Gankers do not make EVE a better place

This is neither here nor there, but I used the Astero mainly for the appearance. If I can afford to lose it then I just fly whatever I like, practicality be damned. That was basically the theme of my Eve career. Doing whatever I felt like, whether it was efficient or not. Many times I was quizzically asked “Why are you doing it that way? It would be better to X”, and I would reply “Because this way is more fun for me.”

I don’t debate your wisdom on the subject, but there is some entertainment value in being judiciously unwise if one is adult enough to laugh off the inevitable moment it all goes wrong.


Why would anyone want EVE to be “a better place”?
Make it sound like a gated sea-side community for the retirees. If I want to play a game where it’s “a better place” I play Farming Simulator.
EVE isn’t “a better place” and never was. It’s a warzone where anything goes and anything can happen and where if you are not the shark you’re the shark’s food. It’s been fine like that for 20 years.

1 Like

I completely agree with what you are saying. But the difference between you and Bluna Wars is you seem aware of the situation. You’re aware you are putting an expensive ship up for death; Bluna is upset because they lost a badly fit exploration Astero in null sec to a bubble.

You fly what you want to fly, I endorse that behavior. I don’t endorse coming onto the forums and complaining about how someone got ganked because they used a suboptimal ship for the situation.


A day without gankers would be like a day without sunshine.


The super duper hilarious thing here for those defending the gankers is very simple.

Goonswarm has proven multiple times throughout the years that the easiest way to kill this game, and force 1000s of players to leave while simultaneously inflating the price of literally everything in EvE by 100s of Millions of Isk…

Is to Flood Highsec with Gankers.

We shut down entire Empires, and Caused 10,000 Players to leave EvE forever in the space of 3 months during The ice wars in Galentee Highsec. It took the game over 4 years to recover (Industry and Market wise) and even today that event is one of the main reasons Prices are currently as high as they are, still.

So while yes, I was exaggerating with that post, the fact remains that the spirit of the post is 100% accurate. Ganking in highsec is not Good for EvE as a Game when there is no real safety net hardcoded to stop the exploiters and abusers of the Current loopholes.

Is it a part of EvE that should stay, Yes. Should it have Serious consequences which it currently does not? Yes.

And if your Reasoning, is “If highsec was too safe no one would ever leave!”

Why do you care how someone else plays the game? When it does not effect YOUR ability to play? Sure it effects your ability to terrorize and Troll people who simply want to be left alone, that’s true. But lets be real… No sane person will defend that kind of behavior in what is supposed to be “Lawful Civilized Space”.


Source material required.

Ah yes the “spirit” of the post. I think you mean “passing off an opinion wrapped up in an thin veneer of an exaggerated fabricated data set.”

Besides, ganking in null sec is vitally important because of the the RMT botting that runs ramped there. Thank you for doing your part and helping to bring that to an end.


why is playing the game not good for the game?

A fun mechanic could be to base concord responstime on the attacked player’s security status…
So, if you are really good friends with concord - you could arrive faster… if you’re not so good friends, concord will delay their response…
That could be fun for both parts of the “gank” in my eyes :smiley:

1 Like

Well said.
I agree with you :100:% but it’s not gonna happen.

Better forget EVE as a game altogether

it isn’t a game, it’s purely an online money-printing machine and everything is tweaked to make you lose so you buy more things that make them money.
That sort of money-making scam isn’t new in the gaming industry.

I was notified of a comment i received weeks or months ago, i dont know why i didn’t see it but now i want to keep this thread alive.

1 Like

Some people are just evil human beings who want to knock over your sandcastle and ruin your day. Am I supposed to be outraged?

Now I fell for it thanks @F3ND1MUS :laughing:

1 Like

i love all the workaround post of things you can do to avoid being ganked that don’t work.
ganking is a thing, and it has it’s place. I have enjoyed many a gank. The key to making it gameplay is to always have counterplay. many gank situations leave little room for counterplay. freighters have none. what can a solo freighter pilot (and they are all solo) do to defend themselves? hope that someone else is a ezer target. this is not counterplay. a assault damage control type module could be. hit it to soon and you die, to late you die. at the very least gives the ganker some fun outsmarting someone.
everyone else can at least fight back even if they often can’t win, they get to go down swinging.


