So I had eyes on a Caldari Ice belt last night... Prime Time too.

We dont want to stop people from blowing stuff up if they want to.

been there....but we try to kill as many ships as possible at once.
Its all about efficiency when you earn your money from loot. So I can understand that you might not have that perspective.
Nevertheless carry on with doing this important work!

An update of sorts...

I have alts in two different Caldari ice belts and it seems there are plenty enough miners to deplete the belts just as before the ice interdiction.

What I do notice is that there is a lack of Orcas and Freighters involved along with the usually ball of botters.

So suffice to say this ordeal has made it easier for the little man who solos to get his fair share of the ice.

Thanks for that interesting turn of events.

I mean all you need is a 11 million isk procurer and a clone with no implants and you can make your ships worth in 3 loads and everything else is just money in your pocket. So if you are killed and podded you can just keep mining.

Hrm... My calculations of an unboosted Procurer gets around 20 million per hour with current ice prices with a cycle time of 50 secs.

Anyways.

I'm talking about people who don't own Orca's, freighters, and massive fleets of macks. People who run those large fleets are the people I don't like.

You are correct. When suicide ganking the ship is the expendable ammo. A risk is not a risk if the outcome is certain. A risk requires an element of chance.

So there is no risk in ganking. Just expenditure.

All of you people talking about risk really need to read The Black Swan, by Nassem Talib.

Wah

Wah

Yes. But we are not talking about success being risk free. We are talking about ship loss being risk free as to be a cost instead.

I have mentioned this more than 5 times now. You are either being deliberate or just don;t get it, or care (/shrug).

One could say he might slip and fall in his shower scaring his cat to jump on the keyboard causing him to self destruct his ship.

But seriously. The average risk is less than 1%. Which means its basically non-existant.

The point, is that we are not talking about the entire situation, even though a few of you ARE starting to derail the topic into that.

Suicide ganking is the act of shooting a target without a mechanic in place to protect you from Concord. To eliminate a target before Concord arrives, and so that target dies.

Whether he has anything in his hold is an argument on WHY you are killing that target.

Want a for instance? Say I get paid to kill someone. Grief the **** out of him, hellcamp him, make his day terrible.

I don't care if he is in a noobship or a freighter, he is in my sights. Someone paid me to do it, or got me to do it for ANY reason (baptism by fire?).

Profit has nothing to do with it. This is where your "entire situation" rings false. This is where your absolute does not fit the bill.

As it applies to the ice interdiction, even an empty no profit suicide gank HELPS and is good because it gets the word out! Your currency and "profit" was the fact that people won't TRY to mine. Which helps ice prices just the same.

That is where "riskless" pvp happens wuich suicide ganking. If I get paid 100m bounty per hulk during hulkageddon, and I kill hulks with 0 cargo and 0 drops, my suicide gank was not a fail was it? I got the km and the bounty paid. The cargo hold is bonus.

Oh wait, let me interject... that would be a specific circumstance wouldn't it? So maybe we should go back to talking about ship loss and death by Concord being a cost over a risk because it's a constant we can depend on as a game mechanic as opposed to the risks of loot fairy or even success eh?

Yes. It is. And when you have masses doing the suicide ganking, you aren't nitpicking over each and every wreck to distribute loot.

You are reshipping and killing, and dying, and doing it again. It's not me derailing the topic as I am the one keeping it in perspective. I have quite specifically spelled out where the costs and the risks are, and how they are defined.

I am not the one trying to lump in ideas without describing them, or painting pictures here.

To lump a general idea into a general term that can be applied many different ways is not very smart to do.

Keep it simple, but stop dumbing it down.

You are leaving things to be argued. I am not.

There's a difference.

The costs ARE NOT beside the point if you are to be believed, they are onyl besides the point if you choose to side with me. That's the whole thing with cost and risk. If you want to say costs are irrelevant, then you have baltec1's stance that suicide ganking is only for profit, and then costs matter.

If you go with assuming the cost of the ship is a cost and not a risk, then you have a means to an end with a controlled element; you know what it's going to take to accomplish your goal.

If you want to make a profit from someone else's wreck via suicide gank, it would indeed have a risk. But that doesn't make it a risk across the board. Alot of you asshats are saying it is, and are wrong because of it.

The goal is NOT always the death of the target. That goal is also not always gauranteed. Yes suicide ganks have 1 true goal NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS AND THAT IS THE DEATH OF THE SUICIDER.

So yes, more information is needed, or you would simply just side with me and be done and not bother to post. Since you are becoming increasingly incorrect with your statements, you are indeed needing more information.

I have yet to be wrong. Please show me where I was wrong.

I do know a goal has costs and risks. Chances and probability. That 100% shiploss would even be considered a risk is silly.

And yes, I will stick by my stance no matter how many asshats try to imply something other than what I'm saying, yourself included.

I have already said there is associated risks in the gank aspect, but it was the cost aspect I was discussing. It's not my fault mongoloids cannot read.

Remember, it's them telling me how wrong I am, such as you are, when I have succinctly said over the last few pages what the costs were, as well as what the risks are.

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.

And don't be so idiotic as to deny the Oxford English Dictionary.

More nonsense.

Another day, another fail.

It's now been 14 full hours since any CFC member has entered any of the two systems with ice I've been watching.

You would think being the largest alliance in EVE, they'd at least have the numbers on their side. What is the excuse for not having people setup in all systems at all times?

I'll tell you the excuse: Sucking.

Oh. I found this nice article... About the the interiction.

http://evenews24.com/2013/08/20/greedy-goblin-the-fall-of-miniluv/