Disposable Ships, Trivial Losses
“Always flying disposable ships” is practically the gankers’ motto[1]. Suicide gankers deliberately use cheap, throwaway vessels so that any loss barely even registers. In fact, you can’t inflict meaningful losses on them because their ships are dirt cheap and easily replaced[1]. Consider how they operate in practice:
· Low-cost hulls: A typical gank-fit destroyer (like a Catalyst) costs only on the order of a few million ISK. For example, a CODE attacker wiped out 250 million ISK worth of mining drones using a Catalyst that cost just ~2.5 million ISK – his entire ship was cheaper than a single drone he destroyed[2]. Losing one disposable destroyer is pocket change to a ganker.
· Mass-produced ganking: Gankers often multibox fleets of alts precisely because the cost per ship is so low. It’s not uncommon to see one player running 5, 10, or more gank characters at once. One ganker even ran 6 accounts simultaneously to suicide-gank; either he paid for all six subs (unlikely) or he funded them with in-game profits, which shows how “it is so cheap to do his activities that he can afford to run those accounts.”[3] In other words, the gankers’ overhead is so minimal that they can scale up their operations with ease.
· No meaningful loss on death: When a suicide ganker gets obliterated by CONCORD (as they inevitably do after an attack), they lose virtually nothing of real value. They just undock in another throwaway ship and continue. As one veteran observed, “Miners risk expensive ships. Gankers risk absolutely nothing. You pop them and they come right back with another disposable ship.”[4] The ganker’s “risk” resets to zero the moment they reship, which they can do almost immediately since their assets are largely disposable.
Victims Bear the Real Losses (100:1 Value Disparity)
So, how risky is ganking when you look at the actual numbers? Spoiler: it’s ridiculously one-sided. An analysis of kill reports over several years found that gankers destroyed about 60 trillion ISK in assets while only losing around 600 billion ISK themselves[5]. That’s a 100-to-1 ratio of victim losses to ganker losses! For every 100 ISK of value they blow up, the gankers only put about 1 ISK on the line for themselves[5]. If that’s what Mr. Gerard considers “risk,” then Las Vegas casinos must be paragons of danger by comparison.
Think about it: on average, it only takes a couple of cheap ships to execute a gank. Indeed, stats show an average of just 2–2.5 gank ships lost per kill[6] (since each gank squad usually sacrifices a few expendable ships to take down a target). Those 2-ish destroyers might cost, say, 20–30 million ISK total – meanwhile, the target’s ship and cargo could be worth hundreds of millions or even billions. The gankers’ “investment” is a rounding error next to the victim’s loss. No wonder gankers keep at it; the reward (loot and damage inflicted) wildly outweighs their measly risk. In economic terms, high-sec ganking is an almost absurdly favorable trade: minimal costs, massive returns. It’s practically the closest thing to printing ISK that PvP offers, which is why gankers have made a lucrative career of it. (Case in point: the top 100 gankers have over a thousand kills each on average[7] – they wouldn’t be farming ganks by the hundreds if each attempt put them in serious peril.)
“Risk” for Gankers = Spare Change
Gerard argues, “ganking can fail,” and when it does, the gankers lose some ISK; therefore, it involves risk. Cute theory, but let’s put that into perspective with facts. Typically, the most a suicide ganker loses on a failed gank is a single cheap ship (e.g., a Catalyst and its fittings) – a trivial expense that they can earn back quickly[8]. We’re talking a few million ISK, maybe 10 or 20 million at most, that evaporates when CONCORD blows them up. For a seasoned ganker, that’s chump change. They’ve probably looted far more than that from previous victims or have it budgeted in as the cost of doing business.
Meanwhile, look at what’s on the other side of that equation: the target might lose a ship and cargo that took days, weeks, or even months of effort to obtain[8]. The miner or hauler on the receiving end isn’t gambling with pocket money – they’re risking their expensive barge, freighter, or mission ship (often worth hundreds of times more than the gank ship killing it). For example, gankers routinely blow up mining barges worth 30–50 million ISK using throwaway destroyers worth <10 million[9]. In what universe is the guy risking a 50 million ISK ship on uneven footing with the guy risking 5 million and expecting to die anyway?
Even if a gank does fail, what happens? The gankers lose a handful of cheap ships and get nothing to show for it. Big whoop. They can shrug it off and try again later. There’s no lasting setback. As a commenter dryly noted about high-sec PvP balance: “The most a ganker can and will lose is a Catalyst… a trivial amount easily made up. The target might lose a ship and cargo that took them days, weeks, or even months to earn.”[8] In other words, calling this “risk vs reward” is laughable – the gankers assume almost no real risk, while the victims take on all the risk and the loss. It’s a one-way street. Gerard pointing out that “failed ganks cost ISK” is technically true, but losing a few million ISK (with a high chance of profiting hugely if they succeed) is hardly the kind of risk that deters anyone. It’s like betting $1 for a chance to win $100 and saying, “See, I’m a big risk-taker!” 
Indeed, even other EVE players have slammed how “risk/reward is messed up in high sec” because “the most a ganker can lose is a Catalyst… [while] the target might lose a ship and cargo that took them months to earn.”[8] Gankers are basically wagering pennies against someone else’s dollars. If that’s Gerard’s idea of risk, I have a bridge in Jita to sell him.
Minimal Consequences and Easy Mode
What about non-ISK consequences, like security status or other risks? In theory, suicide gankers get punished by game mechanics: a security status drop and an inevitable ship destruction by CONCORD. In practice, those “penalties” are a joke. There are no serious, lasting repercussions for high-sec gankers – and they know it[10]. A criminal security status should bar you from high-sec, but gankers have learned to roam even at –10 sec status with impunity. They flit around in cheap pods or interceptors, use neutral scouts to spot targets, and only undock their gank ships at the exact moment of attack[10]. CONCORD and faction police are just a predictable part of the routine. After a gank, the criminals dock up or warp off, wait out their timers, and do it all again.
