Greedy Goblin

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Necessary losses

Despite I've proven what common sense would tell us anyway, that losses negatively affect Goons, we can't deny that Goons defeated the elite PvP organizations by throwing stupid amount of Drakes on them. We also can't ignore that Goons are paying double SRP for PvP losses, so they put their money where their mouth is. What is behind this?

The solution - like always - lies in data analysis. The same data that provided the linked results shown one more thing: the first half year losses have 0.11 correlation with second half year kills. It's very weak, but still positive. It says that those who have more losses now will likely have more kills in the future. Isn't it the opposite of what I've claimed before?

The solution is that kills and losses are not uncorrelated quantities. They have a 0.2 correlation within the same dataset. It has a trivial explanation: if you fly in PvP, you'll have losses. The only way to avoid losses is avoiding vast majority of fights. This is what Goons realized when they started the "laugh on the losses" campaign. Elite PvP-ers restricted themselves from kills by not taking lot of fights. This is why I used activity and balance quantities instead of kills and losses. Balance is positive if you have lot of losses, but even more kills.

Also, please note that balance isn't equal to ISK ratio. If you lose 10 frigates and kill none, that's 0% ISK ratio, but only -50M balance. If you kill a supercarrier and a dread while losing a supercarrier, you'll have +4B Balance but only 54% ISK ratio, bad for any "elite PvP-er". And this is why they are still affected by losses. Flying and losing combat ships doesn't ruin your balance. Losing a blinged ratter or hauler does, and it hurts Goons like everyone else.

The bottom line is that "you can't break us by defeating us in combat" and "they can be broken by ganking them" are true at the same time. So good for them not being afraid to lose combat ships. And bad for them making everyone hating them like the plague and hunting their haulers and ratters.

PS: I have trouble figuring out if this Goon minion was fit for PvP or PvE. Because if it's the first, he was having fun and his further activity might even increase. If it's the second, he's mad now and will likely decrease activity. I'm way too bad at EVE to properly assess his fit. This one (and jackpod) on the other hand clearly went for PvP. I can tell from his warp disruptor and his T2 armor rigs. Oh wait, they were in the cargo bay, so maybe I'm wrong.


CFC Grunt said...

The issue is, you base your calculations and proofs on a wrong understanding of the Goon culture. The truth is, Goons are an illogical, hypocritical beehive that cannot be comprehended through numbers alone.

Goons are not individuals. Goons thrive on being mean - to others, to each other, to everyone around them. If you don't have tough skin, you are not flying with goons.

Loss of a blinged ratting ship or a hauler, especially in hisec, will be seen by others as a sign to point their fingers and laugh. The pilot will be called names.

By logic, all goons should feel demoralized by the loss of their fellow pilot? Wrong - they will have a bigger blast out of his hilarious loss than the people who killed the ship.

And the owner? Well, if he's tough as he should be he'll snap back with a few insults, hop into the fleet and go kill some pubbies.

If he isn't, he wasn't there in the first place - you have to be this tough to ride the Gooncoaster.

Stabs said...

My opinion on those kills:

1) shopper. Flew to somewhere in high sec, probably Hek, to buy a Barghest. Stashed the shuttle he flew there on and planned to drive somewhere with his shiny new ship.

The silliness is that there's pretty cheap freight services that could have moved the ship for him.

2) Took his inty to a hub to buy rigs. Assumed inties are uncatchable. Pro tip: they're not.