I very rarely disagree with you Tippia, but here I have to. In the vast majority of cases, you don't have time to shoot a suicide ganker back, and even if you did it wouldn't help. If a decent group of suicide gankers wants one of your ships dead there is literally nothing you can do about it. It is the only area in Eve where someone gets to PvP risk free.

dude, even the forums are pvp grounds in this game.

In other words its just a cost of doing business, not risk.

"omg suicide ganking does take some skilz!"

No, it really doesn't. It's all pre-calculated. Scan the ship first, warp in with one more catalyst than is strictly required (use a cloaked warp-to), blow them up and then dock up. Worried about ECM or logi? Why? It's not a viable tactic. Unless they baited you there, they are not going to have anything like that. As for people killing gankers, yea I do it myself if I can catch one. If you got caught then your a complete idiot.

clusterfuck = goons + Allies

No. There are not 250,000 goons in the game.

Let me clarify it for you that you can't wezel word your way out of it...

15 Catas with T2 blasters have about 0% risk of not blowing up a Mack.

What should should "15 Catas with T2 blasters" not have about a 0% risk of not blowing up. I can't think of many subcaps here.

It is a constant. No variable, no "other". It's an absolute. It's either, to use your terms, a 0 or a 1.

0=false.
1=true.
When you shoot someone, Concord will blow you up. 0 or 1?

It is carebear pvp. PVP being it involves another player.

Not that they can actually attack back.

That's why it takes 4 hours ! Cool. Because EVE is harsh and cold, the tears collect and freeze. Interesting.

This means that people in Caldari ice space cry tears with a lot of nitrogen.

However, I might point out that while getting people to smile and nod is a very useful skill, it doesn't seem appropriate here.

I don't understand the "no" part.

Are you saying you can survive Concord if you violence an unwilling party? You do not "risk" anything if you know you are going to get blown up. There's no "chance" since you know it is a guaranteed direct result.

Again, shoot an asteroid, read the warning, and do it again. Tell me what happens.

You do not need to /facedesk to realize this, it's a simple concept. Action, reaction.

You can fail a gank easily enough. It's quite hard at failing to die when you attempt one though. By mechanics, it SHOULD be impossible, as a traditional suicide gank.

Only guarantee is the loss of your ship. Which is why it's a cost.

I know Concord will not pod me. So I am not risking implants

Ship loss is 1.

When you shoot that station, or asteroid, or unflagged player, Concord destroys your ship. As there is no chance, the element of risk is replaced by cost.

Otherwise how would you know I'd be a wreck if I shot a station?

Same result then. You bought a ship to get blown up, and it did.

Pretty straight forward.

Yes. But the goal has already been achieved since I would have been in a pod at that point.

And that t2 cat still cost you 10mil, regardless of what the loot fair did didn't it? That's a fixed cost.

What's varied, is what will drop, IF you can even recoup any of that loot that may or may not have dropped since you cannot loot while in a pod, and anyone enar can easily loot and scoot with your junk.

But that does not change the initial investment. It also does not consider that initial investment as risk, because you know it's going to get blown up. You know no matter what happens, you are out that 10mil. Period.

You risk having LESS loss sure.
But the cost is still there no matter what.

No, the goal does not have a set parameter.

Oooohhh you want to split hairs! Awesome. Ok, 0 implants, and no clone upgraded needed as it's under the required sp for sp loss.

Your turn.

No it isn't. You haven't even lost the ship yet and it has already cost you isk. The cost is not a variable, the returns are.

Unless you are talking about a loan?

Except it does change the investment. If I am going to perform 100 ganks in a system and do it right, I'm going to seed 100 hulls but only enough fittings for maybe 60 cats. The expectation being that the latter half will be fitted from loot of the former.

Hrm... Let me try to apply some Rogerian Argument from my English 112 clas...

Let's come to a compromise...

I'm willing to say ganking has a minimial limited risk (some but not much) compared to mining which has an exponentially greater risk.

Unless you want to say that gankers suck at what they do and miners don't have any danger mining in high sec.

