Noone is forcing you to read my thread… you are doing this to yourself.
Are you calling me stupid?
I don’t feel stupid.
I’ve been doing this for many years… that’s would be a lot of effort to put in for some trolling.
Of course, if you mean by trolling, that I am not taking everything that people post here seriously (eg the ganker fans that never ganked anything, people taking stuff out of context… and so on…), well I think I have it made it quite clear that I am not taking some people posting here seriously.
Made it over 500 posts, more views than any other thread.
Not going to have any outcome on the voting.
It’s not that funny.
You have references? Feel free to apply to my corporation.
It’s a bit too soon to go announcing yourself as a PA. Try getting people in more populated systems to be aware of the CSM, the elections and the need to vote.
Which is why I didn’t write “absolutely 0”, but wrote “near 0”. Over the last year, the average loss of freighters per day in highsec has been 6. Yet there are hundreds of movements daily and low thousands of jumps that freighters make through gates in highsec every day, but only 6 die on average (not just ganks, all loss).
The risk even without webbing is near 0, but webbing reduces that risk even further, but it’s not 0 and should never be. If anything, the risk needs to increase, not decrease.
You’re one of those. That certainly does explain a lot.
To what confidence level and what confidence interval? 75%, 95%, 99%?
LOL. No offence, but at this point it doesn’t really matter what you want to believe or not. You’re clearly not interested in even understanding anything that doesn’t fit your narrative, much less believe it. Not that I’m saying you should believe something you don’t understand just because I’m saying so, mind you, but you should definitely be able to understand it if you wanted to…
Was mentioned as being a Carrier trying to kill asteroid belt rats in a high sec system. Someone theorized it might have been one of those bots that got teleported to high sec, but did not die?
On the issue of a limited dataset - that it isn’t a perfect dataset doesn’t mean it has no value. Even with a selection bias, analysis of the data still has value, as long as it’s being analysed for things not affected by that bias (or that the bias is accounted for through error).
In this case, analysing it to validate whether your own observer bias is correct or incorrect, is not impacted by what we have available.
Even with it being a subset of all kills and losses it shows that the conclusion of 100% death for targets, while consistent with what you experienced 5 years ago, isn’t actually representative of the broader game reality. You just have to look at the data and you’ll see that your view isn’t actually correct.
Taking just freighters (which is my interest in hauling), from 21 June 2018 - 26 May 2019 (339 days) there were a total of 4000 freighter losses across the whole game recorded in the zkill database. 2066 of those were highsec (that virtually 50% of freighters deaths occur outside highsec and there is no whining on the forum about that is telling in itself).
Putting aside for a second a perception of bias to the point that the data is useless:
Between ganks, wars, killright baiting and losses to NPCs, ganks represent approximately 70% of those losses.
For a 75% confidence and 10% error (which is probably good enough from an advice to CCP view) what the real chance of success and failure is end-to-end for freighter ganking alone
You’d need to have been involved in ~40 successful freighter ganks over the last year.
That assumes that to have been on 40 successful ones, you’d also have been associated with a representative number of failed ones too
That’s just for freighters. That’s why a sample size of 3 ganks performed 5 years ago isn’t a great basis for concluding 100% death for targets in ganks. Your experience just isn’t sufficient for the conclusions you are making. The error involved is 100% (which the killmails we have acces to also independently confirm).
Fine then, my gank alt is Eve Griefer and when I was ganking in a fleet there would be times when we failed a gank. Often it was because we were operating at the edge of dps throughput, one notable time we were set up for a fail by some sneaky player , and sometimes (rarely) by interference. Many of our targets were autopiloting freighters.
You could check out her killboard but note that there were some kills I did not get on and SOP was that we did not have killmails automatically uploaded so some of her losses will be missing.
I am open to being corrected.
Someone linked me something that made me change my mind.
Telling indeed.
So… if I were inclined to try and prove my point… how many attempts must I make at ganking miners in order to have a chance at statistically being significant?
From memory, at least once the target was bumped away. Another time a smartbombing Maller was used against us. He got himself concorded but I can’t remember if that gank as a whole failed.
If they are actually ratting, that would be against Rule 1 of highsec capitals:
If it is just on grid, drawing aggro from NPCs that wouldn’t be against the rules based on how they are currently written (but a GM interpretation may be totally different to that opinion), but if it is doing any killing of NPCs, then it might find itself out of highsec soon.
IMO, this is the crux of the issue and why this topic never dies.
The tools are at the anti-ganker or anti-bumper’s hands but they always find a reason not really use them.
not enough profit
boring
not my interest
too expensive in SP or ISK
etc
You hate bumpers? Bait them and when they bump, warp in a gank fleet and bag a Mach.
You hate gankers? Fast lock them…bait them…ECM them…infiltrate them…etc…
But no…easier to just complain and get CCP to nerf.
This is not targeting you specifically LL, but just said generally.
, and sometimes (rarely) by interference. Many of our targets were autopiloting freighters.