Bragging much?
I’ll call BS on that. You have no way of knowing why players quit or no way to know how many you drove away if any.

What “empires”? A couple of alliances? Nice sementics to inflate the story and your ego.

1 Like

„All solo“? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

I guess all those freighter pilots with insta-warp-webbing and scouting fleetmates are just the community’s collective and shared hallucinations then.


Gankers are necessery to keep the economy going and keep botters at bay. However, best way to disarm gankers - move to null - instead of enduring a problem or situation you did not create or can control, are to take control, take their pleasure away.


The economy is driven by faction warfare (experiencing a popularity surge) more than by highsec ganks. As for the botters; I’ve tried catching bots with my faction warfare character; they are quite tricky, as they are always spamming dscan and instawarp away. No doubt this applies to other kinds of bots as well; when they see a threat, they escape. As a matter of fact, many null alliances are renowned for their use of bots, because hunting bots is a complex and subtle endeavor that many lack the patience for. You have to understand how the bot is programmed and find a way to disrupt the programming. With the recent anti-ganking patch, what CCP really did was impose a tax on gankers. It turns out that gankers will still gank unprofitable targets, even with the increase; it’s not simply about the loot, it’s about turning hisec into lowsec. Thus, if CCP is in need of additional revenue, they can simply raise the tax on gankers; gankers will subscribe additional accounts, and buy more tags. If for whatever reason the ganks are not sufficiently profitable, the gankers will simply sell PLEX to cover the shortfall.

The economy is ISK-weighted. A popularity surge doesn’t necessarily translate to an equal ISK-destruction surge.

Consider the resulting “FW battles” resulting in sub-1 billion ISK battle reports because all the newbies are flying cheap T1/Faction Frigates, Dessies, and Cruisers when in a fleet and avoiding PvP altogether when in 1v1 or “farming”. Might be a huge numbers surge but the ISK-destruction “surge” is altogether underwhelming.

And the FW bots don’t “drive” the economy because by definition they avoid destruction at all costs and act solely as “resource sources” (LP in this case) and not sinks – which would actually result in meaningful destruction.

A single ganker might destroy (and loot, but this doesn’t matter for this discussion) billions each in a multi-billion kill – which is becoming rarer these days I admit – which because it is ISK-weighted, results in very few capsuleers generating a lot of destruction “driving” the economy. Disproportionately so compared to the “FW popularity”.

This is laughable. There is no way any player can unilaterally “eliminate” CONCORD these days. Ganker, pirate, or otherwise. The past 12 years I’ve been playing it has been CCP Games who has been eliminating and restricting game mechanics in high sec that lets players disallow CONCORD to interfere.

And even then, CONCORD isn’t present in low sec anyway, so it’s still not about “turning high sec into low sec”.

You’re informed and seem to agree nullsec are safer than HS. Ganking started with the war on botters so yeah I see your point. Economical reports especially with the wars over the years would support what you say.

In the end no matter which way you look at it - it is about the house - and the house always wins in multiple ways. No point in taking it on - as it remains about the house.

