This is actually the definition of practice.
4 Likes
No dedicated suicide ganker alt is going to fly a freighter with a kill right around. Or anything bigger than a cat or a steath bomber, for that matter. Some “I’ll just try it for giggles” types have made that mistake, but none of the usual suspects would.
No, if you want revenge, you have to somehow find a toon the ganker doesn’t want you to find.
1 Like
Carebears are obsessed with ISK; making it and keeping it. Watching it tick upwards in their wallets. Eyeing with satisfaction the total net worth figure on their character sheet. That’s one of the reasons they blow a fuse whenever an amount as small as the price of a fail-fit Retriever is removed from their pile of gold.
The suicide-ganker, for the most part, is able (with a little adjustment) to take advantage of the attitude encouraged by a very famous prayer (St Ignatius of Loyola):
Teach us…
To give and not to count the cost,
To fight and not to heed the wounds,
To toil, and not to seek for rest,
To labour, and not to ask for any reward…
Such a beautiful supplication could be the rallying cry of any number of organisations and the inspiration for a great many individuals. Except, alas, the anti-gankers, the haulers, and the miserable miners of EVE Online.
4 Likes
Do we factor the cost of hearing about the cost of suicide ganking, into the cost of suicide ganking?
Because for a niche activity it sure generates a lot of words and stuff.
Surely the best way to destroy a suicide ganker in high sec, is to suicide gank them.
So IF the isk cost is lower, then the cost of suicide ganking a suicide ganker may be lower.
Also, given the necessarily finite number of targets worth ganking, the possibility of many players making alpha gank chars just to get in on the suicide ganking game-
will only hurt the bottom line of those who already profit from the activity.
If one wanted to truly disrupt suicide ganking as a viable mechanic, one would make it completely free, then all haulers and traders and none-pewpew PVPrs who use adequate opsec would still survive as often as they do now, understanding that a certain risk is inevitable and must result in an occasional loss as a business expense (as must also be understood by those who make a living from pewpew PVP, but not those who use PVE to fund their PVP of course),
And the finite pool of whales who do not take steps to protect themselves will not be enough to sustain the operations of the gankers as a profession- if the chages really do result in alpha gankers ‘everywhere’.
The new Alpha changes and potential influx of cheap gankers, should it happen, could act on the current population of suicide gankers as the release of the grey squirrel into the UK effected the native red squirrel population.
TLDR: Gankers are sort of like squirrels, maybe, could be the kush
Suicide-ganking as practiced by members of the New Order of Highsec has 2 principal income streams; from loot and donations to the SRP. Donations, mind you. The sums are not levied from CODE. Alliance members, as they might be in other, non-Highsec organisations.
I’ve never used the SRP myself, and that is because I have other income sources to support my activities (which have been meagre of late, I admit). Self-financing should be added to the list, I suppose. I’m fortunate that I’m able to operate in this way.
What I’m trying to point out is that for the average New Order ganker, cost really doesn’t mean very much until you’re talking about multiple billions of ISK. We don’t attach importance to losses to CONCORD, or even to successful interventions (‘fails’, ag might call those), and most of us who gank miners are quite used to finding very little in the wrecks, because so many of the targets are fail-fit. If you scan comprehensively, you know that in advance.
This is what many of our detractors despise; our rather carefree attitude to ISK. It is the complete opposite of their laser-like focus on ISK-making and retention. They usually try to disguise this by focusing on other aspects of our play.
When Alphas were introduced, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the likelihood of huge gangs of little gankers roaming HIghsec and blasting to oblivion their entitled-by-subscription betters and masters. Didn’t happen. I daresay the advent of Alphas with even better skills might encourage a few (I’ll be helping with a recruitment drive), but in general, folks will continue to do what entertains them most. You’re right, Patti; it certainly is a niche activity.
What was that about squirrels? 
2 Likes
Heh. But it has to be offset by the gains from all the salt that is produced.
Unless they are -10 or they have killrights, then you don’t have too.
1 Like
IKR? After reading and not bothering to read all of the posters, I noticed that the vast majority need to read the first two sentences of the OP and try again. This is like the hilarious olympics of heavy mental gymnastics. Why is this such a difficult concept for so many regular EVE forum dwellers? 
Ask yourself, what kind of “pvpers” are the type who want to pick on random noobish players who can’t fight back? And why should they have it so easy in this supposedly harsh environment of EVE? It is kind of sickening that CCP seems to want to preserve suicide ganking as some kind of ridiculous playstyle when it is so devoid of risk for those who are overwhelmingly perceived as weaklings.
I would love to go after these guys but they are always flying disposable ships and you can never inflict any meaningful losses on them, you will feel like you are wasting your time. If suicide gankers were forced to fly more expensive ships, it would not only provide infinitely more reason to go after them but they would have to take a meaningful risk for their reward when they are ■■■■■■■ with people in EVE.
1 Like
[quote=“Fabulous_Rod, post:1, topic:40033, full:true”]
I would love to go after suicide gankers but you can’t inflict meaningful losses against these guys because they are always flying disposable ships.[/quote]
Ok then, Mr Fabulous Rod, I’ll tackle you head-on!
The only reason you cannot inflict ‘meaningful’ losses on me (a suicide-ganker) is that any loss I incur is essentially meaningless to me. If you up the cost in ISK, I shell out more ISK, no problem.
If you wish my losses to appear meaningful to you, then you’ll have to explain just how that might work; and the best of luck!
