These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Is the penalty for suicide-ganking too low?

Author
Tanae Avalhar
Doomheim
#141 - 2012-06-01 21:54:52 UTC
If ccp increased the sec hit for ganking and only allowed sec gains from ratting in empire space (low and hi) would this not lead to an increase in the population of low?

Someones **[u]always[/u] watching**

Julii Hakaari
Hakaari Inc.
#142 - 2012-06-01 23:39:23 UTC
Wacktopia wrote:
Julii Hakaari wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
there ought to be enough risk in putting me at risk to ensure i am 100% safe while afk mining at all times

I'm sitting here asking myself what I should reply. I see this ignorant and stupid post and I see that, of course - you're a goon, and I ask myself if I'm racist against goons or if I'm just a realist for not being surprised that ignorant, stupidity and goons walk hand in hand, but then I realize that I'm better off reading about Einstein's theory on relativity, so I walk away.


You are ignorant to believe that this is a pvp-optional game. It is not.

Of course it's not, you brain-damaged idiot, but I have never claimed it to be so.

Any more trolling coming this way?

"Completely un-phased? You think I'm totally lacking in any phasing? The idea that I'm anything less than half-phased I actually find offensive. It greatly phases me."

Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2012-06-01 23:52:25 UTC
I believe it is too low. not because I want to "punish" gankers.. but because when you look at the prices on wardecc bribes to concord... the cost to concord bottom line via wardecc circumvention through ganking is massive ... concord must be pissed off.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Julii Hakaari
Hakaari Inc.
#144 - 2012-06-02 00:19:12 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Navigator
Removed. Navigator.

"Completely un-phased? You think I'm totally lacking in any phasing? The idea that I'm anything less than half-phased I actually find offensive. It greatly phases me."

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#145 - 2012-06-02 00:38:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Wow, Julii. That has to be among the most hateful, anti-social, and hypocritical things I've ever read on these forums. I'm very impressed. Shocked

You really need to take your medication now.
You also really need to learn what “multiplayer sandbox” entails, because it's not what you think it is.
Quote:
in a sandbox I am allowed to form my own fate
Incorrect. In a multiplayer sandbox, you are allowed to try to form your own fate, but you'll have to do it in competition with everyone else trying to do the same. Their attempts my very well be at odds with yours, and you are in no way guaranteed to come out on top in that clash.

Quote:
without this static high sec, I'd be forced to join a corporation with an alliance to gain protection; being forced to do such a thing would in essence remove my freedom of choice of not doing that, since quitting would be my only other alternative. Is that a sandbox?
Yes, because you're not actually forced to do anything and because the tools remain the same, and those tools still allow you (and everyone else) to create your own shared world. It's the latter part that is the sandbox, far more than the former. Even if you were forced to do things because of the actions of others, that would still not make it any less of a sandbox because that's just how things will work out in a shared multiplayer sandbox: some will get their wish; as a result, others will not.

Quote:
If someone is willing to die "for the lulz", as some of you have argued is enough, well, then, I guess EVE isn't the cold hearted ***** we thought she was.
No. It's just that they value the real-life fun higher than some virtual assets. Seems rather healthy, to be honest.

Quote:
if you are willing to die "just like that", even for a marginal profit, then death is too little of a consequence.
No. If there's a marginal profit in it, it means that they've taking the consequences into account, no matter how large or small they are — whether they die or not is quite irrelevant at that point.
Julii Hakaari
Hakaari Inc.
#146 - 2012-06-02 01:01:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Wow, Julii. That has to be among the most hateful, anti-social, and hypocritical things I've ever read on these forums. I'm very impressed. Shocked

You really need to take your medication now

You also really need to learn what “multiplayer sandbox” entails, because it's not what you think it is.

Yes, hateful posts are typically the result when hate is of issue. I hate bullies. What is your excuse?

No, you need to learn the definition; I have experience with MMO sandboxes and the definition isn't as narrow minded as you would have it.

