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.

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.

Suicide is an adjective in this context, with gank being the verb. You're arguing that it's the other way around and Suicide-by-assault is risk-free because you know the result upfront (losing your life).

If you have to ask that you do not have the qualifications to tell me I'm right or wrong.

please do.
i regard you as the eve-o equivalent of the facebook friend we never unfriend because their car crash of a life periodically popping up on your news feed makes you feel better about yourself.

Good thing that I am not claiming that then isn't it?

There is a 50% chance of the loot dropping. How is that not a risk?

No. The cost is the part I know is guaranteed to be lost (the hull and rigs and some of the modules). The rest is a risk.


Yeah I don't plan to feed ISK to people I violence the ships of. If I fail the gank, you bet the looter is going to grab what survives from my ship before the victim does. And since more often than not the victim is not at the keyboard in the case of ice miners, it's a pretty safe bet who will get the loot. Successfully killing the victim is not a condition of recovering the loot from the concorded wreck.

No we are looking at people commiting suicide and you trying to use them to prove some wild madness on suicide ganking.

The two are totally different things.

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

You are either remarkably stupid or a massive troll.

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

The ACT OF GANKING requires you TO KILL YOUR TARGET.
that ACT is not a GUARANTEED SUCCESS.
THAT IS WHERE THERE IS RISK.

Thus. SUICIDE GANKING as an ACT has RISK
The costs are obviously costs, the same as ANY OTHER COST.

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.

you mean aside from the fact that once his ship has been concorded the criminal flag means any one can shoot his pod without consequence?

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.

For 15 minutes, an already accepted part of the forfeiture. And also, highly unlikely and easily avoidable.

So there is a 50% chance for each strip miner to fail to mine anything per cycle?

You also turn kill on sight to everyone when the ore hits your hold?

Also you get a sec rating hit when you fire up your mining lasers on the rock and get a month long killright put on your head that can be sold to anyone?

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.

What win?

The entire point of the interdiction is to make it more profitable to mine the ice, which then naturally outweighs the increased risks. It just makes it more risky to mine it in high than in null, lining the pockets of those who have access to it in null (and take part in the market manipulation).

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?

I could see people say you could make more money with the ice sales from null but that has nothing to do with the risk part of the equation unless you are ganking your own ice miners.

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?

We're risking more and making a profit. You completely avoid mentioning that CCP has progressively made highsec safer over the lifespan of the game. You also miss the entire point of the interdiction.

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?