Didn’t you just give examples of the colloquial meanings of gamble, not gambling as in the precise definition Jeremiah gave? Because, I was referring to the latter, despite knowing the word is used in a much broader sense. The context I gave in the OP should have made that clear. The broader usage of the word is of little interest here. If you say that
and you think this already defines turret use as gambling, means that you are using the word in a non-analytical way, merely as a substitute for an action involving randomness. Following that logic, every action would be gambling, because there is never not randomness. You end up in a tautology of meaninglessness.
That’s always the easy way out, isn’t it? “They should”. I mean, hands down Salvos, you have been told to go seek professional help for your posting style here so many times, you should know better. If I’m looking at addiction I think the Portuguese are the only ones who understood how to tackle that. The people need help, but that generally means to set the circumstances right, not send them to psychologists. Addiction is a social problem, be it with drugs or gambling. Getting rid of enablers while offering good alternatives is the way to go. In the sense of Mutaplasmids that would mean to change how they are procured and how they can be used.
Absolutely not. There are established prices for the regular version of mutateable modules. You pay a Mutaplasmid and put in a module and in relation to those established prices you either win value or lose value on the click of the slot machine. It would make a difference if one couldn’t trade mutated modules at all. It would also make a difference if there was no way to establish a price for the outcome. But there is. In that sense the win or loss of value is mostly clear in an instant.
He didn’t give a precise definition. He gave one singular definition in support of his view. If you really want to have this discussion then you need to accept how the word is used and not just how you want to use it for the mere sake of supporting an opinion.
We are already on stupid territory when you want to call mutaplasmid transformations a gamble. The question is, how far into this territory you want to wander. You can wander off very deep when you use single-sided arguments to guide you further into your thinking it was a gamble. Or you accept our help where we show you one can see a lot of things in EVE as a gamble and you then come back to seeing it just as a mutaplasmid transformation.
It’s your choice, but don’t expect us to follow you into the stupid.
Law maybe different in every country about what is gambling and what is not. Now, every mutated module has a value? If I lose the money I put in it? Do I gambled for profit?
Whether you can sell the resulting module for profit, and for how much, is entirely up to you and the market.
The act of mutating the module is separate from that, and is not gambling in a legal tense.
You are confusing profit from sale (a secondary act) with the RNG/magnitude of mutation (the primary act, and the one being discussed in a legal tense here).
You seprating some process to prove that it’s not gambling.
I put some money on mutaplasmid+module then I roll dices (mutate it) the outcome is worse than primary module and it’s wortless on market. Did I gamble?
I bought some cassio chips for 100 mil went to game of dice I put in on 7, dices cast I lose.
I bought mutaplasmid + module for 100 mil, went to mutagen window, cast a dice and in outcome I get trash module not even worth puting on market because of the stats.