Tippia wrote:
Incorrect. In a multiplayer sandbox, you are allowed to try to form your own fate, but you'll have to do it in competition with everyone else trying to do the same. Their attempts my very well be at odds with yours, and you are in no way guaranteed to come out on top in that clash.

I never argued for anything else. I said removing high sec would hurt the sandbox since my choices would lessen - and they would, thus it is proof of stupidity beyond belief to actually promote such an idea and scream "SAAANBAAAAX".

Tippia wrote:
Yes, because you're not actually forced to do anything and because the tools remain the same, and those tools still allow you (and everyone else) to create your own shared world. It's the latter part that is the sandbox, far more than the former. Even if you were forced to do things because of the actions of others, that would still not make it any less of a sandbox because that's just how things will work out in a shared multiplayer sandbox: some will get their wish; as a result, others will not.

No, they actually don't remain the same. Let me make it simple to you: I give you a toolbox, but I steal a tool from you. Does the toolbox then remain the same? You are talking about making a big sandbox very tiny to fit a certain play-style; this is not something you can debate yourself out of since it would also be the result. What makes you think you are more entitled to your play-style than anyone else? What if I want to be self-sufficient? How would that be possible in a sandbox that didn't give me the tool (to go through a safer place, i.e. high sec) to do just that?

Tippia wrote:
No. It's just that they value the real-life fun higher than some virtual assets. Seems rather healthy, to be honest.

Ah, and here you completely ignored what I said, too. I guess you disagree with me wanting death to have consequences in EVE. Go play WoW, you sissy!

Tippia wrote:
No. If there's a marginal profit in it, it means that they've taking the consequences into account, no matter how large or small they are — whether they die or not is quite irrelevant at that point.

Above you said they "value the real-life fun higher", i.e. you spoke of that as a reason, and that is also the reason unless a ganker gets lucky and hits jack-pot when scanning a cargo. How does death have consequences if real-life fun outweighs the negative effects of death in New Eden? It doesn't. You know it, I know, CCP knows it. It's a matter of fact that death doesn't have consequences in EVE unless you spend a lot of money on implants.

"Completely un-phased? You think I'm totally lacking in any phasing? The idea that I'm anything less than half-phased I actually find offensive. It greatly phases me."

Hammer Crendraven
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2012-06-02 01:01:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Hammer Crendraven
I was thinking about this for a few days now.
Why is it that gankers can scan your ships in high sec but we can not use area of effect jammers in high sec?
That makes you a sitting duck. The ganker holds all of the cards. Who to attack when to attack where to attack.
They know the cost of the attack, in short they know all of the risk up front except how much of the stuff in/on the ship will drop.
But law of averages says they have a fair idea how much will drop. Not much risk at all for this type of attack.

What if it was also illegal to use a cargo scanner in high sec? Now we add the element of risk and the unknown.
Do you attack the target blind and hope for the best? Do you have an informant to tell you what is being moved and where and when? Or do you scan anyway and lose a scanner ship for every ship you scan to concord action. Also this concord attack on the scanner ship will give the player(s) a heads up that a gank attack is imminent. Perhaps if the defender also have a protection fleet with them they can get the drop on the ganker fleet. Of course it is suicide (because of concord) but no longer would the ganker fleet attack be a sure thing.
Now you have leveled the risk IMHO for high sec.

None of this does much of anything though for hulkageddon. Except for they might not know the Hulks layout before the attack.
So do they assume it is tanked and come in with more force than is needed or do they assume it is a max miner design and not use enough and get concorded before they kill the Hulk. It would add some risk a bit more than it has now anyway.

As of right now the Hulk pilot might as well just set up for a max miner setup because they can scan your ship and come in with just the right amount to kill it. No incentive at all to tank the Hulk. A tanked Hulk just cost more to kill it but dead it is unless the gankers are newbies. But if their was an element of unknown involved then we have incentive to tank a Hulk. That unknown element would be making cargo and ship scanners illegal in high sec.

More ideas for CCP as an isk drain, they could have gate customs officials that are on the take. If you are a ganker you can pay a fee to a gate official. He in turn will give you the last 30 minutes gate traffic name of ship and contents. You would probably have to bribe several gates to get a viable target this way. CCP can determine the value of such info if they want to do this.
Maybe it needs to be fleshed out a bit more and or randomized a bit as well. Just thinking about ideas.

