I know this has been discussed before, but why has it not been implemented?

the gankee loses his ship and gains insurance (heh probably not knowing hi-sec), the ganker loses his ship and loses security status

if anything hi-sec ganking should be buffed

Nope.
Hell, it was recently increased by about 400%.

Because what you describe is the players' job, not something that should be handled by NPCs.

Confirming that I am a MURDERER!

there ought to be enough risk in putting me at risk to ensure i am 100% safe while afk mining at all times

No, it's not

That's why the guns shoot at me when I shoot at someone near empire gates - even in low sec space.

If it is so easy and so profitable with no downsides, they why don't you do it?

I think the punishments are fine:
Cannot do anything in space for 15 minutes
Shootable by everyone for 15 minutes
Killrights for 30 days
Large sec hit which will make you shootable by everyone forever until you fix it which is no easy matter
No insurance
Ship blown up 100% of the time

Oh god, I'm posting in another "let's nerf a certain playstyle because I don't like it" whine thread again.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Yes it is. Your security is your responsibility. Keeping you safe is your job. The NPCs are not part of it, in highsec or anywhere else. If you want people to be kept out of highsec because they threaten your security, then it's your job to keep them out.

If you think the penalty is too low, it's because you make it too low. You are willingly nullifying some of the costs. Your choices are not a game design problem.

No. They do that because you engage in a criminal act, not because you have any specific level of security status. It's exactly the same as why CONCORD doesn't chase outlaws, only cirminals. You're confusing two completely separate mechanics.

No, the price is not too low.

The price is that gankers eventually lose enough security status to not be able to go into any hisec system owned by one of the four Empires without attracting a massive fleet of NPCs that chase him through space and time, and can alpha all but the largest and most heavily tanked ships.

To fix this, a ganker must grind missions in low and null until his standing and security status are at a level that he can enter a hisec system without attracting said fleet of uber-ganky NPC police.

What's the one thing a ganker supposedly hates most of all? Grinding. What does he eventually have to do if he wants to continue ganking? Grind.

Seems a fitting punishment to me.

The suicide ganker is 100% guaranteed to lose his ship, some modules, and sec status. It is the highest risk activity in EVE. Anyone can acknowledge that.

CONCORDS response to Outlaws/Criminals that enter Hi-sec is very underwhelming. Currently you can be -10.0 and still go anyway in EVE. Which would not be an issue if there were not ways to getting ships after entering.

I have no issues with gankers other then the impunity in which they seem to operate in hi-sec. Having CONCORD deem them Shoot on Site after they have reach a certain security status would slow down their activities and would make paid events like Hulkageddon unsustainable in hi-sec.

As was pointed out above, you are responsible for you own security. But this isn't 0.0 where you have an alliance to keep out the un-welcomed. In Hi-sec you only have CONCORD.

I agree that the security status is the responsibility of the character, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm talking about there being fundamental differences between high security space, low security space and null security space. To commit a murder in for instance Minmatar Republic should have more severe consequences either by Minmatar Republic itself, or CONCORD. Why would they wait until your security status drops enough? Is one murder not enough? I agree that the player-base should in essence rule the game, but there are differences between the different securities of space, and these differences cannot be ignored as long as there is any kind of environmental game-play in New Eden.

No, they are not, but it is a game design problem if your reward far exceeds the risk of killing me in CONCORD/faction space.

I never said it has anything to due with "specific level of security status".

What this thread is about is simple: does the reward exceed the risk too much of suicide-ganking? I believe so, why else are so many doing it? I'm not saying that we should prevent it because many are doing it; merely look at it and ask if it isn't too easy after all. I'm just trying to get a discussion between two parties' going here; a break from the goon-whining and the miner-whining.

Yes, "eventually" that will happen. I propose a harder, more cold, if you will, punishment for committing murder in high sec.

CONCORDS response to Outlaws/Criminals that enter Hi-sec is very underwhelming. Currently you can be -10.0 and still go anyway in EVE. Which would not be an issue if there were not ways to getting ships after entering.

I have no issues with gankers other then the impunity in which they seem to operate in hi-sec. Having CONCORD deem them Shoot on Site after they have reach a certain security status would slow down their activities and would make paid events like Hulkageddon unsustainable in hi-sec.

As was pointed out above, you are responsible for you own security. But this isn't 0.0 where you have an alliance to keep out the un-welcomed. In Hi-sec you only have CONCORD.

Hmm,

Well a couple of points stick out about this:

1. Goons claim they have way too much money on their hands.

2. CCP is looking for ways to reduce ISK float in the game.

3. Suicide ganking is a great avenue to reduce ISK float in the game so make it happen.

I agree that the security status is the responsibility of the character, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I'm talking about there being fundamental differences between high security space, low security space and null security space.

Why would they wait until your security status drops enough? Is one murder not enough?

No, they are not, but it is a game design problem if your reward far exceeds the risk of killing me in CONCORD/faction space.

I never said it has anything to due with "specific level of security status".

I'm sitting here asking myself what I should reply. I see this ignorant and stupid post and I see that, of course - you're a goon, and I ask myself if I'm racist against goons or if I'm just a realist for not being surprised that ignorant, stupidity and goons walk hand in hand, but then I realize that I'm better off reading about Einstein's theory on relativity, so I walk away.

Not security status, physical security as in being secure in your posessions as in not getting your shit blown up.

So fit your ship in a way that makes it uneconomical to gank. You're choosing to fit a ship in a way that's worth ganking.

People are doing it because a group of players has decided that they can make a profit by encouraging it through significant bounties. Suicide Ganking miners is exactly as easy as miners make it.

If you're suggesting CONCORD start Podding, that breaks something that's been true for years and won't change the cost of a gank that much. CONCORD destroys the ship that performs an illegal action and puts a mark on the pilot's record. What more consequence do you want?

If CONCORD, the NPC space police starts podding, why shouldn't Pirate NPCs pod? They're criminals, they can't show more restraint than the Police, right? Now we have Rats podding newbie players who don't know what's going on. And the game would be poorer for driving newbies off like that.

No, they are not, but it is a game design problem if your reward far exceeds the risk of killing me in CONCORD/faction space.