if Ganking is Risk-Averse then Mining is Risk-Neutral.
That claim is flawed both logically and practically.
1. Mining is far from risk-neutral.
Mining ships—especially Exhumers like Hulks or Mackinaws—can cost upwards of 300–500 million ISK, sometimes more with faction fits or yield rigs. They’re slow, have virtually no escape potential, and once tackled, are dead meat. A mining barge doesn’t get a choice about engaging. It’s a passive activity by nature. That’s not risk-neutral—that’s high-risk with low agency.
2. Ganking is risk-averse by design.
Gankers choose when, where, and who to hit. They preload catalysts, scan cargo, warp in as a squad, alpha-strike the target, and fully expect to lose their ships—which are disposable by design. The real risk is shifted entirely onto the miner, who likely doesn’t even get a chance to react. The ganker accepts a known, low-cost sacrifice (e.g., 2m ISK Catalyst) for a highly asymmetric kill. That’s calculated. That’s risk-managed. That’s the textbook definition of risk-averse predation.
3. The asymmetry is the entire point.
Saying miners are “risk-neutral” because gankers are “risk-averse” is a false equivalence. Miners have no way to create risk. They don’t get to pick their fights. Their only “choice” is whether to mine or not. Gankers, on the other hand, manufacture risk for others while controlling it for themselves.
Ganking is risk-averse because it’s deliberate, cheap, and overwhelmingly favors the attacker.
Mining is high-risk and passive, with expensive, vulnerable ships and limited defenses.
Calling that “risk-neutral” is either dishonest or shows a fundamental misunderstanding of EVE’s risk mechanics.
I would like to invest. Low risk- High Reward. 
You know where to send your donation.
You may even get an OnlyFans invite…
Mining is Not High-Risk, and Ganking is Not Risk-Averse: A Counter-Essay
The claim that mining is inherently high-risk while ganking is a form of risk-averse gameplay mischaracterizes both the mechanics and the design philosophy of EVE Online. It is a skewed narrative that leans heavily into a victim complex often perpetuated by passive players who expect safety in a sandbox built on danger. The truth is simpler: mining is only risky for those who choose to play carelessly, and ganking is a form of high-risk, high-effort PvP that demands skill, coordination, and personal loss. The asymmetry is not an imbalance—it’s a feature, and one that miners are free to engage with or exploit.
1. Mining is Not High-Risk Unless You Make It So
Mining ships may cost hundreds of millions of ISK, but so do the ships used to gank them. A fleet of Catalysts—or Tornadoes, Taloses, or Vexors—used in coordinated ganks can easily cost more than a single Hulk or Mackinaw, especially when fitted for maximum DPS. Moreover, the assertion that mining ships “have virtually no escape potential” is outdated. With countless buffs over the years, Exhumers and Barges now have far better tank, agility, and defensive modules than they ever did. A paying-attention miner with aligned warp-outs, proper overview settings, and situational awareness can easily avoid a gank with a single click. Mining is not high-risk unless you opt to be AFK, poorly fit, or position yourself in high-traffic systems without precaution.
Calling mining “passive” is a self-own. It only becomes passive when the player disengages and expects the game to protect them. Mining is an active gameplay loop—scouting belts, managing ore holds, aligning escape vectors, watching local, and making economic decisions about what to mine, where, and when. The miner controls the entire engagement tree. They decide to undock. They decide how to fit their ship. They decide to mine solo or in a fleet. They can pay off local gankers, hire protection, fit tank, use decoys, or even flip the script and join ganking corps. Miners do have agency—they just often refuse to use it.
2. Ganking is Not Risk-Averse—It’s Calculated, High-Stakes PvP
The notion that ganking is “risk-averse by design” ignores the complexity, uncertainty, and cost involved in a successful gank. The very act of ganking costs ISK, time, and attention. Suicide gankers operate under a limited window before CONCORD annihilates them. They must coordinate ship fittings, warp-ins, fleet timing, and damage calculations. Failure means total loss with no return. Even if they succeed, their loot might be worthless, their target might be bait, or the kill might draw a response fleet. That’s risk. More importantly, it’s risk voluntarily undertaken.
The argument that “gankers expect to lose their ships” is like saying a poker player expects to lose chips—it’s part of the game, not proof the game is risk-free. Gankers take a strategic loss to impose a strategic kill. And just like submariners in real warfare, they rely on surprise, calculation, and nerve. Submarines didn’t just cruise around for easy kills—they risked detection, counterattack, and total destruction. To gank proficiently requires knowledge of mechanics, human psychology, and market dynamics. That’s why elite PvP players are drawn to ganking—it’s not griefing, it’s challenge.
