# The cost of suicide ganking is too low **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [November 17, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033 "2017-11-17T16:12:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![Sasha\_Nemtsov](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sasha_nemtsov/32/393707_2.png) [@Sasha\_Nemtsov](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sasha_Nemtsov)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:05pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/565 "2017-11-24T12:05:32Z")
From dear, wonderful James 315: “Going AFK in a 200m ISK ship with nothing but a Civilian Shield Booster is probably not a good idea.” Until that sort of behaviour is addressed (by players), it seems to me that raising the cost of suicide-ganking is somewhat missing the point. ---
**Author:** ![Salvos\_Rhoska](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salvos_rhoska/32/14128_2.png) [@Salvos\_Rhoska](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salvos_Rhoska)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:05pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/566 "2017-11-24T12:05:40Z")
> [@Ramona\_McCandless](#): > > Antiga would achieve their goals a lot more efficently by educating new miners in how not to die than going on some foolish quest for revenge. That is indeed one method. As I pointed out earlier, HS ganking could be almost eliminated overnight if only people took precautions. However, in my view, HS mechanics are currently imbalanced against 3rd parties, such as AG or a random local, intervening in or preventing a gank attempt. ---
**Author:** ![Sasha\_Nemtsov](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sasha_nemtsov/32/393707_2.png) [@Sasha\_Nemtsov](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sasha_Nemtsov)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:07pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/567 "2017-11-24T12:07:51Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > However, in my view, HS mechanics are currently imbalanced against 3rd parties, such as AG or a random local, intervening in or preventing a gank attempt. It’s clear that you hold to your view firmly and, I have to say, sincerely, Salvos. The question is ‘why has it been so difficult to persuade the game’s designers of the merit of such arguments?’ ---
**Author:** ![Ima\_Wreckyou](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ima_wreckyou/32/235531_2.png) [@Ima\_Wreckyou](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ima_Wreckyou)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:09pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/568 "2017-11-24T12:09:14Z")
Yes, I agree. But I have not seen any proposal until now which would accomplish that. ---
**Author:** ![Ramona\_McCandless](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ramona_mccandless/32/468438_2.png) [@Ramona\_McCandless](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ramona_McCandless)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:12pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/569 "2017-11-24T12:12:49Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > However, in my view, HS mechanics are currently imbalanced against 3rd parties, such as AG or a random local, intervening in or preventing a gank attempt. I accept you are of that opinion, but for the sake of clarity, when you say prevention in this case what specific situation do you mean? At what point are they unable to intercene now that you would like them to be able to? ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:13pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/570 "2017-11-24T12:13:36Z")
he means that AG should be able to gank the gankers. in low/null, there is a gatecamp/whcamp from neuts, you get there with friend and destroy the gatecamp, or die in a fire with GFs in local. In HS, you can’t. Well, you can die in concordoken fire. Which is a problem : there is asymmetry in the engagement selection. This asymmetry is in favor of gankers. ---
**Author:** ![Salvos\_Rhoska](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salvos_rhoska/32/14128_2.png) [@Salvos\_Rhoska](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salvos_Rhoska)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:14pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/571 "2017-11-24T12:14:25Z")
> [@Sasha\_Nemtsov](#): > > The question is ‘why has it been so difficult to persuade the game’s designers of the merit of such arguments?’ > [@Ima\_Wreckyou](#): > > Yes, I agree. But I have not seen any proposal until now which would accomplish that. Lets focus on finding that then. Everyone agrees HS needs more PvP. I propose we find a suggestion to increase gank potential, commensurate with more opportunity for 3rd parties to intervene. We need to move HS aggression away from CONCORD, back to players. ---
**Author:** ![Jonah\_Gravenstein](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jonah_gravenstein/32/386819_2.png) [@Jonah\_Gravenstein](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jonah_Gravenstein)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:14pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/572 "2017-11-24T12:14:26Z")
good news, they already can ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:17pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/573 "2017-11-24T12:17:07Z")
I edited after that. And no, they can’t ( in regard to the comparison of LS/NS) ---
**Author:** ![Ramona\_McCandless](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ramona_mccandless/32/468438_2.png) [@Ramona\_McCandless](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ramona_McCandless)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:18pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/574 "2017-11-24T12:18:24Z")
So what tool do Antiga lack to do this? The concept of ganking to prevent a gank’s hypocrisy not withstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Ima\_Wreckyou](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ima_wreckyou/32/235531_2.png) [@Ima\_Wreckyou](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ima_Wreckyou)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:19pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/575 "2017-11-24T12:19:21Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > Well, you can die in concordoken fire. Which is a problem : there is asymmetry in the engagement selection. This asymmetry is in favor of gankers. The ganker dies in CONCORD fire as well, so how is this asymetry? The only asymetry is if the ganker is -5 already you can engage him without dying to CONCORD and that is clearly an asymetry in the favor of ag. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:30pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/576 "2017-11-24T12:30:32Z")
