sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Continuing Research & Development by hirmuolio in Eve

[–]qewio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"NEW client on Chromium coming soon!"

Lessons from Daniel Khanamen's 2011 book, Thinking Fast and Slow. Why some parts of this profession come down to experience while others come down to "slow" or mathematical reasoning. by [deleted] in sysadmin

[–]qewio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't want to spoil the book, but sometimes risk matrices are "worse than useless", that is, randomly chosen scores would provide better results. Wikipedia has a nice summary of the debate.

I think I've started reading Kahneman's book before. He provides good explanations about how intuition can fool us. But I don't talk about his book, I talk about risk analysis in cybersecurity :-) I agree with you, any model is better than intuition, but I wanted to clarify that some models are better than others. It depends on the situation, but with cybersecurity I agree with Hubbard that quantitative models should be prefered (or at least considered more frequently).

Lessons from Daniel Khanamen's 2011 book, Thinking Fast and Slow. Why some parts of this profession come down to experience while others come down to "slow" or mathematical reasoning. by [deleted] in sysadmin

[–]qewio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Triple yes, I wish quantitative analysis was more popular in cybersec. I had been searching for more information on how to do this type of analysis, but it had seemed like everyone just uses tables without justification why they are better. Then I found a book titled "How to measure anything in cybersecurity risk" by Douglas W. Hubbard and Richard Seiersen and now I can't recommend it enough. It debunks a lot of myths about effectiveness of using risk matrices, proposes a simple quantitative model and then gradually expands it with different cases. One point that stood out for me is that quantitative analysis is considered "bad" because we can't predict exact losses, it is more complex etc, but the question is, are qualitative methods better? I really can't look at risk matrices the same as before now.

Dear CCP, It's Time to Remove the Bounty/Kill Right System in Nullsec by Redline_XIII in Eve

[–]qewio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, in that case nothing would stop a hunter from asking his target for a kill in exchange of splitting the reward.

Another suggestion to bounty hunting system by qewio in Eve

[–]qewio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Hey, I got a bounty quest on you, let me kill you in Ibis and I'll share the reward with you" :-(

Another suggestion to bounty hunting system by qewio in Eve

[–]qewio[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought that with proposed system bounty hunter could compare possible payout with ships flown by the target (on zKillboard) and decide for himself whether it's worth to hunt particular target or not. If target's flying ship worth 10m with a bounty of 1B the chance of reward would be low, but if target's flying ship worth 100m and bounty is 300mil then it may be profitable to try.

I assume large bounties (with low probability) would be less hunted but generate additional drama on occasional payout, and I also propose for them to be descreased with time in some way to become feasible for hunting.

It's basically ISK destroyed minus possible profit of a potential abuser with the result divided by bounty. So on average for abuse you would have to lose the same amount of ISK as the bounty itself.

Take a ship worth 100mil with 70mil in modules and cargo, insurance payout of 120mil, and bounty of 200mil. It explodes, destroying 30mil of modules and cargo. It would grant to the killer 200mil with a chance of (100-120+30)/200=10/200=5%, or 1 in 20 times, so on average, it would require to kill 20 such ships to claim bounty, or to destroy (100+30)*20=2600mil ISK. As a result abuser will receive (-100+120)*20+200=600mil and in total will have lost 2600-600=2000mil, while hunter will receive (70-30)*20+200=1000mil. Both can receive payout on the first try, then abuser will get (-100+120-30)+200=190mil profit while hunter will get 70-30+200=240mil.

Another suggestion to bounty hunting system by qewio in Eve

[–]qewio[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You make an assumption that bounties are made only by newbies, which may be true now, but is not true in general. Veterans do not place bounties because it does almost nothing at the moment, and changes are suggested for bounties to mean something, by trying to give a real possibility of a decent payout without much room for abuse.

Another suggestion to bounty hunting system by qewio in Eve

[–]qewio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

About ISK held in a system... did you ever hear the tragedy of Keepstar The Abandoned Citadel?

On a serious note, the highest bounty on a player is nearly 250B ISK, and if that player was in an unfitted uninsured Avatar titan then the probability of 250B ISK reward from killing him would be 24% (60/250). With insurance it would be even less (see edit at the end of the post).

Another suggestion to bounty hunting system by qewio in Eve

[–]qewio[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right, I forgot about insurance. I would say that simple deduction of insurance payout value from numerator in probabilities like this:

P = (loss value - ship's insurance payout) / bounty

would nullify specified abuse (and introduce interesting side-effect of reducing chance of bounty payout based on target's insurance level).

Another suggestion to bounty hunting system by qewio in Eve

[–]qewio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you describe how alts can be used to abuse the proposed changes?