The frieght hauler or anyone for that matter could also pay off the gate customs official to give out false info about your ship(s) contents. A sliding fee scale. The more you pay the greater the false hood in your favor of info that he will sell to the gankers.
The idea here is to add risk and the element of the unknown. Nothing should be a sure thing. Can you trust the info you paid for
as a ganker!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#148 - 2012-06-02 01:23:15 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:
Yes, hateful posts are typically the result when hate is of issue. I hate bullies. What is your excuse?
Excuse for what?

…and no, it's quite clear that “multiplayer sandbox” is something quite different than you think it is.

Quote:
I never argued for anything else.
…you mean aside from what you just said, where your rights were asserted as a given rather than contingent on your own ability to enforce your will onto others. Likewise, just because others can enforce their will onto you doesn't mean it's any less of a sandbox (in fact, it rather proves that it's a proper sandbox).

Quote:
No, they actually don't remain the same.
Yes they do. No tools or options are removed. You do not need a safer place to be self-sufficient. You might prefer one, but the option is still available to you without it, and you have the tools at your disposal to make it happen.

Quote:
Ah, and here you completely ignored what I said, too.
No. I just explained that the scenario you described didn't necessarily have the meaning you assumed it had. Just because people get themselves blown up doesn't mean there aren't consequences or that the game isn't cold-hearted — it just means that fun can be had when getting blown up and that this may be valued higher than those consequences, because it's just virtual stuff being sacrificed for RL fun.

Quote:
How does death have consequences if real-life fun outweighs the negative effects of death in New Eden?
By enforcing a loss of assets, and even game time. Just because the negative effects are valued higher, it doesn't mean that there are no consequences. The simple fact of the matter is that death has consequences, and whether or not they can be outweighed by other gains is pretty irrelevant.
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
#149 - 2012-06-02 01:43:30 UTC
Tippia, I tip my hat to you. How you can maintain your cool logic with this relentless assault of logical fallacy, thread after thread, is commendable. A lesser person would have given up long time ago and just resorted to trolling these guys Big smile
Blastcaps Madullier
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#150 - 2012-06-02 06:54:58 UTC
Quote:
Right now a Wardec just means players quit corp.


or war deccing corps have members outside of corp, find war targets while having an application in, application accepted just before gank on target, ganker quits corp....

CCPs changed it so they cant rejoin for 7 days which is one thing.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#151 - 2012-06-02 07:07:18 UTC
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
Quote:
Right now a Wardec just means players quit corp.


or war deccing corps have members outside of corp, find war targets while having an application in, application accepted just before gank on target, ganker quits corp....

CCPs changed it so they cant rejoin for 7 days which is one thing.


The smart miners notice that there is 0 benefit to actually being in a corp, so they quit during wardec and continue on per usual. The gankers don't get any kills because the corp's been gutted.

The even smarter miners have no roles and have the CEO toon shutter their corp as soon as a dec goes live and opens a new corp 5min later.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#152 - 2012-06-02 07:13:15 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:


Tippia wrote:
Yes, because you're not actually forced to do anything and because the tools remain the same, and those tools still allow you (and everyone else) to create your own shared world. It's the latter part that is the sandbox, far more than the former. Even if you were forced to do things because of the actions of others, that would still not make it any less of a sandbox because that's just how things will work out in a shared multiplayer sandbox: some will get their wish; as a result, others will not.

No, they actually don't remain the same. Let me make it simple to you: I give you a toolbox, but I steal a tool from you. Does the toolbox then remain the same? You are talking about making a big sandbox very tiny to fit a certain play-style; this is not something you can debate yourself out of since it would also be the result. What makes you think you are more entitled to your play-style than anyone else? What if I want to be self-sufficient? How would that be possible in a sandbox that didn't give me the tool (to go through a safer place, i.e. high sec) to do just that?