Even the supposed drawbacks are easily negated. Security status hit? “Meaningless.”[4] Gankers can literally pay ISK to erase their crimes using clone soldier tags (buying back sec status in chunks) – effectively bribing their way out of negative sec if they ever need to enter high-sec freely[11]. But most don’t even bother; they operate with throwaway -10 characters that live in NPC stations or citadels, undock to gank, then zip back to safety. There’s no real risk of permanent loss or exclusion. They don’t care about kill rights (they’ll just use a different alt), and they certainly don’t fear bounties (which were removed for being useless anyway). High-sec gankers are, for all intents and purposes, untouchable outside of the gank itself. They have gamed the system such that their assets and characters are never in danger except during that brief window where they willingly suicide a disposable ship at a target.
And let’s not forget: gankers often practice and theorycraft in complete safety before executing their plans. Gerard himself pointed out that “practicing on the test server costs nothing if you lose.” Exactly – gankers have taken full advantage of that. They min-max their fits and tactics on CCP’s test server (Singularity), where nothing they do has consequences or cost, then import those perfected strategies to the live server. It’s like doing live-fire exercises with invincibility enabled. By the time they go gank on Tranquility, they’ve eliminated as much uncertainty as possible. The element of risk is reduced to near-zero because they’ve already figured out the winning formula in a no-risk sandbox. Meanwhile, regular players can’t “practice” saving their freighter on the test server – only the aggressors benefit from that kind of free rehearsal. So much for ganking being some daring, unpredictable venture; it’s more like a well-rehearsed science experiment with your ship as the test subject.
Gankers Even Boast How Easy and Safe It Is
Perhaps the most telling of all: many gankers openly acknowledge how one-sided and low-risk suicide ganking is. They’ll brag (sometimes tongue-in-cheek) that it’s not even real PvP. Case in point: a notorious ganker (leader of CODE, no less) once quipped, “I have no interest in PvP. I only engage in PvE against CONCORD versus ships that can’t shoot back.”[12] Read that again. Even the gankers admit their targets are defenseless piñatas and the only thing resembling a fight is the inevitable NPC police response. They literally compare ganking to PvE – meaning the outcome is predictable and the “enemy” (a helpless miner or hauler) offers no resistance. It’s effectively farming; the gankers’ real opponent is just the clock until CONCORD arrives, not the player they victimized. Calling that risky is a joke when the gankers control all the conditions of the engagement.
Some veteran players have pointed out that ganking is practically the only “100% safe” activity for the aggressor in high-sec. Why? Because the ganker always knows the exact price of the attempt upfront – one disposable ship – and they’re willing to pay it every time[13]. As one observer put it, the ganker “knows exactly what you pay. The price is one Catalyst… It gets factored in, the cost of doing business.”[13] They undock, expecting to lose that ship. There’s no risk of anything more going wrong for them. They’re not going to be counter-attacked or end up in an ongoing war; they incur no additional danger beyond that pre-planned loss of a cheap hull. In contrast, every other pilot in high-sec faces uncertainty — you don’t know if someone will attack you, what you might lose, or if you’ll be targeted repeatedly. The ganker, however, operates with near-certainty: they’ll lose their throwaway ship (big deal), and more often than not they’ll make a profit by vaporizing someone else’s hard-earned assets. It’s asymmetrically safe gameplay for the attacker.
Even CCP’s own data (as cited by some CSM/CCP communications) suggests that high-sec ganking isn’t some edge-case fluke – it’s a systematic activity that experienced players engage in because it’s effective. High-sec gankers perfected the art of maximizing reward while minimizing risk, to the point that the practice has a reputation for being “practically zero risk for tremendous rewards.”[1] Those are not just my words – that’s how players on the official forum have described the current state of suicide ganking. When the risk-to-reward ratio is so skewed that gankers themselves joke about being PvE farmers, you know something’s off-kilter.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, calling suicide ganking “risky” for the ganker is like calling a rigged lottery risky for the person running it. Yes, technically, the ganker can fail – and in that rare case, they lose a few million ISK and go have a coffee break. Meanwhile, their victims regularly lose ships worth far more, with far more severe impact on their wallets. The factual evidence (killboard stats, economic ratios, and myriad player experiences) paints an unambiguous picture: gankers enjoy an almost risk-free gravy train. They invest minimal ISK, face almost no lasting consequences, and yet reap outsized rewards by preying on targets who can’t fight back.
So my snarky-yet-factual response to the claim “ganking has risk” is this: Sure, ganking involves risk, about the same way betting a nickel to win a hundred-dollar bill involves risk. 
The numbers don’t lie: gankers risk a microscopic fraction of what their victims do, and they’ve engineered the system so heavily in their favor that failure is a rarity and a mere inconvenience. In EVE’s supposed risk-vs-reward balance, high-sec ganking tilts the scale so far it’s basically risk-free piracy[14]. You can keep pretending that losing a throwaway Catalyst equates to meaningful risk, but everyone can see that the emperor has no clothes. Gankers have virtually no skin in the game while their targets pay the price – and that’s a cold, hard fact backed by statistics.
Bottom line: Suicide gankers are the ultimate risk-averse carebears – they’ve found a way to get rich blowing up others with almost zero danger to themselves. So let’s not kid ourselves that they’re bravely gambling anything significant. The only “risk” they face is laughing all the way to the bank after yet another easy kill.