Yes, you get a T2 catalyst for 10 mil and get it concorded. You loot 9 mil of that 10mil from your own wreck, yet you still incurred a COST of 10 mil.

Ship loss is (Cost of ship - cost of hull - cost of rigs) * 50% NOT the whole ship
It's variable, it's not a fixed cost. When you gank with a 10 mil t2 cat, you are risking 9 mil. you will can get back anywhere between 0 and 9 mil, even if you fail to kill the target.

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

If you try in an attemp to succede, then there is a risk of failure. If you try with no intend to succede, then yeah I guess there is only cost but thats not a gank if you also don't intend your target to die. It's a plain suicide.

If the hero tackle held the ship long enough for other more skilled tackle to take over the duty, he did succede. His success is based on the fact that he held the target or not for the required time.

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.

Except it didn't blow up, because the hapless ganker shot a global criminal fleet member and is left standing in his ship surrounded by barges wrecks and concord. The barge probably lived too, since the gank was 2 cats short.

Kicking your boss in the junk is riskless because you know you will lose your job.

Posting on the forum is riskless because you know you will get trolled anyway.

So you are RISKING implants, therefore the gank was not risk-free.
Edit: and clone upgrade cost

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

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.

What part of killing the target is so hard for you to get? The whole point of a suicide gank is to kill the target.




I see you are ignoring the part where they force people to pay protection money and where they loot the victim for profit.




Your problem is that you are typing utter nonsense that has been shown to be wrong multiple times in every page of this topic.

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.

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.

That's your argument.

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.

No it's not. If nothing drops / loot is stolen it cost me 10 mil. If three blasters drop and I recover them it only costs me 7. The cost is variable.

So what you're saying is I'm taking a RISK that the modules from the gank ship will not drop
A RISK that someone will steal the drops from the gank ship.
A RISK that I will get podded

Thanks for clarifying these risks, which all come into play prior to determining whether the victim's ship is even destroyed.

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.

The last time we allowed idiots to post unopposed we got the barge balance pass which resulted in an even more broken line-up than we had before.

The lesson was learned and we now face down every moronic post lest CCP listen to these people again.

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.

Now it's you assigning parameters to how I should view the loss and set up the gank.

I don't risk having less loss. I EXPECT to recover 50% of the modules if I execute correctly. I risk losing those modules in the gank process.

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.

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.

I don't think you understand what a goal is. To be honest I don;t think you understand what the word risk means either.
The goal is not to die. The goal of a suicide GANK is the GANK part. The death of the target. Suicide is the method, GANK is the action. Yes, the cost of attempting a suicide gank is the ship, and that's not in dispute. That's why when you keep raising it like an idiot, people are arguing against you. The whole point of the argument is the risks associated with the GANK. And that risk is failing to GANK the target. End of.
And you are going to continue arguing this point to death even though you are just recycling the same nonsense bullshit trying to confuse the matter. I really can't believe you are dumb enough to not understand, so I can only think that you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

people still reply to murk and his terrible troll posts?