| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
297
   |
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cedo Nulli wrote:When something will happen 100% certainty ... its not a risk. The risk is 0 No. When something will happen with 100% certainty, the risk is 100%. That's how risk works: [probability] +ù [cost]. If the risk is zero, it's because the risk is zero, and that can only really happen if the gank is 100% certain to return more ISK than was spent on itGǪ and that certainty isn't 100% simply because the drop mechanics won't let it. Anyway, as mentioned: it's a bug. Report it as such.
Nicely put.
The lack of reasoning coming from the carebear community is astounding.
Suppose you bring a 1650 DPS Talos crashing down on an untanked Mackinaw.
Once you start shooting, the Mackinaw's chance of survival is basically zero (unless the node crashes).
Using their insane logic:
Because the miner has essentially 0% chance of surviving the encounter - same as the ganker,
the miner is, likewise, 'not taking a risk'.
If the miner isn't risking anything, what are they whining about? 
EDIT: And yes, doesn't make sense that Concord jams instantly - it would make ganking in Catalysts nearly impossible. Haven't tried it myself since the last wave of nerfs....haven't even logged in lately. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
297
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:....haven't even logged in lately. as usual, trolling forums is more fun than the game
Yeah, more or less. Getting my Battlefield 3 on lately, waiting for CCP to get off their nerf-a-day kick.
We'll see where things stand once the rules of the game stabilize. Mildly curious to see if the bots I spent 4 months petitioning will still be there when I start up miner-ganking operations again.
Oh, and I think the OP is mistaken - as I clearly see people on the Killboards solo-killing Hulks with Catalysts. An insta-jam would make this impossible.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
297
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:Zverofaust wrote: So the certainty of losing your ship once you aggress is not a risk? What is wrong with you people? If you attempt to do something *knowing* the outcome is the loss of your ship how could you consider that risk? (See Ganking A$$HAT)
Allow me to point out how stupid and hypocritical you are in carebear terms.
When you invent something: What happens?
-You destroy a BPC, a number of datacores, and a decryptor.
-You lose those items 100% of the time, you don't get them back.
-You may, or may not get back a T2 BPC, based on a random number generator.
The inventor is taking a risk. And nobody disputes that.
Suicide ganker: What happens?
-You gank with a Tornado or a Catalyst.
-You lose it 100% of the time, you don't get it back.
-You may, or may not kill your target. (based on target tank, ganker skill and gunnery random number generation)
-You may, or may not get good drops. (again, random number generated)
Somehow, according to carebears, the ganker is not taking a risk.
Why is inventing a risk, while suicide ganking is not?
Simple, the 'ganker is bad' and carebears don't even want to concede that the ganker is risking something.
Because that admission would contradict other carebear arguments for removing suicide ganking from the game entirely. (on the grounds that it is unbalanced because there is 'no risk')
Nonsense, but thats what is going on their heads.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
298
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 04:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Bullshit * 100% = $lots of $Bullshit - Credibility = 0 (because credibility is negative). Stunning comeback. So you understand the maths now, then? It's actually very simple and the only issue is the slightly unintuitive edge case of having 100% probability, since it falls somewhat outside how the word is used in everyday speech. I suppose the idea of negative risks might raise an eyebrow at first as well, but that's just a way to decide how you want to signify losses and gains, especially if you want to be able to deal with both at the same time.
HAHA. MatrixSkye Mk2 just got schooled because he can't even comprehend, even when its been explained multiple times. 
Seriously, acting like losing a ship to Concord isn't 'a risk'...simply because its a guaranteed outcome - is complete nonsense.
Simple mental exercise:
Suppose CCP modified Concord so it only killed the ganker 90% of the time. (which would be awesome, BTW)
It would mean LESS risk for the ganker. Obviously.
But wait! If you are stupid, and believe that merely having 100% chance of being killed by Concord = 'no risk exists'....
well, how can you reduce your risk to less than zero? Or do you think that 'risk' for the ganker somehow 'increases' by simply adding a probability of surviving Concord?
Really, these are simple concepts, and Tippia has spent hours patiently spoon-feeding them for you.
If you STILL don't comprehend them...well, I'm sorry, but there are no drugs that will fix your particular empty-headed condition. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
298
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 10:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tippia wrote:Quote:100% ship lost is not a risk, you've already factored that in, it's a known result before you even start. It most certainly is a risk. Again: risk = probability +ù cost. Just because the probability is 100% doesn't mean there is no risk GÇö quite the opposite, in fact: it means there the risk is total. Can you stop talking about stuff you have no idea about and then going the usual TRALALALA I AM RIGHT when people kindly points you out how it's COST OF BUSINESS. If you had a 100M ship in low sec that shoots a 3M projectile that always kills a Mackinaw, then 3M is the cost of business. If you "are" the 3M projectile that always kills a Mackinaw then 3M is the cost of business. The risk is there: 20% of the time the Mackinaw will NOT die (for many factors), that's your RISK.
Eh, sounds like some hair splitting going on.
My issue is with people that go around propagandizing that suicide ganking involves no risk to the ganker, therefore deserves no reward - and therefore should be removed from the game. One could easily turn around the 'cost of business' angle and say that miners losing their Barges is simply a 'cost of business' as well. Over a long enough period of time AFK-mining without a tank, you are going to lose Exhumers to gankers.
