not to since it costs nothing and adds a ton of robustness.

That way, 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.

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 that need afk-targets to polish their kb?

i don't care SO MUCH

Thanks for caring. I'll be sure to remember that you care each time I gank something during this interdiction.

You are correct. When suicide ganking the ship is the expendable ammo. A risk is not a risk if the outcome is certain. A risk requires an element of chance.

So there is no risk in ganking.

What are you on about? Adding a variable into any sort of optimization is extremely expensive.

Pretty sure you're just spitting out all the fancy statisticy sounding words you know at this point

The whole point is that something with 100% probability isn't a risk

If you want to make this kind of argument, use the right term. Risk isn't it. Describe at as having too low costs or some such (but realise that you will then run afoul of the standard GÇ£cost is not a balancing factorGÇ¥ argument), and realise that you will still have to deal with the exact same risks, only repurposed as (statistical) costs instead.

Regardless, at least be honest about what you're saying. Trying to paint something unavoidable as non-existent does not qualify.

The problem is that suicide ganking (or at least certain forms) is risk-free, highly profitable, and requires minimal investment. It's the combination that makes it unbalanced - because Eve generally balances activities around the three.

Your example generates risk, but ignores the associated increase in profit - thus the nonsensical conclusion.

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.

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

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 that need afk-targets to polish their kb?

The problem is that suicide ganking (or at least certain forms) is risk-free

Your example generates risk, but ignores the associated increase in profit - thus the nonsensical conclusion.

Oh, knowledge gap, let me try to clarify: if you're optimizing, presumably with linear programming or something similar, the asymptotic complexity is going to be polynomial, with n being the number of variable you're optimizing over.

No, just no.

What you mean to say is that the projected costs are too often too easily outweighed by the projected gains. This is the point that needs to be argued by those who are upset that they packed their ships too full of valuables, and it is one that can be argued with actual facts or figures.

The number of variables is the same regardless of whether you treat them as costs or as risks.

Actually, yes. Very yes.

Oh, and by saying GÇ£it is not a riskGÇ¥, you have just left it out. So it is indeed being arbitrarily left out.

What you mean to say is that the projected costs are too often too easily outweighed by the projected gains. This is the point that needs to be argued by those who are upset that they packed their ships too full of valuables, and it is one that can be argued with actual facts or figures.

The number of variables is the same regardless of whether you treat them as costs or as risks.

Actually, yes. Very yes.

Oh, and by saying GÇ£it is not a riskGÇ¥, you have just left it out. So it is indeed being arbitrarily left out.

How bout I include it, but not as a risk because it's not a risk? Kinda like I already said.

Or you could just continue ignoring the points that poke glaring holes in your argument.

Those points being?

So far there's been a lot of semantic silliness (which you can't logically poke holes with), a supposed counter-example which was easily dismissed, and a bunch of vague statistical buzzwords that the author clearly doesn't understand (also impossible to poke holes with).

You're somehow over simplifying the important bits and over complicating the math at the same time (I guess for the sake of homogeneity?) on top of autistic semantics.

I've been over the figures with you

If you're not treating it as a variable, you're using it as an offset/constant and simply calling it a risk for the sake of argument.

No, just no.

How bout I include it, but not as a risk

Those points being?