Bad analogy. The better analogy is given that toolbox, I threaten to hit you over the head with a spanner every time I see you use the cordless drill. Now, the cordless drill drills holes faster than the eggbeater drill, but the eggbeater drill does the same quality job. You could use the cordless drill anyway and accept the beatings, or you could hide from me while you use it, or you can simply use the eggbeater drill.

Your choices remain the same. The possible and likely outcomes have changed, but the choices haven't.

Quote:

Above you said they "value the real-life fun higher", i.e. you spoke of that as a reason, and that is also the reason unless a ganker gets lucky and hits jack-pot when scanning a cargo. How does death have consequences if real-life fun outweighs the negative effects of death in New Eden? It doesn't. You know it, I know, CCP knows it. It's a matter of fact that death doesn't have consequences in EVE unless you spend a lot of money on implants.

If Death doesn't have consequences, why do people cry about getting ganked? The consequences are still there, gankers have just adapted and made the consequences less relevant to them. Miners can do the same thing.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Barbelo Valentinian
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2012-06-02 07:45:00 UTC
I can see the argument, but I think it's based too much on the idea of game lore rather than gameplay.

I would quite like a space game that was more "realistic" lore-wise (I'd prefer MMOs to be less like games and more like simulators, but alas there doesn't seem to be enough money in that kind of MMO - either that or it's an untapped market). Suicide-ganking as it stands makes little sense from a lore perspective. Lots of things in New Eden make little sense from a lore perspective - just as lots of things make little sense from a physics perspective, etc.

The trouble is, to make a game more "realistic" and simmy you'd have to sacrifice quite a lot in the gameplay department. In the balance between "arcade" and "simulator", an MMORPG is always going to be balanced more towards arcade than sim.

A big part of the problem is simply internet anonymity. You can't have a game that's too much of a simulator because the kind of long-term, immersive strategic gameplay that would foster would be too easily disrupted by folks out for the lulz. The only way I could see out of that would be to form a high barrier to entry (more like a private members' club, with vetted identity, etc.)

So a game lilke EVE has to be a compromise between various factors - a compromise where only a few players will absolutely love the game, but every different playstyle is accommodated at least to the point where they feel it's worth keeping subscribed to the game; and in such a compromise, "realism" is always going to take a back seat. Not that the devs would ever forget about it entirely, but it's never going to shape the gameplay.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#154 - 2012-06-02 08:46:55 UTC
Julii Hakaari wrote:
Yes, hateful posts are typically the result when hate is of issue. I hate bullies. What is your excuse?.


I hate cry-babies that fight for something they know next to nothing about because they're almost completely isolated from everyone else.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#155 - 2012-06-02 10:35:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Yonis Kador
After spending time at work tonight reading and thinking on this topic, I've got to admit, somewhere in all of this a few intellectual nuggets were dredged up.

"Is the penalty for suicide ganking too low?"

Clearly a question not easily answered. Since there are consequences for suicide ganking, one must assume that though it's allowed, these penalties are in place to ....eventually.....dissuade players from repeating that action at some point. At what point is the question. Who decides when to say when or determines when the balance of ganking has tipped whatever scales were used to make the initial determination? Has the in-game situation changed since the determination was made? Should it be adujsted? Should it ever be adusted? Could something unforeseen and unprecedented force CCP to adjust it?

All interesting points to contemplate...

At the moment, any player can create a brand new alt and on his first day of noobness, without any mission grinding whatsoever and a 0.0 sec status, get with a few buddies and probably get off a good many ganks in 0.5s before even having the first worry about faction navies. If a game mechanic was implemented to dissuade ganking at some point, yet players can create infinite alts and gank with virtual impunity, then there's probably going to come a time to re-evaluate this and reassess whether this penalty is working as intended.

As personal enjoyment is subjective, I'm not taking sides in the debate. I've observed that a great many posters here have an either/or attitude as in you're either gank scum or a carebear whiner. (etc. etc. ad nauseum) I think both suggestions are ridiculous as this game allows an infinite amount of playstyles and many players have multiple characters which do both activities. I've missioned (mined wrecks,) mined (mined rocks,) have been a CEO twice, have wardecced others and been decced, keep my assets de-centralized in preparation for the next war, and though pvp isn't the first thing I wanted to explore in-game, I joined the Hulkageddon Orphanage last year just to see what it was about.