It’s true that Catalysts and Thrashers are relatively cheap; Taloses, Brutixes, and Tornadoes, cost a bit more. All these ships and their contents are - indeed, must be - ‘disposable’ as far as the ganker is concerned, otherwise he’d never undock!
Thus, you can never inflict a meaningful loss on me if my definition of ‘meaningful’ is so at variance with yours.
Whatever penalty you seek to impose, I and my comrades will counter it - as we have always done. No; the only way you will effectively counter it is to remove suicide-ganking from the game. You say you don’t want this, but it’s the only option you and your ilk really have, given your very clear stance on the subject.
The implication is that suicide-gankers should be punished more effectively, further impairing their ability to operate in Highsec. James 315 has pointed out that those who say they’re not against ganking ‘as such’ are simply masking a desire to see it repeatedly nerfed until - logically - it disappears altogether.
As usual, his understanding of the issue is right on the button.
4 Likes
What kind of safe space do suicide gankers live in to actually believe this crap? I wasn’t aware James 315 could be so delusional because I just want suicide gankers to have to take some actual risk for their reward and to provide meaningful targets for those who wish to combat them instead of something they can easily afford to lose. I don’t want to see it removed at all, I just want some equity to it.
How can you or anyone really say otherwise? Don’t be ridiculous.
Calm down. If you follow the logic of the argument, you’ll see exactly how it unfolds.
No nerf to suicide-ganking will achieve what you wish, because CCP will always balance it after carefully looking at the implications. When they introduce a nerf, suicide-gankers invariably seek out and find a way of mitigating its effect. As long as it doesn’t involve an exploit, it stands. It’s the way we’ve always operated, Rod.
So, what happens? Anti-gankers and closet anti-gankers ask for a further nerf, because the gankers found a way 'round the last one. Eventually, they get what they ask for, and again the gankers are forced to respond.
Surely you can see where this is going? CCP must (if they continue present practice) match each nerf with a balancing change in order to preserve the playstyle at all. If they don’t, nerf after nerf will - over time - lead to the extinction of Highsec suicide-ganking as a playstyle. That’s the long version of what James was saying - and with which I agree wholeheartedly.
You may not realise that you’re in fact asking for the elimination of suicide-ganking, but it’s the logical outcome of what you’re proposing when you ask for ‘meaningful losses’ to be incurred by me and my mates. The only meaningful loss would be our disappearance.
James does not suffer delusions when it comes to EVE Online. I’m disappointed that you resort to invective, when I am trying reasonably to explain a point of view. You may not agree, but let’s keep it civil, no?
1 Like
None. Suicide gankers are fine with you shooting them. There is no thread where a suicide ganker who was shot complains about such an action.
Why? Why should players who are prudent and mitigate their risk have it arbitrarily increased? If anything that is not very fair nor reasonable. Suicide gankers understand that flying around with a -10 sec status, with kill rights, and even under a war dec, are at risk and take various steps to reduce that risk.
Then along comes not so Fabulous Rod who decides that that is wrong and wants to restrict what the gankers are doing by arbitrary Dev fiat to compensate for his inability to actually go and increase the risk suicide gankers face.
Here is a hint Not So Fabulous Rod, risk in this game is not determined by the game nor the Devs. It is determined by your actions and those of other players. If you are foolish and imprudent you face higher risk, and if other players notice and decide to capitalize on your foolish and imprudent actions…that is not something for the Devs to get involved with. Look to your own behavior first before crying to the Devs.
2 Likes
Sorry keckos, but in your very first response to this thread, you quickly showed us that you can’t be taken seriously. Apparently, you seem to think that quantity of posts > quality. And nobody is going to bother reading and addressing your silly heavy mental gymnastics when you act like this:
1 Like
The irony here is, the tougher the conditions for the players, the harder they will work to mitigate their risks and increase their efficiency. Many highsec dwellers put their safety exclusively in the hands of CONCORD, while we gankers, being in relatively unfavorable conditions, have accumulated the know-how of making the best of them over years.
Same with nullsec powerblocks, which thrive in a hostile corner of space with their network of gatecamps, standing fleets, and intel bots. They realize their risks, they’re doing their best to manage them. Why can’t highseccers do the same? If everyone were flying Procurers and Skiffs andt triple-bulk their freighters, I’m sure suicide ganking would all but die out naturally.
The quality of responses reflects the quality of your statements. I took my time to read the thread’s OP once again to remind myself what it’s all about, and - surprise! - you start the thread by insulting the opposing side of the discourse right off the bat:
But, since you’re bringing up the topic of the risks and costs of suicide ganking, I assume you’re well-versed in all facets of highsec mechanics. So, please, elaborate, what exactly you would change - not in generalized statements, but detailed suggestions. Present your case.
5 Likes
Yes, I know thinking is hard for some. It’s okay we understand.
1 Like
Add in a scout with webbers, and reducing cargo value for freighters it certainly would…but then what would they whine about?
1 Like
Who is paying CODE? 
Many players donate to CODE.
I was still living in High Sec, flying safe, when I first donated to CODE.
2 Likes
You mean the donations? Fine men and women from all walks of life who are willing to trade some of their in-game possessions for entertaining content, of course.
3 Likes
Which means their names wont be disclosed? 
Then let’s make it meaningful. Gankers and people with -10 security status in general should not be allowed to dock in any NPC station in high sec. They can dock and use citadels instead just fine. Bonus? More citadels and wardecs can be a semi-effective way to combat gankers for haulers to fight back. 1 problem solved.
1 Like