Thats the operative notion here.
Nothing prevents them from fixing their sec status per my proposal of reducing the threshold for HS entities to aggress them.
But it does create more opportunity for HS entities to aggress criminal entities (without CONCORD) that dont regain sec status back before re-entering HS.
Okay, sure. But one compromise has been suggested and you didn’t even bat an eye.
Salvos…good lord you just can’t have a normal conversation can you. @Sasha_Nemtsov tried, but you just kept not engaging in the discussion.
Agreed…except I’d take out the word and replace it with something like “allowing”.
And there is still the issue of organizational costs. Gankers incur costs in terms of organizing and they are willing to incur these costs because there are benefits. I do not see such benefits for AG.
And yes, this is something the OP would likely not like as it would make ganking easier. However, IMO, he should like it as it means more targets he supposedly wants to engage.
Or moving around too frequently.
Typical Salvos, leave out the other half of his proposal so he can play “gotcha”. 
And what does this do aside from shift the current system around. This does…well…nothing.
Actually all it does is shift the current system. So at -5 you can be shot in a 0.5 system currently. Now, with Salvos’ suggestion 0 becomes the new -5 and 5 becomes the new 0. It pretty much changes nothing.
It really doesn’t change a thing…
Because CONCORD will always be there to punish flashy reds
And people will still flee from criminal pods (because they obviously have doomsday devices or something)
You might see a change in the prices of clone soldier tags.
Not in the ganking playstyle though.
Yes, I was thinking about that, Tox. Also, the implications for Alphas and other new players who make a ‘genuine mistake’ and get chased from Hek to Kingdom Come each time they put their nose out of station… They’ll not find it easy to afford tags to repair their sec status, and working it off will likely be a chore and a discouragement to continue playing. Hardly in keeping with the thrust of CCP’s current stated intentions.
As usual, that poster seems to want us to do his thinking-through for him instead of challenging his own ideas before enshrining them here. Unless it’s that he believes them to be complete and perfect in every way, Mary Poppins.
I hope the use of that name doesn’t catch on; it was such a good film (apart from Van Dyke’s ‘London’ accent).
oh death is free just cost your live, eve changed that now death is cheap.
possibly why suicid ganking is somewhat low on the cost scale, and it is a likely outcome of the broken window assumption.
(oh there is another assumption that persons have a fetish concerning their owned things and therefore they cry over losses. read about that in a description about marx the capital.)
I still enjoy the discussion, it gets the brain juices flowing.
I think that changes to CONCORD are the only way to have meaningful gameplay for players trying to interfere in a gank, otherwise you’re just adjusting the calculations that gankers need to take into account before throwing their disposable ships at their target. I don’t gank on the Amarr undock with over -2.0 now, and I wouldn’t with 0.0 in Salvos’s variation.
Because facpo and gate/station guns would insta-shoot you 
Exactly, Tox. And there are other calculations, too.
I could argue that almost all suicide-gankers would find it difficult to manage (not talking about fleets) in Highsec without a second account. Effective scouting and looting demands it.
Increasingly it has become necessary for the DPS, too, which implies that the holding of a third account is indicated. This is part of the real cost of ganking, and I’m sure most of us just get on with it. But 2-3 subs is quite a lot for a playstyle which seems to be regarded by some folks on the forums as a happy-go-lucky free-for-all. It certainly isn’t!
When I had one of my ganking characters hit true -10 for the first time I decided to celebrate by buying 100 thrashers to gank pods (Inspired by Aaaarrgg) but also tried to do so without any scouts, and basically patrolled between Niarja and Amarr for autopiloting pods. It sucked and I ended up giving up after 40ish kills. I was basically just waiting for a good target to pop up during the time before Facpol arrived then warping to another gate and hoping the same thing. You can definitely get by with two accounts, but having one wouldn’t be worth it unless you have friends to help you.
Why does facpo need to be removed? This seems like using a sledgehzmmer when you need a scalpel. There already things one can do to help prevent and break tackles . instead of outright removal, how might mechanics change to offer a sporting chance to the poor suicide gankers when flying more expensive ships Without making it too easy on them?
IMO its perfectly fine that suicide ganking be reserved for the hardcore and affluent, just as it was for stat loss pks in ultima online. The fact suicide tganking (blowing someone up before the guards blow you up) has been made into a overly common and cheap play style that new accounts can partake in is part of what makes eve seem like a joke of a game where grief monkeys have all the advantages.
