I see your problem.

Your entire argument is based on a false assumption. Who said there is an entire alliance out to gank miners? Far as I can tell this is a source of entertainment for the interested while there's no other shooting going on, that is still providing an income source via market manipulation in the process. There is by no means a call to arms of three thousand people ganking miners 12 hours a day, every day.

No, it was to increase the market value of a product the goons have an ample supply of. Not to bring high sec ice mining to a dead stop as you seem to be imagining.

First of all risk means there is a chance of loss, not that you are operating at a loss. You can risk more than the miner and through correct execution make more profit than the miner at the same time.

Secondly, that mack will pay for itself if it survives for a day or two operating at a net profit. If the gankers spend 25 million and make less than 25 million from the resulting loot and market manipulation, they are operating at a loss. You are looking at raw money that departed from the immediate wallet, not the overall balance sheet of the operations.

An individual average ganker has a higher chance of not making a profit than an individual average miner does.

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?

I suppose you could include clone loss, but I really doubt most gankers run around with 1 billion worth of implants in their heads, but the same could be said about the miners having also 1 billion worth of implants so it evens out the argument.

Which they aren't doing a great job. The moving average (5d) of white glaze is actually dropping despite the threat of ganking. The increase of it was just hype.

The belts are still being mined out and the price is not spiking and is now going back down. The whole operation is not as a big as it was made out to be and profits from it will not be as great as they thought they were going to be.

Secondly, if you want to include the fact miners actually make money and the gankers don't is really a false assumption because chances are that gankers are on other characters making money through other means (I even bet some of them mine).

I'll leave it as an exercise to yourself to figure out how a profit can be generated from ganking miners when the risk to the ganker is greater than the risk to the miner. As a hint I highly recommend you read what that other npc alt poster is posting.

Its all hogwash. We aren't talking about opportunity costs... We are talking about the exact value of what someone risks when they commit an action.

If you use a 20 million isk ship to gank a 100 million ship, your risk is lower because you risk less isk.

And the time committed to that action is one of the things at risk.


20 million isk in, value of loot out (which could be as little as 0 if you derp or get unlucky, resulting in -20).
100 mil in, 100's of mil out guaranteed over the life span of the ship if you know how to fit and use it properly.

Which one has the higher risk of running a deficit over time?

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.

In my view, the two activies are seperate. I could simply fuel my ganking activities by buying plex. I don't really care about making money through ganking. Its not the point of it in my view.

Your view is irrelevant, a lot of players fund their PvP through piracy.

Seems to me the whole "greater risk" discussion is a red herring. A simpler explanation that seems to fit the whole scenario is:

1. CFC has been enjoying the Odyssey-buffed ice-mining in Caldari 0.0 for months, and had a big backlog.
2. Some of them will be moving to Fountain, and it was time to cash in the mined nitrotopes or ice cubes.
3. They planned a Caldari ice interdiction, and the price ran up as it leaked and people started hoarding.
4. They announced the interdiction on 5 August, and sold the nitrotopes during the panic buying that day.
5. Profit.

Note that there's a huge spike in nitrotope volume in Jita immediately following the announcement. I suspect the sellers were mostly Goon/CFC.

So what about the actual interdiction? They need to kill enough to make it appear to be a realistic threat for the *next* time they manipulate the market, and they successfully pruned out the non-tanked miners, and put together impressive ganks on several well-tanked ships and freighters. The financial risk of gank-failing is irrelevant to them: a few thousand destroyers is chump change to an alliance that's controlled the best moon goo for years. Note that they don't bother to pick up the exhumer-dropped loot after the ganks. It's not about the ship isk - the market isk is already in the bag.

So my theory is that the interdiction was a success... two weeks before it started. The actual ganking of miners is merely corroborative detail intended to lend artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.

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!

I see you are ignoring the fact that exhumers are statistically one of the safest ships to fly in EVE even before they were buffed.