To Io Koval:
Snuff has started dropping caps in FW space. Many people want to fly their blingy ship where the action is, because they have fit it for pvp. The big battle report have many cheap ships, because that’s what many FW alliances field. But there are some blingy kills in the faction war systems, often of pirates. Perhaps it’s null that is the main economy driver; lots of krabbing marauders and carriers there that get killed. The high-value ganks have been on the decline, because there is not much profit in flying a blingy ship in areas of space where lots of ganking takes place. What I meant by turning hisec into lowsec, is about trying to induce highsec players to have the same mentality as lowsec players. Turning hisec into lowsec is a ganker’s dream, not a reality. Thus, I agree with you about CCP trying to make ganking harder. Perhaps CCP will continue to do this until those who fit their ship to deter ganks don’t get ganked. No matter where you deploy it, profiting from a blingy ship takes a lot of hard work and effort and is also uncertain (for humans, at least). Carebears are trying to make ISK. If the carebears find that, due to ganking, they lose more ISK than they made (especially if they fitted their ship to deter ganks), they will likely switch over to running something cheap in low or null, so that, by the time they lose the ship, they will have made a profit. Sustainable destruction then comes when people fly blingy pvp ships looking for kills in low and null (and sometimes lose them). Regarding the bots; they are indeed not increasing destruction. However, that is in good measure because gankers have not dedicated themselves to hunting the bots. To explore destruction another way, players select their activities based on whether they want to generate ISK, or sink ISK; different activities have different effects. CCP could remove all ISK-generating activities from the game, making the risk/reward ratio too harsh to be worthwhile; however that would likely bring its own set of problems. For instance, when titans became super hard to build, it became much harder to justify using them. To put it another way, to increase destruction significantly, players have to want to risk fancy ships. Overall, your points are fairly accurate, but there is more going on here.
To El Paccino
Thank you for appreciating my understanding; nullsec is indeed safer than HS so long as the “prey” undertank their ships or alternately, the “predators” hunt unprofitable “prey”.

So? You speak this like it is news to me. Snuff isn’t in FW anyway.

That’s exactly my point.

That’s also my point.

I am not sure why you’re telling me all this, since I live in the Cal/Gal warzone, was in Calmil when Snuff dropped caps last year to flip either Hikk or Pyne (I forget which), and was in one of the few FW Caldari alliances that had high SP requirements for joining fleet.

All of what you say matches my experience, and agrees with what I said, so I remain confused whether or not you’re agreeing or disagreeing with my point: it’s not the “popularity” of joining FW driving destruction.

I don’t think you can point at any single activity and say “this is the ‘main’ driver” as it erases too much nuance.

This single assertive sentence is a very debatable position to take and not very rigorous.

You’re talking like there’s some sort of ideological warfare between people that spend time in different areas of space. This is overly reductive and too black-and-white for reality.

Let’s be clear: there’s ideological differences between players. Full stop. It doesn’t matter where they live. There are nullseccers that complain about how dangerous ganking is in high sec, etc.

Let’s also get the ideological differences in order: there’s a very small but loud minority in Eve that reflects the way games work in other MMOs: they want PVP firewalled to nice hard border “arenas” so they can PvE endlessly. The majority who have ever played EvE understand the game is a sandbox with real freedoms which means yes, PvP is everywhere.

It’s not “high sec players” and it’s not “low sec players” and its not “high sec mentality” and its not “low sec mentality”, it is the perpetual “this game is wrong” mentality and “embrace that you have to be paranoid in all space, like it’s always been” game mechanics.

This is a strawman you made up. No one is arguing for this.

This already happens, by your own admission: you agree CCP is trying to make ganking harder. People who fit their ships for tank today deter ganking. The stats speak for themselves.

This by definition won’t be carebears. As you said: “Carebears are trying to make ISK”, so in my experience they will only fly blingy, ballsy stuff when it is SRPed for them or they feel they can still turn a profit after losing blingy stuff. This usually means they “have to” get to CRAB beacon ratting in capitals first. :roll_eyes: AKA: “it rarely ever happens”.

“Sustainable destruction” is kind of a made up idea. Even if I accept it, it’ll come only when carebear players can get over their fear of losing ships and have fun going on adventures.

So? Killing bots doesn’t yield “meaningful destruction”.

Have you tried hunting bots? If not, then you’re “just as evil” as the gankers, by your logic.

I have, the FW ones in low. It makes zero difference whether “gankers go hunting bots” because the mechanics and bots have it such that the bots are 99% safe (you need multiple ships and gimped fit to maybe have a shot) and after all that effort the bot knows how to simply undock a new ship and go right back to it. It is not a challenge, not entertaining, and again doesn’t result in “meaningful destruction”.

I think it is vice versa: some of the points you make seem in agreement with mine, but come to opposing conclusions, which to me doesn’t appear to be rational.