I’ll take your post seriously, Rod.
Not really 
I understand. Having to fly aligned and pay attention to surroundings, equipping defensive modules is too much to ask for those who are not used to taking risks for a reward when shitting in the cornflakes of non-combatants. Let’s just forget about buying tags as well, shall we?
Well there we have it. Fabulous_Rod does not really want to “go after gankers” he wants CCP to turn them into fish in a barrel so Fabulous_Rod can shoot them.
If they aren’t taking any risks…maybe that is why you can’t shoot them…that and you’re just bad.
Haven’t you failfailed at reading comprehension enough?
I read what you wrote, it just is not at all believable given your responses.
If ganking is to create content then there have to be anti-gankers.
Don’t anti-gankers suicide gankers? Wouldn’t this effect everyone too much if the threshold was lowered too much, and have an insignificant effect if not lowered enough?
If someone who is ‘anti-gank’ saw a CODE agent in a pod wouldn’t they take the sec hit and just pop them? If they were in a cheap ship. I genuinely don’t know?
Don’t ALL pvpers in high sec go into low and engage first sometimes, it can even be a defensive move to lock target shoot first. You can go -5 easy enough as is.
I think you would end up with anyone who does any pvp at all in highsec flashy eventualy, and lots of opportunity for flashy baiting- while I like this idea in principle, it actualy gets me moist tbh, this thread is not about what arouses Patti but the cost of suicife ganking
I am not talking about people who’s gameplay revolves around being anti-ganker as they ARE pvpers and would be flashy super quick I would hope.
I largely agree with @yellow_parasol that CCP will either get high sec players joining up and mining etc as a group activity and able to defend themselves, and learning and understanding current mechanics, rendering CODE at least politically and ideologically moot, or they will not. Don’t know if I as am optimistic as he seems, but I am optimistic. Though there will always be afk miners and botters…
But I still see no evidence that the cost of suicide ganking is too low , not in this thread
I do agree once again with @yellow_parasol that this discussion may be irrelevant, if CCP do follow through with their proposals, especially to make NPCs behave like PCs etc;
as the high sec players arguing that the cost of suicide ganking is too low
will realise that if it Is too low, then it is up to them to do something about it,
and that does not mean relying on AG/ag/whichever or other organised groups,
I mean the NPC chat culture needs to be YOU CAN MAKE IT COST THEM, use eve voice ifs shitty but its there, talk to each other and form fleets, and share intel and learn the same mechanics the gankers know inside out;
or learn to evade and d scan even, realise it is acceptable to play as canny prey and actually win if you get away with what you want to do, through intelligent gameplay, not
OH NOES THEY SHOT YOUR SPACE TRUCK IT HAPPENED TO ME, I TOO FELT RAGE AND GRIEF, SO THESE PEOPLE MUST BE GRIEFERS AND NOT WORTH ‘PLAYING WITH’, IT MUST BE ALL ABOUT MY RAGE AND GRIEF AND YOURS etc etc etc
instead of learning to deal with that rage and grief, which let’s be honest anyone who has risked assets and pvp’d understands, the adrenaline of losing, nearly winning and losing, feeling like you were baited etc.
But my 2isk: the cost of suicide ganking is not too low, or rather no one has really presented an argument that convinces me in this thread that it is.
Very good write-up right here. That’s why I call ganking a form of PVE, but I’m against higher costs for it.
True and not true at the same time. Fact is that ganking is a form of carebearing in the sense that it’s relatively calculatable risk vs. reward and more often than not only investment vs. chance on profit - most of the moving parts are spreadsheetable. Please don’t understand that as some form of statement against ganking. People do PVE, that’s ok. The largest difference between gankers and anti-gankers seems to be that gankers often seem to operate in groups, which is more than I can say for the solo freighter pilot who hopes for purely personal profit from moving stuff.
So while it takes both the mechanics that CCP designed and actual players to use them, ganking is a rather obvious choice, just like wardeccing, gatecamping and so on.
If CCP was ever to touch the issue again, I hope they would neither make ganking harder nor hauling more safe, but the entire process more interesting for both sides. I doubt it will happen.
Which would make highsec like lowsec and it would be great 
Not sure about that, as Highsec would essentially become lowsec and gankers would adapt tactics as would solo freighter pilots join some form of group, to even be able to attend business. It would be less safe for everyone and that would make it interesting.
That’s something both gankers and ganked fear.