Of course, last year Hulkageddon was a 30-day event with prizes - aimed at reducing the number of bots in-game, and the Orphanage just happened to set up camp in my home system. (What luck!) I didn't come to the forums to complain about the disruption in my routine though. And I sure didn't keep mining in my hulk with dozens of Orphanage members in-system. Instead, I adopted a "if you can't beat em" attitude and went see what it was all about. I signed up.

I quickly discovered what people get out of pvp. The voice-comm coordination and organization during the op, the scouting and locating of the next target, the thrill of the actual attack, and trying to get away from Concord even though you know you can't. It was good fun. I actually learned quite a bit about ganking/pvp tactics in the short time I was there. There is more involved in these ganks than simply bumbling (ha) onto a hulk and chootin' it. But sadly, after 4-5 positive-they-were-bot kills (which I considered a community service and have no remorse over) the little gankers started targeting players of course. And after 2 poddings of real people cursing me in local, I decided tears weren't my thing. (I'd happily shoot another bot or war target though.) Call me whatever. I tried it. I didn't like it. And that was that.

So after giving this some thought, it seems to me that the reason this debate rages on and seemingly has no end is because both sides are partly right.

While it's clearly true that ganking is allowed and doesn't violate the letter of the EULA in any way, a long-term sustained gank campaign (from a massive force with nearly-unlimited funds) against all of high sec probably does violate the spirit of those rules or there would be no need for sec status reductions at all. The fact that CCP implemented some kind of security measure against long-term ganking (by making it difficult to do so individually) would seem to suggest that if the current campaign has a deleterious effect on the game, that sure at some point, yes, they'll probably have to step in.

It would be quite the height of irony if a player-driven campaign to destroy hulks in high sec ultimately were to result in damaging the ability for anyone to high sec gank whatsoever. And, such a result would be kinda sad imo. Oh not because gankers couldn't destroy defenseless industrial ships as easily - no - it'll be sad for the loss of something else imo.

If God steps in to change the laws of the universe, it'll be an inescapble reminder that even though we all aspire to build these internet empires and to grow them and take over EVE, so to speak - in the end, that's just not possible. Because though this is an approximation of a virtual universe, it's also a buisness. And no one group or thing is ever going to be allowed to cause irreparable damage to this place.

If a gank nerf does happen... And if things get out of control, it will happen...

It won't be because of tears that CCP had to act.

Yonis Kador

(Edited for grammar.)
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#156 - 2012-06-02 10:40:02 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:

At the moment, any player can create a brand new alt and on his first day of noobness, without any mission grinding whatsoever and a 0.0 sec status, get with a few buddies and probably get off a good many ganks in 0.5s before even having the first worry about faction navies. If a game mechanic was implemented to dissuade ganking at some point, yet players can create infinite alts and gank with virtual impunity, then there's probably going to come a time to re-evaluate this and reassess whether this penalty working as intended.


Too long, skimmed.

You cannot create infinite alts. You can use the buddy system to make ~30 alts, but being that recycling them is illegal, CCP would probably ban you for doing that.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#157 - 2012-06-02 12:35:19 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

You cannot create infinite alts. You can use the buddy system to make ~30 alts, but being that recycling them is illegal, CCP would probably ban you for doing that.


Don't some people have 15-20 accts? That's more than 30 alts. We're debating semantics? Who cares what the number is? Whatever the number is - its huge. You can do a lot of damage with a single alt. It may be illegal to recycle alts, but if you can come up with any reason whatsoever why you did it, it's no longer a violation. And there's basically nothing stopping anyone from creating trial accts (I'm sure it happens every day) and ganking people - with no intention of ever developing those characters. Who would keep track of this? How would the victim know? The devs can't keep up with the number of petitions they get. You expect me to believe that they constantly monitor 400,000 accounts daily for biomass legitimacy? Unrealistic. I'm sure if someone gets reported and they can confirm the exploit, then yeah that person might face consequences. But my point is that if 1000 players or 5000 players join together and attempt to disrupt high sec, based on the limitless alt bonanza they can unleash, the sec status sure isn't going to do much to help anybody in that situation.