However, it sounds like you acknowledge that ganking involves significant risk.
Certainly, the odds of any given suicide attack are in favor of the ganker - but that is because he chooses when and where to strike - and 95% of the mining population do not even take the simplest of precautions. But that doesn't mean failure is impossible. Gunnery has a random number component which widely modifies artillery shots. 3rd Parties can always interfere on your behalf. Even lag plays a significant role when your window of operation is seconds.
A miner might even L2tank - or be at the keyboard and warp out. Crazy, I know. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
298
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 11:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
I also don't understand why you guys act like there is a fixed price to ganking.
But it is not - its highly variable and based on a random number generator.
A typical gank-fit T2 Catalyst (capable of soloing an Exhumer) costs around 1M for the hull, and maybe 10-18M for the mods.
A typical 50M ISK T2 Tornado (capable of killing 2 Mackinaws or a Hulk + a pod) is sporting around 40-50M in mods.
Anywhere between 0 and 100% of them could survive - and in the case of Destroyers, thats 95% of the entire cost.
Leave the target and explosion out of it - I could lose anywhere from 1M to 20M per Catalyst.
You can pretend that 'consuming' your own ship is a 'fixed' cost - but thats wrong because there is a significant 'random' factor there because you are 'rolling the dice' on your OWN costs on each attempt.
....as well as the chance of success
...AND the chances of getting good drops.
Over a long enough time period, drop rates should approach 50%, but on any given attempt the actual costs are somewhat out of your control - unknown until you actually perform the gank.
Sometimes you get all 8x of your T2 1400MM arties back, sometimes you don't get any - assuming someone doesn't manage to steal them first. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
299
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 12:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Schalac wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:
You can pretend that 'consuming' your own ship is a 'fixed' cost - but thats wrong because there is a significant 'random' factor there because you are 'rolling the dice' on your OWN costs on each attempt.
....as well as the chance of success
...AND the chances of getting good drops.
Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
Thats why I gank in T2 Tornados.  |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
299
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 12:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
EVE Stig wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Schalac wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:
You can pretend that 'consuming' your own ship is a 'fixed' cost - but thats wrong because there is a significant 'random' factor there because you are 'rolling the dice' on your OWN costs on each attempt.
....as well as the chance of success
...AND the chances of getting good drops.
Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. Thats why I gank in T2 Tornados. you dont even log Youve said as much, stop trollin
Thats why I gank(ed) in T2 Tornados, until CCP got nerf happy around April 1.
Just a short break, though. I herd somewhere there are going to be some explosions in a couple weeks. Wouldn't want to miss that.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
299
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 16:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:If you are in low sec or wardec and shoot a 3M cost projectile to an exhumer and pop it, do you say that risk is 100%?
You are a ganker, flying a 15M ISK Catalyst.
The simple nature of drop mechanics means that your costs are highly variable - (anywhere from 1 Million to 15M) - isn't that a 'risk', even by your flawed definition?
And further, its a risk that is simply left to a random number generator and cannot be predicted or modified in any way until the act is complete? I mean, you are literally just throwing dice here.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
300
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 19:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:
You are a ganker, flying a 15M ISK Catalyst.
The simple nature of drop mechanics means that your costs are highly variable - (anywhere from 1 Million to 15M) - isn't that a 'risk', even by your flawed definition?
No, because I have signed off 15M, not 1 to 15M. If I feel to pour in more :effort: I can calculate the average (close to 50%) of mods being dropped minus the hull cost. Pre-scanning the target also helps at selecting worthwhile opportunities vs bad ones.
I'm just pointing out that you can completely forget about the miner, and whether or not you succeed in your efforts.
Risk exists in the simple action of 'expending' your suicide ship, because the material loss you suffer depends entirely on CCP's random number generator - and in the case of T2 Catalysts, that variable represents nearly the entire cost of the modded ship.
Just because YOU base YOUR own calculations on the unlikely scenario of 'total loss' - losing the ship and ALL mods, doesn't mean others do. That random mod drop from your own ship may or may not make the difference in a profit and a loss....
Its a risk we take with every gank.
I might lose 1 Million ISK, I might lose 15 or 20M ISK, who can say except the fates?
If I REALLY felt like gambling I could massively increase the risk to my wallet and put 3x 80M ISK Faction Mag Stabs on the Catalyst. Pretty risky, right? Maybe they die, maybe not.
The concept is no different than with standard T2 fittings. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
301
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 22:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
Cedo Nulli wrote:I see tippia is one of those people who see they have walked into a swamp but continue to walk forward deeper into the mud thinking "this way I cant be blamed of being wrong!"
The ISO 31000 (2009) /ISO Guide 73:2002 definition of risk is the 'effect of uncertainty on objectives'. In this definition, uncertainties include events (which may or not happen) and uncertainties caused by ambiguity or a lack of information. It also includes both negative and positive impacts on objectives. Many definitions of risk exist in common usage, however this definition was developed by an international committee representing over 30 countries and is based on the input of several thousand subject matter experts.
Thing X happening with 100% certainty is not uncertainty, its the opposite of that.
99% would leave space for uncertainty but 100% flips it to be certainty and a fact.
So reducing your chances of Concord death from 100% to 50% would increase the risk for a ganker?
Wow. You really must be insane. |
| |
|