3. Asymmetry is the Foundation of EVE, Not a Flaw in It
The complaint that asymmetry is “unfair” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of EVE’s design. This is a sandbox that thrives on imbalance. Haulers are weak. Pirates are strong. Sometimes. But haulers can bait. Miners can trap. Hauling corps have scouts, decoys, cloaks, and friends. There is no script. The asymmetry forces creativity. Calling it a flaw is like saying rock-paper-scissors is unfair because paper beats rock.
If miners had nothing but safe, passive income, the game’s economy would implode. Risk is not only a feature—it’s the balancing mechanism for reward. Every choice in EVE comes with potential consequence. You want to be a miner? Then accept that gankers exist. Or become one. Or hire them to gank your competitors. The sandbox is yours. But don’t pretend the game was meant to be a theme park.
4. The Real Problem is Not Risk—It’s Entitlement
Ultimately, the argument breaks down into a familiar refrain: “I want to make money, undisturbed.” But EVE Online was never about being left alone. It is a game about conflict—economic, military, political. If you undock, you consent to risk. That’s not cruelty—it’s the cost of freedom. The miner who complains about gankers is like a trader who complains about market crashes, or a faction leader who laments betrayal. It’s the nature of the universe.
You are not forced to mine. You are not forced to be a victim. You can log in, join a fleet, learn PvP, or become a ganker yourself. The game gives you every tool. What it does not guarantee—and should never guarantee—is safety without PvP. That’s not “risk neutrality.” That’s just bad gameplay.
Conclusion
Ganking is not the elimination of risk—it’s the conscious embrace of it. Mining is not high-risk by default—it becomes dangerous only through negligence. The asymmetry of EVE is not a design flaw but its lifeblood. If you seek a PvE version of Safety, you are playing the wrong game. If you seek control, learn to master the chaos. And if you’re still complaining? Maybe it’s time to undock, fit a ship, and do something about it.
1 Like
That sounds poetic, but it collapses under scrutiny.
1. Ganking is not an “embrace of risk”—it’s a calculated dodge.
Gankers lose ships only because CONCORD is scripted to destroy them. They know this. It’s part of the plan. The ships they lose are cheap, fully expendable, and mass-produced. That’s not bravery—that’s cost accounting. Real risk means uncertain outcomes. Ganking has none. It’s a guaranteed win against a helpless target.
2. Mining isn’t dangerous only through negligence.
Mining is inherently risky because the ships are defenseless by design. Even if you follow best practices—align, stay alert, tank your hull—you can still die in seconds to a coordinated gank. That’s not negligence. That’s the consequence of flying a ship class CCP specifically built to be victims in the predator-prey ecosystem.
3. EVE’s asymmetry is only lifeblood when there’s meaningful counterplay.
There’s a difference between asymmetry and stagnation. When the only gameplay loop is “gank or get ganked,” and the attackers never face meaningful consequences, it’s not chaos—it’s a broken equation. The illusion of danger for gankers doesn’t balance the very real losses of PvE players.
4. Telling players to “undock and do something” ignores the core issue.
Miners do undock. They do contribute. They’re the reason you have ships to fly. But telling industrialists and PvE pilots to “become PvP” or get out is like telling healers in an MMO to grab a sword or quit the game. You don’t get to erase entire playstyles to justify a predatory meta.
Bottom line:
Ganking is low-cost, low-skill, and low-risk.
Mining is high-cost, high-consequence, and defenseless.
If you can’t admit that, you’re not embracing chaos—you’re hiding behind it.
Calm down miner.
Chat GPT doesn’t make your ideas sensible. It just helps you spam everyone else. I am not going to argue with a literal bot (that’s you).
Says the guy that just used ChatGPT in a post.
If this thread gets closed I’ll take it as proof positive…
2. Specifically restricted content
EVE Online holds ESRB Teen and PEGI 12 ratings. All content posted to the EVE Online forums must be teen rated.
In addition to this, the EVE Online forums are not for discussion of real life current affairs, news, politics or religion. Discussion should revolve around EVE Online and its community.
For these reasons, specific content is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
- Pornography
- Profanity
- Real Money Trading (RMT)
- Discussion of Warnings & Bans
- Discussion of Moderation
- Private communications with CCP
- In-Game Bugs & Exploits
- Real World Religion
- Real World Politics
- Content that distorts the forum layout
Suspension & Appeals
Appeals can be made by contacting communityteam@ccpgames.com from the verified email address connected to your EVE Online account(s). Full justification for the behavior that caused the issue of the reprimand, plus a solid case for the reinstatement of forum posting privileges must be presented.
The EVE Universe Community Team will decide based on the case presented. If this decision is unsatisfactory for the user, then they may request escalation, where a final decision will be made by the EVE Universe Community Manager.
3 Likes