Yes, before the risk part of the endeavor even happens you have to associate costs FIRST. Ship loss is one of those. That has never been argued by myself and I have reiterated quite a few times that again, that does not encompass the entire idea that suicide gankinghas risks, only that it CAN have risks. Not that it does. But it does have a cost, always.

Nope, not at all, because at the very beginning, no matter what goal you have involving a suicide gank, or rather, intended outcome.. you are still buying the ship knowing it's going to get blown up. You know that there is a chance, a RISK, that you CAN lose 100% of the ship, and therefore it becomes a cost. The risk comes from the hope that the cost will get offset by victory.

But if you do not succeed in killing your target, you already know the loss is 100% since you already assumed it from the get go. Anything else is bonus.

What I've been saying from the get go, is that suicide ganking as an act is risk free. That's the original focal point of the argument.

Not profit. Not goal.

The act.

A few people here have decided that THEIR suicide ganking has to apply to everyone as the same reasons and goals.

You know that there is a chance, a RISK, that you CAN lose 100% of the ship, and therefore it becomes a cost.

The risk comes from the hope that the cost will get offset by victory.

But if you do not succeed in killing your target, you already know the loss is 100% since you already assumed it from the get go. Anything else is bonus.

Risk of what? You already bought it. You already know it's going to be destroyed. You already know there is a chance you might get 0%. Now, I cannot tell you to already assume it, but if you were smart, you would assume 100% loss and HOPE for +% recoup.

But then, we would be talking about risk assessment, which is weighing costs and risks associated and would be going back full circle to it not being a risk if you already discounted it as a cost because you took the safer view as opposed as the hopeful...

But you do know when you specifically buy a ship to not last past 1 engagement.

I daresay you chose to spend that money on a nightmare for that reason.

Yep. Exactly/ Ship loss is cost and not a risk. Thank you for that.

noun: risk;GÇâplural noun: risks

a situation involving exposure to danger:

Since the Ganker has accepted the foregone conclusion that his ship will be lost, he is not risking his ship. He is voluntarily forfeiting it.

Therefore, I fail to see how the Ganker could in any way be put into "danger" within the mechanics of EVE, from the completely unarmed mining ship.

verb
[with object]
expose (someone or something valued) to danger, harm, or loss:

incur the chance of unfortunate consequences by engaging in (an action):

an already accepted part of the forfeiture. And also, highly unlikely and easily avoidable.

And also, highly unlikely

But then of course if they have less risk then gankers then that means the whole ice interdiction is failing because obviously you guys aren't doing your job and making it risky business to be out ice mining.

Thanks for the forum win.

Look. If you got a whole alliance of people who sole purpose is to kill all the ice miners and yet somehow those miners risk less than you due to your actions, then you are doing something wrong.

I mean the whole point of the ice interdiction was to make it too risky to mine ice.

If you feel like you are risking more than those miners, then obviously you aren't doing your job right and the miners are free to keep mining ice.

Supposedly I would assume if you take 15 cheap catalysts and gank a Mack, you should only be spending about 25-75 million while the Mack loses more than 175 million. So by my math you are risking quite a lot less then the other side which I suppose would support the argument that gankers have less risk than miners.

If you want to argue that it is the opposite, then it means you are like that dude ganking ventures with a thrasher and spending hundred of millions of clone tags. Which I have to point out that the person with the venture still makes it out ahead making your efforts look dumb.

So which is it?

Are you risking less than the miners and making a profit, or all you risking more and making a loss?

Well if you risk more then that means the value of your risk (ie your gank ships) is greater than the value of the value of the miner's ship and loot which you derive your profit from?

How can this mathematically be?

Which they aren't doing a great job. The moving average (5d) of white glaze is actually dropping despite the threat of ganking. The increase of it was just hype.

The belts are still being mined out and the price is not spiking and is now going back down. The whole operation is not as a big as it was made out to be and profits from it will not be as great as they thought they were going to be.

Secondly, if you want to include the fact miners actually make money and the gankers don't is really a false assumption because chances are that gankers are on other characters making money through other means (I even bet some of them mine).

Its all hogwash. We aren't talking about opportunity costs... We are talking about the exact value of what someone risks when they commit an action.

If you use a 20 million isk ship to gank a 100 million ship, your risk is lower because you risk less isk.