I heard there are freighters dying in the ice belts and the carnage is ramping up

Having a ball with this ice interdiction thing, I look forward to more.

You might pass it down the line to the FCs of the bigger ganks to have the fleet turn off auto-target-back. The last thing you want to have happen is some guy with his guns primed accidentally lock that Ishtar that pre-locked him and blow his wad early.

Also, you hide behind an alliance that has over half of the server population so who is the real coward.

Goons were cowering in the stations last night, and would not come up to the ice belts.

Im still missing the answer from Mr. SuperPro Andski whats the rocket science in suicide ganking.

Still plenty of afk ice miners, I see.

why do you waste so many catalysts on Orcas when half of them could do the job?...or 2 orcas could get ganked simultaneously?

Came to the thread looking for miner tears.

Left disappointed

Oh, at this time your comrades get disappointed that near no one cares about their doing besides some babbling in local that they continue to open threads with highsec-alts where you/they can post with their goon-twinks about "farming tears from pubbies" desperately looking for e-fame for zerging despite being the incompetent player they are that need afk-targets to polish their kb?

Those points being?

So far there's been a lot of semantic silliness (which you can't logically poke holes with), a supposed counter-example which was easily dismissed, and a bunch of vague statistical buzzwords that the author clearly doesn't understand (also impossible to poke holes with).

When will people learn not to argue with Tippia?

You can if you want; I'd throw it under profit though - deviation maybe under investment (as in, you have to do it for longer to see the same consistency in payout)

How often do your ganks fail?

Called it on page 3. You guys are all wasting your time. I'll see what progress have been made by page 23...

How many suicide ganks have you fired at your target in highsec and were able to fly that ship back home?

Would it change whether Concord blew up your ship or not?

It does when you're killing to kill. Or at least for the nature of "ganking".

I can think of quite a few reasons that is not true, as I'm sure you could if I were to say those words to you sir.

It also doesn't change the fact that 100% chance of your ship blowing up is better defined as cost and not risk.

There is no profit in ganking scouts in noobships, although that can be argued, the prime reason for killing one is not for profit.

Or atleast, a LOT of noobships killed are never looted that I see when roaming across null. They are popped because they are alts, or because they do not belong in the same space I occupy, regardless if their hold is empty or full.

Now, YOU might only gank for profit, but meh, profit is definitely A reason to gank, but not the only reason.

Ok look, that was an obvious troll but still proves the point. Suicide ganking is most usually done for profit, but the only way to assign it as being risky, is if you don't consider doing it at all.

If you buy a ship for the sole purpose of knowing it's going to get blown up at a chance for profit (profit has risk!) then it leaves the realm of risk and enters the realm of cost.

Yes. It becomes a cost. an integer. A constant.

Are you trying to imply that if you win your ship doesn't get blown up?

Let me ask you something baltec, and I'll be honest and sincere here....

If you, while solo, take a catalyst, and shoot some unknown person out of the blue, is there a way for you to kill him while not losing your ship? [BY YOURSELF!]

So, you can only supercede not losing your ship by using an entirely different mechanic. I rest my case. Because can flipping is not suicide ganking is it?

THAT is why it's a cost!

To prove a constant. It isn't a risk if you do not consider it anything more than a cost. If you think it's a risk of NOT losing your ship, you are not doing it right.

The risks you listed have nothing to do with the cost of the ship since you know it's going to get blown up no matter what. Anything else is supposition.

So tell me, is there a chance you might not get your ship blown up? No, you already answered that. So it isn't a risk, because risk is defined by chance. Certainty denotes "chance" and risk is based on uncertainties.

There is nothing uncertain about Concord which you yourself well know.

Nono, please I'll rephrase it into something smaller and easier to figure out.

Because you are willing to lose your ship, you can guarantee that you will spend your ship as a cost to try to kill something.

It's pretty ******* simple dude. You know the ship is going to die as soon as you commit it. There is no risk of not losing it, you know you will lose it.

What about any of that?

I had to laugh.

Uh....ice mining during an "interdiction"?

Being a mastermind is all about getting other people to do the dying, that said, real life terrorism is an inappropriate subject for the thread at hand, pixels dying are nowhere near the same as people dying.

It's in comment to baltec's statement "These are all risks currently faced by suicide gankers in high sec."

Fact is there are no "risks", it is calculated loses. There is no skill, it is all procedure.

It is carebear pvp. PVP being it involves another player. Not that they can actually attack back.

System?

Kamio and Osmon to name a couple more.

*wonders how many of the orca gank ships were named Pequod, Ishmael and Ahab

but only if no one else is around that can attack back.

Almost funny to cite a kill where at least more than half of the squad are braindead multiboxed zombies controlled by the crybearer ..., sorry, your "Architect" Warr Akini ..... what was it again about "skill needed"? The tornado was a very severe threat after all it seems.