Yonis Kador

TLDR? With no way to monitor alt creation, the sec status penalty is an ineffective deterrent to crime.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#158 - 2012-06-02 12:55:43 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Yonis Kador wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

You cannot create infinite alts. You can use the buddy system to make ~30 alts, but being that recycling them is illegal, CCP would probably ban you for doing that.


Don't some people have 15-20 accts? That's more than 30 alts. We're debating semantics? Who cares what the number is? Whatever the number is - its huge. You can do a lot of damage with a single alt. It may be illegal to recycle alts, but if you can come up with any reason whatsoever why you did it, it's no longer a violation. And there's basically nothing stopping anyone from creating trial accts (I'm sure it happens every day) and ganking people - with no intention of ever developing those characters. Who would keep track of this? How would the victim know? The devs can't keep up with the number of petitions they get. You expect me to believe that they constantly monitor 400,000 accounts daily for biomass legitimacy? Unrealistic. I'm sure if someone gets reported and they can confirm the exploit, then yeah that person might face consequences. But my point is that if 1000 players or 5000 players join together and attempt to disrupt high sec, based on the limitless alt bonanza they can unleash, the sec status sure isn't going to do much to help anybody in that situation.

Yonis Kador

TLDR? With no way to monitor alt creation, the sec status penalty is an ineffective deterrent to crime.


Not hard to check the sec status of the toons being biomassed. Anecdote suggests that bans come quickly to those who biomass Negative Sec status toons too soon after a new sec status entry. Once they find the biomassed alt, there's probably a wallet connection to the main. Same goes for trials (though yes, harder to monitor), but trials are a pain to dual box with (essential for solo ganking).

Most people just use Orcas. Saves the hassle of training alts.

IIRC, @CCP_Diagoras had some stats on the number of toons being biomassed. It wasn't much.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#159 - 2012-06-02 13:10:56 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
TLDR? With no way to monitor alt creation, the sec status penalty is an ineffective deterrent to crime.
As luck would have it, it's fairly easy to monitor alt creation for those who need to do so.
Julii Hakaari
Hakaari Inc.
#160 - 2012-06-02 13:27:25 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Bad analogy. The better analogy is given that toolbox, I threaten to hit you over the head with a spanner every time I see you use the cordless drill. Now, the cordless drill drills holes faster than the eggbeater drill, but the eggbeater drill does the same quality job. You could use the cordless drill anyway and accept the beatings, or you could hide from me while you use it, or you can simply use the eggbeater drill.

Your choices remain the same. The possible and likely outcomes have changed, but the choices haven't.

The choice we make depends on the outcome so if we change the outcome then we also change the choices, e.g. the choices would change if we went from a publicly funded police force, which would punish you for an act of murder, to a state with no police force.

RubyPorto wrote:
If Death doesn't have consequences, why do people cry about getting ganked? The consequences are still there, gankers have just adapted and made the consequences less relevant to them. Miners can do the same thing.

When I say most of you are intellectually dysfunctional then I don't mean people like you and Tippia whom I may not agree with, but rather than trolling you engage in a discussion which is something I respect, so why do you embarrass yourself like this? We both know that suicide-ganking is act of suicide, and what is suicide? It's the choice of dying. Why would anyone make that choice in EVE? "For the lulz", apparently. Is it logical to die "for the lulz" in a "hard core game" where death should be something we try to avoid?

A suicide-ganker builds a cheap ship to suicide-gank. He doesn't spend tons of money and fills his cargo with stuff before he goes out into space and commits an act of suicide. If you fail to see the difference in self-made choice of death, and simple death, then I don't think you and I can get any further in this discussion.

"Completely un-phased? You think I'm totally lacking in any phasing? The idea that I'm anything less than half-phased I actually find offensive. It greatly phases me."