So the the fact that Pandemic Horde no longer exists is just fake news?
1 Like
Like a freighter?
SEE: Trade Routes
You are asking for proof that it is “a problem,” but that depends on how we define problem.
If by problem you mean “it should not exist,” then no, that is not my argument.
If by problem you mean “there is structural asymmetry worth examining,” then the mechanics themselves are the evidence.
In highsec:
- Aggression is pre-calculated.
- CONCORD guarantees a fixed engagement window.
- The aggressor controls timing and target selection.
- The event resolves and resets without sustained exposure.
That is not a moral complaint. It is a structural observation.
The question is not whether ganking exists. It is whether the security tier meaningfully changes reciprocity compared to lawless space.
If the structure insulates repeated aggression without escalation, that is a design choice. We can discuss whether it achieves the intended balance.
That is the discussion.
1 Like
You state these as some big “gotcha” moment. This is the intended design by CCP. Works as intended. Welcome to EVE!
/thread
1 Like
I would not like to get in a fight with my freighter. You seem to think that you are making a point by stating obvious things, but I am not following you. Can you be more specific?
As you avoid all of my points.
#Noted
How can you get from Point A to Point B using a trade route that forces you through Uedama AND “not be on grid”?
You guys have zero logic.
I need more information to give you a specific answer, but I will say I haul things through Uedama.
If you can’t figure out a way to do it, maybe there is not enough profit in it to be worthwhile. This is the consequence of playing a sandbox game. You can’t just do what you want regardless of the actions of others.
(edited cus I quoted you twice @Gasephed_Sinak not sure how I did that).
I’ve answered all of them. You just don’t like the answer so pretend.
2 Likes
Thats because youre talking to ai.
The only thing youll get is fake algorithmic statements that arent even remotely close to being an honest answer to an honest question.
3 Likes
I may be a fool for treating their arguments in good faith. Still, it gives me something to do.
2 Likes
I don’t haul things. I represent those without a voice.
Easy to claim, hard to prove.
Coming from someone who supports HS ganking in its current form, I can see why you’re confused.
Good lord @Gasephed_Sinak I DO HAUL THINGS! Quit trying to tell me about the problems in hauling things. I have told you repeatedly how to avoid ganking. You try to play a word game and act like it does not count. Why are you trying to tell someone who does this how to do it when you don’t know how?
You are driving away new players with your fear mongering.
His arguments.
I don’t get ganked.
That being said, there’s a significant imbalance in ganking mechanics.
CCP needs to fix it.
if you don’t get ganked, why the f are you worried about it?
1 Like
I have also NEVER been ganked.
1 Like
So if it does not happen to you, me, or the other people in these threads, where is your evidence of imbalance?
Stop spreading this fear mongering!
It’s impolite to nerf other people’s game play, and it’s scaring away the new players.
Won’t you think of the new players @Gasephed_Sinak?
Well yeah, but who would dare to gank royalty?
Whether someone personally gets ganked is irrelevant to whether a mechanic is balanced.
I don’t need to be personally affected by something to evaluate its structure.
By that logic, only null bloc leaders could discuss sovereignty mechanics, only wormholers could discuss evictions, and only capital pilots could discuss industry changes.
The question isn’t “am I suffering.”
The question is whether the system produces healthy interaction.
You can examine mechanics without being their primary victim.
If you think the current structure is balanced, explain why. Personal experience doesn’t invalidate structural analysis.
It’s a pvp sandbox game @Gasephed_Sinak. The whole point of EvE is “interfering”.
Please stop trying to nerf what makes EvE worth playing with your fear mongering.
Why are you trying to scare away new players?
1 Like
ChatGPT was really inspired by your post and wrote a lengthy continuation!
The claim that “gankers face no consequences” sounds persuasive because it is simple. It is also wrong in a way that damages the game more than ganking ever could.
EVE does not operate on visible, immediate punishment alone. It operates on layered cost. Security status loss, criminal timers, limited mobility, killrights, and social exposure all accumulate. None of these are cinematic. All of them matter. When those systems are ignored in public discussion, the game is misrepresented as lawless in a way it is not.
Fear-mongering replaces a complex system with a slogan: “there is nothing you can do.” That slogan becomes the experience for new players before they ever test the system themselves. They do not learn counterplay. They learn helplessness.
That is the real damage.
A new player who believes there is no response available will not experiment. They will not ask how killrights work. They will not join groups that specialize in retaliation or defense. They will not adjust fittings, routes, or behavior. They will conclude the system is unwinnable and disengage. Not because it is unwinnable, but because they were told it was.
EVE’s design depends on discovery. Counterplay exists, but it is not handed out passively. It requires intention. It requires coordination. It requires understanding how risk is structured rather than assuming it is absent. When fear-based narratives dominate, that learning process never begins.
The irony is that the players spreading these narratives often demand “more interaction.” In practice, they suppress it. A player who feels powerless does not engage. A player who believes the system is rigged does not participate in it. They opt out. The result is less activity, fewer targets, fewer defenders, and a weaker ecosystem.
This also distorts balance discussions. If the baseline assumption is “no consequences exist,” then any additional punishment appears justified. But that assumption is false. The existing system already imposes cost. It simply does so in a way that rewards preparation over reaction. Ignoring that leads to proposals that flatten the system instead of deepening it.
EVE is not fair in the way a controlled match is fair. It is fair in the sense that outcomes are shaped by decisions, preparation, and structure. Gankers succeed because they build systems around that reality. Defenders can do the same. When the conversation shifts from “how does this work?” to “this cannot be fought,” the game loses one of its core strengths.
The correct message to a new player is not reassurance, and it is not alarm. It is clarity. You can be attacked. You can also adapt. There are consequences, but you need to understand where they are applied. There is counterplay, but you need to use it. Fear-mongering removes that choice before the player ever sees it. That is why it is harmful. Not because it criticizes ganking, but because it teaches players to stop thinking.
2 Likes