More tears or hints about afk-multiboxed-miners or afk-flying freighter please while afking multiboxed in a safe station, waiting for the ping or > 15 minutes gone by to launch and attack .... hypocrisy anyone?

i enjoy you trying to be witty stating questions that i already have answered. please continue little zerg goonie.

But in case your reading comprehension is that bad for real .... ask some of your fellow zerglings to help you. not my job.

An aquaintence of mine got about 6 Orca fulls yesterday.

This is true. But before you use a very base and simple statement, define the words.

Ok, real talk eh?

You would have a 100% of succeeding at suiciding and dying, yes. Without fail you became a wreck.

So yes, there you go.

Yes. But we are not talking about success being risk free.

I know a guy named Scordite Cowboy who ganks Ventures with a Thrasher. His failure rate is pretty low.

Because ship loss is a cost not a risk. Suicide ganking has zero risk. Success and profitability at suicide ganking has risk.

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

The dude is killing ventures with a thrasher. I don't think loot is part of the equation.

And he says he doesn't care about the money.

I don't think this is a true statement when it comes to miner ganking.

Success rates and profitability at suicide ganking has risk.

You are a dumb rock aren't you? First you want "no reading between the lines" now you want 1 word to mean 20.

Man the **** up. Just watch your gifs and click F1 dude, let the big boys talk.

No, the goal does not have a set parameter.

How about the New Order, do you read about them? Did you know that the Baptism by Fire has a would be Enforcer of the Code intentionally attack a miner specifically to get Concord to blow them up?

Sorry you think it's a bad argument, but I am not the one having trouble typing out words.

That's ********.

The NO collects mining permits yes, and can be nullified at any time. Plus there's the red pen list. Let's not derail please.

None of it is hard. I understand it perfectly. You unfortunately,m have been trapped by your own sense of ego and got smacked int he face. Sorry. You think everything can be pushed and crammed into few words to make sense, and to the ignorant that may be true.

However, as you are the supposed "master of concord" I have a hard time understanding why you are being so intentionally thick. You know that everything has 1,2, maybe even 3 other agendas and is never just simply "it's this way for all eternity".

And

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

people still reply to murk and his terrible troll posts?

Because you think suicide ganking is the same as kicking your boss in the junk.

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.

I'm willing to let the barge rebalance slide on CCP's part because let's face it; they ****** it up, fozzie admitted as much in his tmc interview, but they've got the ship balancing right since then so yeah... i'm willing to let it slide.

you do realise though, that murk is a troll and has admitted as much previously... in one of the multiboxing threads iirc.

i know you feel obliged to fight stupidity on the forums, and i applaud you for it, but i feel you're never going to get anywhere with this one.

Because the NO have a specific initiation that involves suicide ganking their first death with the intent of not winning since it's a solo "baptism by fire(concord)" and showed proof of how suicide ganking does not have to adopt the "norm" of "only for profit" such as you claimed. It's to "prove their commitment".

tl;dr To prove you wrong.

See, that would be your argument in saying "suicide ganking is risk".

So I am right.

Thank you for conceding that. That's all I needed. Now, we can actually have a discussion in earnest without stupid mudslinging.

50% chance of Concord not blowing you up is a stretch for you to claim.

Guess we are back to success and failure not dictating the act then aren't we?

Don't have to be good at something to do it.

See how that works? That's what you were doing with me.

And 50% loot dropping is a risk, noone is saying it isn't.

We are talking about getting a ship and encouraging Concord to blow it up. Nothing else past that.

Geez. I try to throw you a bone and some sort of compromise and you tell me with a straight face that miners have less risk than gankers.

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.

I SHUT YOU DOWN!

Well if its risk free then you guys aren't doing your job well enough. Maybe you should be using battlecruisers to gank miners to make a point.

Only in regards to profitability as a job. Not for acts of terrorism it isnt (eve terrorism;piracy etc). Not to manipulate a market it isn't.

Because of meta right?

This is why we are talking about suicide ganking in regards to ice interdictions not suicide ganking as a "noun" in it's own thread.

Because profit sources are indeed different when the threads are different.

No it isn't. Well, by your standards you said all suicide ganking was profit. Are you changing your stance now?

And yes, there is definitely a risk you will fail to kill your target. I've said that already. You keep equating that with "then it means it's applied to everything" which is simply untrue.

All suicide gankings involve trying to kill the other guy before you get blown up since you know you will get blown up, yes.

Only in terms of suicide ganking to make a profit.

It doesn't take risk to suicide gank. Only to make a lucrative living at it.

And it would be RISKS, not risk. The act isn't risky. What you do it for has risks associated with it. Not defined by it.

This is something I have I have said quite a few times. The act of simply dying by Concord is not risk.

It wasn't you in particular but someone on your side did say mining had less risk than ganking.

Do you agree or no?

I mean its possibly my mistake for assuming that everyone that it taking the one side has different opinion on it.

I mean I did ask a few gankers in various chats and most of them said they felt they risked less than the miners in the ganking or otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

Our killboard stats?

Actually, just: Our killboard?

You like the killboard, it's ~special~

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.