We can also have a successfull ice interdiction without torching every miner out there. The simple fact is that mining is one of the most risk free activities in EVE while suicide ganking is the most risky activity in space in high sec.

If you use a 20 million isk ship to gank a 100 million ship, your risk is lower because you risk less isk

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.

I don't know. It just seems like you all feel like you are being persecuted and feel like the only way to overcome this is to win a war of words.

I mean I just failed a gank about an hour ago (he had 25% structure left too), but I don't feel like I am punished by the game or the community because of it.

You guys just take yourself too seriously and it seems that you demand that everyone feel bad for you when your lifestyle is a choice you chose to live. No one forced you to do those things.

all i really got from this post was "i have no idea how to do basic maths and use a ship scanner"

Oh so now you are saying it was my fault and nothing to do with the risk of the profession?

Doesn't it dawn of you that is the basic opposite of what your side said earlier.

That the risk was the fact the target would survive and woe are gankers because this happens all the damn time.

I think just because I take a contrary stance, that if I switched sides mid-argument you would change your opinion to keep arguing.

It's just pathetic. This cognitive dissonance.

And for your knowledge, I did scan.

Maybe I took a risk.

Unless you want to say there is none if you do the math.

yes i am saying it was your fault, because it was.

and what was it that i said earlier that it's the opposite of? quotes appreciated, i've been to sleep since whatever i said previously.

don't believe i've ever mentioned targets surviving so far in this thread, again quotes appreciated.

no, if you stopped saying dumb things i'd stop pointing out that you're saying dumb things.

i doubt you scanned, and i doubt you "took a risk" i doubt you did more than roll your face over your keyboard to create a scenario you could use to scream... whatever it is you're screaming.

as far as suicide ganking goes the act of blowing up a ship is essentially a foregone conclusion. before and after the shooting of the guns is when the risk is there. the human element is something you cannot always account for. however, your dps vs tank is something you can always calculate, and quite easily.

just because blowing up a ship is, for the most part, a basic mathematical equation does not mean the activity as a whole is riskless.

I want to type something in response but I lack the words that will not result in ISD action. Suffice to say we are almost at page 34.

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.

Difference between us is that I wasn't making things up like you just did.

You say there is no risk in suicide ganking. Dispite the fact that between the fact that the target may not die for any number of reasons, the loot may not drop, your ship that is looting the wreck might get blown up due to being open to attack by everyone and the fact that you now have a killright on your head that can be acted upon by anyone at any time.

Its like saying that there is no risk fighting a war. No risk in investment banking.

Its a stupid argument.

A chance of getting 0. An uncertain outcome. A risk you might say. You want me to assume I'm going to fail, not once but twice in the same gank, so you can change the position on the balance sheet and support your argument. That's not how projections and risks work.


I prefer to look at the AVERAGE case to get a proper view of the risks, rather than assume I'm going to sell PLEX to jita contracts for 360 mil on a daily basis and plan according to that.

More nonsense.

Because the whole gank part of suicide ganking doesn't matter...

I hoped it would live long enough to pay for itself. I expected to get scanned and ganked the first time i undocked because lol loot piniada in mission hub. Oh I ran missions in it under wardecs too. I think i swapped out the heat sinks to T2 but kept the rest.

But who says everyone buys a ship with the intention of suicide ganking? The last time I ganked someone I used a tier 3 BC with expired insurance that had been on multiple killmails. It was personal and i wanted to do it myself. Yet I still managed to get the loot from my ship, his ship, and the salvage from the exhumer. It did not cost me 100 mil up front to prepare, and I sure as hell did not plan to let his buddies pick up the loot. The cost was buying a replacement hull and whatever didn't drop.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT THE 100% SHIPLOSS IS A RISK.
You are one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered.
**** the shiploss. **** the cost.
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.

Just because you post a bunch of nonsense repeatedly doesn't make you right. It just makes you an argumentative prick.

At the end of the day, you repeatedly shiptoasting has gone on long enough. You are either remarkably stupid or a massive troll. Either way, go **** yourself.