you forgot to read the part of my sentence where I use “engagement selection” I agree with you though, the problem is more complex - and since I am not part of gankers nor AG I don’t really have a stance on this. It just seems to me that gankers can decide when they will become vulnerable , and the fact they are vulnerable in a very small frame window which makes their antiganking much harder than them ganking. On the other hand I think AG can still bait gankers using freighters with high value cargo and nestors (cloaked ?) to protect them, which reduces the asymetry. I already proposed somewhere else to prevent people with negative status from undocking/boarding in HS, and people with \<5 from doing so in HS/LS. This would give gankers an incentive to pay less tags at the price of getting ganked in turn on the road from low to their target, thus reducing their gain from the gank. ---
**Author:** ![Salvos\_Rhoska](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salvos_rhoska/32/14128_2.png) [@Salvos\_Rhoska](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salvos_Rhoska)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 12:47pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/577 "2017-11-24T12:47:47Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > I already proposed somewhere else to prevent people with negative status from undocking/boarding in HS, and people with \<5 from doing so in HS/LS. This would give gankers an incentive to pay less tags at the price of getting ganked in turn on the road from low to their target, thus reducing their gain from the gank. I tend to agree that reducing the - sec status required for HS pilots to engage without CONCORD intervention, or their capacity to dock to safety, is the way forward. This widens the gap for HS locals to aggress low sec status players, without changing CONCORDs reaction to an illegal action by gankers once initiated. ---
**Author:** ![Ima\_Wreckyou](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ima_wreckyou/32/235531_2.png) [@Ima\_Wreckyou](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ima_Wreckyou)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 1:04pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/578 "2017-11-24T13:04:47Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > or their capacity to dock to safety, is the way forward. How will that change anything? ---
**Author:** ![Salvos\_Rhoska](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salvos_rhoska/32/14128_2.png) [@Salvos\_Rhoska](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salvos_Rhoska)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 1:07pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/579 "2017-11-24T13:07:23Z")
If you cant dock, you cant be safe from aggression. ---
**Author:** ![Ramona\_McCandless](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ramona_mccandless/32/468438_2.png) [@Ramona\_McCandless](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ramona_McCandless)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 1:09pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/580 "2017-11-24T13:09:42Z")
Wait so what happens if its a friendly citadel? ---
**Author:** ![Dom\_Arkaral](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dom_arkaral/32/462611_2.png) [@Dom\_Arkaral](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dom_Arkaral)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 1:10pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/581 "2017-11-24T13:10:28Z")
Most people don’t even care there’s a freighter being bumped or whatever And you know as much as I do that if you give gankers a chance to shoot more people (since you’d like more player intervention) ---
**Author:** ![Solonius\_Rex](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/solonius_rex/32/388172_2.png) [@Solonius\_Rex](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Solonius_Rex)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 1:10pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/582 "2017-11-24T13:10:43Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > You cannot prove anything from a correlation, it’s only a result of the point of view you selected to observe data. You can exhibit thousands of correlation, it will not prove anything. > CCP did not find any correlation, but finding or not a correlation is NOT an evidence. No one said anything about proving anything. And didnt i say that the correlation itself is a fact? Again, you are confusing facts with evidence. And jesus, that definition. As i said before, proof doesnt exist in science, because proof is a mathematical term, and not a scientific one. > **[Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof)** > > Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof. > [@](#): > > It does not help to prove anything, so it is not an evidence. > You can not be honest and consider a correlation as an evidence of anything. I won’t describe all the reasons why this is impossible, it’s just basic science. A correlation is commutative, a causation is not. > > A correlation is only an observation that tell you where you may find a causation relation. It does not help to prove, only to search. So a correlation can NEVER be used as an evidence. > > If you ever try to justify something form a correlation(other than said correlation), then you are wrong. > That’s why people fall so easily for this fallacy : they can’t agree that a correlation implies, proves, NOTHING. Can you please get past this “proof” concept in science? Because it actually doesnt exist. Science is tentative. It is dependent on evidence, and can be overturned on evidence. It is falsifiable, and no mater how much “Evidence” is piled up to support a theory of, say, Evolution, a single piece of contradictory evidence can throw the entire theory into jeopardy. Thats the nature of science. It follows and is guided by the evidence. When you keep throwing around “Oh this does or does not prove ANYTHING” you make it sound as if science is concrete, and that evidence cements it as a fact. It doesnt. In science, evidence supports a conclusion, but does not prove it. Id suggest you go back to 10th grade science. ---
**Author:** ![Fabulous\_Rod](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/fabulous_rod/32/34799_2.png) [@Fabulous\_Rod](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Fabulous_Rod)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 1:11pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/583 "2017-11-24T13:11:48Z")
Well said, though I don’t expect CCP to not have confirmation bias or wholly inclusive data. How many people don’ t bother with the game because of this crap? If coward players can dip into pvp-for-dummies(SG) and have a safe space where they don’ t have to risk anything of value, why not others? Surely players would be willing to take on more risky environments in time. Either way I would like to see more equity. SGs seem to have it far too easy. Eve is not a harsh or dangerous place for them at ll. ---
**Author:** ![Ramona\_McCandless](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ramona_mccandless/32/468438_2.png) [@Ramona\_McCandless](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ramona_McCandless)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 1:13pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033/584 "2017-11-24T13:13:41Z")
> [@Fabulous\_Rod](#): > > why not others Everyone can. Choosing to ignore this is not forced on you by design. Hence your confusion with cant/wont. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033.md?page=28) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-cost-of-suicide-ganking-is-too-low/40033.md?page=30)