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.

99% of gankers do care about the money.

That's like saying all mission runners don't care about the isk.

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?

What if his target has an infamous falcon alt cloaked nearby locking him until CONCORD arrive? Is that impossible or is there a risk that it will happen?

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

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?

Its probaly less than 1% so its like worrying about getting hit with a car while sitting in your living room.

No one is going to be protecting a venture with a cloaked ship.

So ganking has risk then.

Glad you finally see the error of your rather ******** arguments.

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.

Success rates and profitability at suicide ganking has risk.

People were using the "ship loss is not a risk but a cost" to try to prove that suicide gank are 0 risk endeavor. This is false because there are still plenty of risk involved in suicide ganking for the ship loss to not change the action from riskless to risky. Suicide ganking is risky. Thats the point of the discussion because at the beginning of the thread, some tard stupidly said there was no risk in suicide ganking. It took over 20 apges to discuss this **** point and we might be done soon.

Or not...

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.

That's because you are trying to equate 1 factor to be the norm for the entire endeavor for simplistic reasons.

Doesn't make it any less true because suicide ganking pass or fail, doesn't have any profit in it. Only loss. You have a chance at profit if you win, and you have a chance at profit if the loot fairy is kind.

But until that target dies, you only have cost of your ship to depend on. Whether it's a freighter or a noobship, that is the one constant.

Trust me, it helps to be specific and not generalize.

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.

**** off lol. Starting to derail the topic. This is about the results from the ice interdiction thus far. It's already derailed by people talking about whether they think ganking is or isn't risky, and now you want to argue about the circumstance of the gank.

The gank is a fail if the target is alive at the end of it. That can and does happen. That's the risk. Any circumstance around that is entirely beside the point. The WHY you are doing it, and the resulting profit and loss is secondary to the objective which is target X must die. If you execute the gank, and target X lives, the operation was a failure. If he is dead, the operation was a success. I really don;t know how you don't get that.

But you can still slip and miss your gank. Thats why it's not riskless. Everything is only a cost if you don't analyse the goal of such expense. It's like you are saying sex without protection is riskless because we will all die at some spoint.

Operation Barbarossa was not risky because it only ever cost divisions right?

I bet it's the part in Bold that you're missing, creating said confusion. The result is not binary.



Whether you believe a 100% probability to indicate no risk is irrelevant, because fortunately it's not the case in a suicide gank.

Yes I am saying you can "survive concord" and there is an element of chance involved on multiple levels in this, creating a risk factor where P =/= 1.The only time P approaches 1 is when you do it solo on something along the lines of the Jita undock.


How about you fit out a cat and shoot a station instead. Then open the wreck with your looter alt. Tell me what you see.

Tell me how you "lost the ship so it's a 1" when you still have 0-8 blasters and 0-3 mag stabs in your hangar. Note how you risked these modules not once, not twice but three times - once to the loot fairy, then to other players looting them before you, then again going suspect while collecting loot.

The probability of losing the catalyst hull and rigs is 1. The rest of the ship is a risk, up to the loot fairy and good old pvp interaction.

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.

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

So suicide ganking has risks right?

Because suicide ganking only has the goal of getting your own ship destroyed!

People suicide gank to kill themselves!


Yea that's your argument right now. You are ignoring everything past the point where your ship explodes cutting out the bulk of what happens in a suicide gank to try and defend a very bad argument that you have been making and for whatever reason refuse to give up despite the utter lack of facts and logic.

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?

No. The act does not. It is riskless to try.

Not if you are arguing over generic statement such as : There is no risk in suicide ganking. At that point, since the statement is generalized, you might as well stay general to fight the whole assumption instead of only part of it.

You underestimate the ability of a goon to accidentally lock one of the other cat's that has already gone GCC, blow that up instead of the barge, then be left standing in the ice field wondering WTF just happened.

But you can take the costs, and shove them up your ass. They are beside the point. The ENTIRE argument is: Is there any risk in suicide ganking (overall). The answer is Yes. You surely must see that. You are trying to take different parts of suicide ganking and different reasons for suicide ganking to complicate matters, but it DOESNT NEED to be complicated any more beyond the overall aim of suicide ganking.
Let me try to explain this in as much details as is required:

ALL sucide ganks have a single common GOAL
That GOAL is the death of the target.
That GOAL is not GUARANTEED, thus there is a RISK.

No further information is needed.

No, the goal does not have a set parameter.

Want a for instance? You ever see a brand new player hero tackle a carrier with any hope of success? No? Did you laugh about it then shower him with isk AFTER the fact?

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.

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

Pretty straight forward.

But I will... (try)