By definition, "risk" implies an uncertain outcome.

OTOH, picture the lowly miner.

How about a variable response time for Concord, from instantaneous as soon as the ganker fires the weapon, to a slower response that just might let them escape off grid. This would introduce an element of uncertainty, or risk, to the equation.

How about making ship scanning an aggressive act, such as can flipping. It wouldn't bring Concord down on them, but it would give the miners escorts the ability to engage preemptively.

This whole notion that a ganker is risking something is almost humorous....

By definition, "risk" implies an uncertain outcome. The ganker knows he is going to lose his ship, so that is no risk, it is a cost of doing business.

Some argue there is a risk of failure, but CCP has eliminated this risk as well. A ganker can ship scan a potential target before committing themselves. They can see what kind of tank that juicy Hulk may or may not have. This eliminates the risk of failure.

There is a potential financial risk of course. You can't be certain the number of modules that will be dropped intact. However, the Goons have tried to eliminate this risk as well. I've heard it cost about 10 Mil to fit out a gank ship. Funny, the Goons will pay out a bounty of 100Mil for every 10 Hulks. So over the long run, they have eliminated the financial risk as well.

So, gankers face no RISK.

OTOH, picture the lowly miner.

Every time they undock to mine they are at risk of being ganked.
They can't chose to engage or not (unlike the ganker who has that choice)
They don't know the outcome (unlike the ganker).

While there are things that the miner can do to reduce their risk, they are faced with RISK, unlike the Goons. So when the Goons go on and on about how whimpy the mining communittee is, remember this. Miners are taking risk, the Gankers aren't.

There are ways to introduce risk into the act of ganking. How about a variable response time for Concord, from instantaneous as soon as the ganker fires the weapon, to a slower response that just might let them escape off grid. This would introduce an element of uncertainty, or risk, to the equation. How about making ship scanning an aggressive act, such as can flipping. It wouldn't bring Concord down on them, but it would give the miners escorts the ability to engage preemptively.

Of course nothing like this will be done because the Goons would whine and pontificate. Heaven forbid that the Goons face risk or uncertainty in their activities. And it is obvious that CCP is unwilling or afraid to do anything counter to Goon interests.

Indeed, and I agree, my security is my responsibility, but I'm talking about the penalty of committing murder.

I disagree. In my opinion, the different security systems fills an essential purpose to New Eden; it makes it diverse and full of life. I can choose to stay in high security space or I can choose to join an alliance in null; either way, I should feel an obvious difference rather than the lacking of useless NPC's and a failed story-line.

CONCORD should have a will to protect CONCORD space from undesirables, and equally so should the factions.

I guess I really don't see what harsh consequences suicide-gankers have when breaking laws in empire.

Yes, you really do

Its not high enough.

Detach the ability to grind security status from ratting in null and deny people with -2 sec or more docking rights in 0.5 or up.

After all, Eve is supposed to be cold and heartless.....a dog eat dog world

Cold and heartless only for some right?

It's difficult to maintain a dog-eat-dog world if some of the dogs refuse to biteGǪ and if they decide to do so, they ca't really complain that it's only cold and heartless for them and not for the dogs on the not-receiving end of the non-bite.

So why does your monumentally stupid idea introduce the only game mechanic that forces a wallet to go negative, hmm?

Its not. If you smuggle and get caught, you are fined. If you do not have the ISK to pay the fine, your wallet goes negative.

I have come to realize that you just want to play an easy game that doesn't give hard consequences to your actions - and here I thought that I was playing with cool, antisocial EVE-players, when it turns out that you're just a bunch of wow-guys who wants profit the easy way.

I am so disappointed in you.

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.

i am curious though as to how many times you can gank people before you can't exist in high sec. (i.e. please tell me)

We already have hard consequences to our actions. You want them to be harder, so your game can be easier.

There is no such limit.

Yes, the penalty for suicide-ganking is too low.

If you are suicide ganked, you should be auto-podded. I think this is a fair penalty, as the suicide-ganker has to track you down, plot and scheme and LOSE HIS SHIP for attacking your immortal, guarded self.

I underlined the part that showed us how stupid you are.

Does death have consequence?
I thought I read in the ad copy for Eve that death had consequences but I must have been wrong, because clearly it doesnGÇÖt. Yeah, sure you lose a ship, and that could really hurt. As a newbie I sure know that. But the idea that suicide gank is a standard practice proves the point. The idea that someone would do a dozen suicide ganks in a row just adds unrealistic insult to the gameworld. You get to be a bully and never face consequences for it. If youGÇÖre on the Concord GÇ£most wantedGÇ¥ list you should get podded, and getting podded by CONCORD should cause a loss that matters - presumably skill points as if your clone could only handle 95% of your SP or something. This might be harsh for first time - maybe the first death in 24 hours is no loss, then it starts accelerating from there. The realistic alternative would be that Concord arrests the characters, but taking someone out of the game (even for just 24 hours) seems problematic.

Suicide ganking for profit makes sense in the world of New Eden but when it becomes a concerted and ongoing campaign it's no longer piracy. It's bigotry.

Call a spade a a spade. EVE is seeing an attempt at culture cleansing right now.

exactly.

tl;dr: suicide-ganking is too easy and should have greater penalty; life for suicide gankers should be no easier than life for miners. EVE is a system built on risk/reward - and the reward for suicide-ganking outweighs the risk of doing it.

Regards,
J. H.

You got it in one there. CCP Likes Suicide Ganking, as it's helping flush all the illegal botter isk out of the economy. Just wait until the great minerals crash that's coming, then you're gonna see some real fun!

Often. Because the result is funny.

so, artificial travel restrictions

Mallak Azaria <---you mean that part?

TROLL-B-GONE

Will someone please address me the issue of the cost difference between the ganker and gankee

as well as my issue with juszt creating a new alt to get around the security status drop?

I have never seen such a community filled with so much hate.

Consequences shouldn't be only for miners and industrialists. EVE should be hard on everyone regardless if you put your SP in industry, mining or gunnery.