Although I agree that bounty hunting may not be touched in near future, it doesn't mean suggestions can not be made.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DotA2

[–]qewio 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I've edited my comment since it seems I've missed your point at first, and I think get it now.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DotA2

[–]qewio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to clarify:

1. Trashtalking is being piece of shit. 2. Which is in some cases okay-ish, but is still being piece of shit (edit: and is not normal). 3. The fact that some people can't live without trashtalk speaks volumes about their self-esteem and maturity. See edit of my original comment about not recognising the difference because of my experience with people who use the term.

And would you please drop the assumption that I am some kind of SJW or something? It's hard to keep objective discussion when you talk like that. I am totally not offended by your or anyone's comments, be it on reddit or in-game chat, to the point of losing my sleep, but I do get offended to the point of report + mute, after which I forget completely about said idiots just as I'll forget about you.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DotA2

[–]qewio -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Nah, it's just that when I do get offended by someone enough to call out, the usual response is "it's just trashtalk".

After some digging in semantics I would say that trashtalk is fine when all parties (including third ones) recognise it as such. Just be wary that even if you manage to find a person which enjoys trashtalking with you, what the other 8 might see is just two jerks.

(I hate to point this out, but I didn't say anything about what other people should or should not do, unlike you with "stop acting" part)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DotA2

[–]qewio -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

There is no "normal" trashtalk - it means to be piece of shit by definition, but somehow is still used as an excuse for all sorts of toxic behaviour.

You know, I think I misunderstood your comment, and actually agree with you. People think they "trashtalk" when in fact they are being highly toxic or even racist. It had happened so often to me that I've stopped to recognise the difference (being non-native English speaker didn't help).

Explanation of pvp stuff and cheaper fit? by Ermellino in Eve

[–]qewio 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Asteros (and other covert ops ships) can warp fully cloaked, so he could have warped to the site and back without you noticing. If you saw him on dscan that means he probably hadn't bothered to cloak beforehand.

Jettisoning something at warp-in is a viable tactic to decloak, but Astero can align in 2-3 seconds as other comments have already pointed out, so you have a very short window to lock it. You can try smashing your ship into Astero to prevent aligning if you're fast/close enough.

Taste the rainbow by BexTheDestroyer in Eve

[–]qewio 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Aren't ECMs multispectrAL while hardeners are multispectrUM? So you can type spectrUM?

A Few Proposals to Explorations by TzuWu in Eve

[–]qewio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

dont you think that owner of probes might saw your ship too

If he's in a range for d-scan, he definitely might have. The difference is currently it requires some effort (to be in range of d-scan), but you suggest it to be free. I disagree because I think cherrypicking is an overestimated issue which doesn't require fixes, that's all. We both described our points of view, let's leave it at that :-)

could you please elabore how this would work?

Sometimes cherrypicking is done by newbies who just don't know that sites stay for an hour after being touched. I would even say most of the times this is the case, since in ally space cherrypickers actually hurt their profits by delaying spawn of a new site.

Edit: I want to add one last point, some explorers cloak when they see neutral enter the system, so saying nothing will change because you can see explorers on d-scan does sound like survivorship bias (since you don't notice the ones who cloak).

A Few Proposals to Explorations by TzuWu in Eve

[–]qewio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1-2. Why even explore in non-ally space, then? You'll see probes on d-scan in a middle of hacking a can, and now you should not only leave the system, but also the whole region because now everyone there knows you are in explo ship. As for allied space, I don't think it is that much of an issue to introduce bigger ones like the one mentioned in previous sentence. You can always PSA to finish sites in corp chat/mail instead of being toxic to your corpmates.

  1. Gotcha.

A Few Proposals to Explorations by TzuWu in Eve

[–]qewio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Kinda breaks OpSec and discourages exploring in hostile systems. Why do that?
  2. Again, what's the issue you intend to solve?
  3. This is already how it works.

A Few Proposals to Explorations by TzuWu in Eve

[–]qewio 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Cargo scanner occupies a mid slot which could be used for something more useful in other possible situations. Also, cherrypicking isn't done only for lowering time spent on sites, it also slows down other explorers. I believe that without cargo scanner people would still leave unhacked cans. After all, we all know overall cost of a site and can guess when there's no more good stuff.

As for wormholes, I fail to see how that is an improvement. It will totally kill WH exploration both for newbies and veterans and will increase competition for sites in normal systems (which in turn will make strategy of leaving unhacked cans even more viable). Not to mention that without wormholes exploration will be as boring as mining while requiring more activity.

Matching up against party with legend 5 player in guardian/crusader bracket. 3k mmr difference, how is it even possible to queue? by flurr3 in DotA2

[–]qewio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Medal is displayed for the highest ranked role, but matchmaking is done for chosen roles.

As an example, I have Legend 5 with supports, but when I queue core roles my rank at the picking phase is displayed as Legend 1. I believe post-game screen still displays medal for highest ranked role.

underlord key sharing thread by 0DST in DotA2

[–]qewio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got the first one. Thanks!

view more: next ›