Crime & Punishment

Players are 100% safe in a station and cannot be engaged. You are clearly wrong.

But by all means, continue with your heavy mental gymnastics.

*popcorn*

The only way to win is not to play then?

Actually, yours was the straw man but you couldn't even manage to do that correctly. LOL!

Nowhere did I say suicide ganking shouldn't be possible. Re-read and try again, or do the smart thing and stop posting to save yourself more embarrassment.

It's generally pointless. It's just another space lawyer who will come up with some wild idea, and when dozens of players who actually have a ton of experience with the subjects they are ranting on about correct them, and then CCP itself comes in and corrects them - they will always stick to their same original point, much like a dying man clings to a life raft. It's almost that they feel the more times they express a incorrect belief, the more correct it becomes.

I know of another shiptoaster who exhibits this behavior, but I will not say his name as I think it has already been said twice in this thread and I don't want to summon another "Ivy Degree educated lawyer" to parrot himself :)

Tell that to the many players who have been "killed" by contract and station trading scams.

You mean they have "I've been playing Eve for a few months and I know more than all of you and CCP combined" syndrome?

With that crowd you can have every CCP dev in existence post in this thread saying they are incorrect and they'll still insist they're right.

Thanks for noting that I am indeed correct.

I find it comical that so many regulars have continually failed to understand what this thread is about.

Sensible People: "Suicide gankers have it far too easy in EVE and pay no significant costs or penalties for their actions. It is unfair to other EVE players who take risks for their rewards and is commonly used as a greifing tool by -10 players who receive no penalties whatsoever for their actions. We would like that to change for the sake of fairness"

The Regular Rabble: "You hate pvp and want all pvp gone from high sec! EVE is a pvp game and what you want goes against the nature of EVE!!!"

This is not "sensible" because it is not true.

1. Folks below -5.0 sec status are pretty much denied all in-space activity in hisec except suicide ganking. They can't really stay in space long enough to do anything else without getting shot at.

2. Since they can't safely fly gank ships between systems, their activities are generally limited to trade hubs, or to systems where they can have alts/friends resupply them.

3. They will always, 100% of the time lose their ship when they suicide gank. That's an ISK penalty.

4. They will never, ever, get an insurance payout on their ship when they suicide gank. That's also an ISK penalty.

5. Comparing risk vs. reward from a purely ISK-based standpoint, any potential financial gains from a suicide gank are left entirely to chance. If the entirety of a valuable cargo is destroyed with the ship, there is no gain for the suicide ganker. If someone else scoops the loot before the suicide ganker's friend/alt can, there is also no gain for the suicide ganker.

I see some fixed risk and some severe limitations on gameplay, along with highly variable reward controlled by multiple factors that are beyond the suicide ganker's control.

What's the problem again?

This is a good point... Perhaps the penalty for suicide ganking is too severe that it prevents someone who wants to occasionally gank from doing anything else.

I did maybe 20 ganks on one of my pilots and now she has open kill rights and negative sec status. Even if I wanted to spend hundreds of millions for tags I have kill rights for 30 days...


So I could

1. Don't play on that pilot for 30 days then pay a few hundred million for tags to get my sec status up.

2. Keep ganking since it's about the only thing I can do in highsec

3. Move to nullsec then wait for the kill rights to go away while I'm working her sec status up.


The thing is how many new pilots that want to try ganking can afford option #1 or have option #3? I think most would just pick #2.

Not as comical as you attempting to label everyone who agrees with your faulty logic as "sensible", ignoring all the well thought out responses that explain how you are wrong, and then jumping right into calling everyone who disagrees with you "Rabble".

You should focus on actually discussing the points that have been brought up.