High-sec ganking is one of the main reasons for the outflow of new players

Wait I started off with credibility? I guess it would be about the same as yours.


Praise Geezus you finally are getting it. Seriously though you know what killed blockbuster…thinking that you don’t need to change and everything will just keep going. See that is the issue with a lot of players… they either don’t have the creativity to see what needs to happen in the future to be successful, or they simply can’t comprehend it.

But visionary people like myself were put here to voice the future and set a path of success. You are welcome.


Honestly I had a friend of a friend that said, hey James. I you want some really good feedback go to the ganking forums and post your ideas, that would solve the forum topic. And then you will get great feedback from people like Sasha Nemtsov. So here I am absorbing all the great feedback.

Don’t believe me? Go back and read all the post from your fellow gankers and see how much great insight they have. It is really special, and I hold it all dear to my heart. Thank you for grinding away at the keyboard to provide so much insight to the forums with all your ideas and thoughts.


Replacing humans? No, I am not an evil AI billionaire that wants to rule the world. Do you remember those 27 systems that went from high sec status to null-sec status? Really a blend of low/null, but do you? There was no issue doing that, let’s do it again and call it carebear land and end the discussions.

I do find the humor in the thoughts everyone has and it is appreciated.


Don’t you worry Sasha, I am not going anywhere.


Nah. You can’t have a 100% safe market in Pochven. Any high-sec system that’s 100% safe would instantly become a staging point for the richest, most powerful players in the game, and would also become a market/industry hub, replacing the existing hubs.

Hypothetically, having space that is 100% safe but where it’s impossible to conduct business or do PvE content (aside from a very fundamental “starter” level, e.g. level 1 missions) would be okay, and we’ve proposed similar ideas in the past just to put a hard stop to the “rookie system griefing” accusations. But the overall utility of such space is questionable, as players would very quickly outgrow those systems.

When people complain about ganking, they’re not doing it because of the poor 2-day-old players losing their Ventures to griefers. Such encounters are rare, and are effectively outliers in the data. No, they’re doing it because they want their 20-billion-ISK freighters and deadspace-fit marauders to be safe, and they need a stepping stone because they can’t really ask for that outright (though by god, some have tried).

1 Like

Thats very out of the box. Apparently that automatically means its good.

Keep it up.

It always amazes me how people that think of problems on the scale of a village can accuse people thinking on the scale of a region of being narrow minded with complete seriousness. I genuinely believe you think I am narrow minded and that is actually pretty concerning. Be more self aware. You are so focused on what you see your specific problem to be that you cant step back and see the other issues. Case in point:

You are either completely blind to the point I’m making or you are being deliberately obtuse to avoid having to address it in any way shape or form. Let me put it as simply as I can.

If i go to Australia with my mate Johnny and pour a bucket of water over him. He gets wet.

If I go to Germany with my mate Johnny and pour a bucket of water over him. He gets wet.

The location is irrelevant to the outcome because regardless of the location there are universal factors in play. In the case of NPC rats in EVE those universal factors are that they are programmed with behaviour. They will act in accordance with a rule set that they are given. A simple rule set may take a few days for the players to understand. A complex one a few weeks or even months. However the result is the same. Whether its high sec, low sec, null sec or wh players will learn the mechanics and exploit those mechanics meaning very little will be destroyed in the long term.

Given you have been clear that your goal isn’t to reduce destruction but to REPLACE it id expect you to at least engage with a discussion on this issue as opposed to burying your head in the sand.

I accept that in the absence of gate rats existing in highsec i used a null sec example as it was the closest thing i could think of to a NPC gate camp. Given that gankers gate camp in high sec and you want to replace that then those mechanics would need to be introduced. So perhaps you could explain to me how something as ineffective as those rats in null on gates will suddenly become as effective as gankers in highsec while not unnecessarily penalising new players.


I would say that if you are serious about replacing destruction and not just removing it then diamond rats would need to be significantly better than they are today. The issue is that those roaming frigates are a threat to ships that align slowly but in anything that aligns quickly they are a non event. This is a ridiculously difficult balancing act. For what? To replace gankers? Dev time for zero benefit.

Ok this is where i will disagree with some others on the forum. In Eve ganking is a very specific type of PVP. It’s non-consensual pvp in highsec performed against the concord clock. Any PVP in lowsec is consensual by the act of being in low sec and therefore its just PVP. GANKING ONLY EXISTS IN HIGH SEC. So by my definition (and I’m certainly not along in this) you are proposing removing a gameplay style from the game.

100% of what? I’m sorry but if you are saying 100% of the value of the gank should be a fine then you are even further off the reservation thats i initially thought. Like i said in my other post this is purely punitive. It’s the “i want no ganking but I’m not going to say i want no ganking. I’m just going to push ideas that kill the gameplay and tell gankers they can still chose to do it”.

If you are serious about replacing destruction and not omitting it (which the more you post seems not the case) then you would be suggesting things that allowed the value of destruction to be status quo or increase.

Personally i don’t think there should be any fines. I think its bad. However if there were going to be I’d take a different approach. Fines that are INVERSELY proportional to the value of the gank. Big fines for taking out ventures and the like and no fines for popping freighters and blingy battleships. That encourages the gankers to go after significant targets in space and not to target small targets.

Surely that is much more in line with your stated objectives of protecting new players and not reducing destruction. Unless of course your objective is to get ganking out of the game.

And to be clear to everyone else I know the above suggestion is dumb and has problems. Used as an example to make a point only before you feel like piling on :slight_smile:

Read again. I’m not talking about a spike. I’m talking about he numbers circa 2011 when everyone could be war decced, griefing and scamming was rife and there were far less restrictions to ganking. Compare that to our numbers today where everyone can avoid wars by not having a structure, ganking is nerfed to hell and legitimate gameplay is being described as griefing.

As eve gets safer and PVP interactions are limited the player count has dropped.

1 Like

Don’t forget you could put a bounty on anyone’s head at any time for any reason and they were now a legitimate target to shoot at by anyone in all secs – including high sec.

What a true idea for an outlaw, I wonder why he isn’t making all these pro-outlaw proposals.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Not sure if sarcasm, but if not, putting bounties on players didn’t open them up to attack.

Mr James, your proposals have been summarised by @Destiny_Corrupted as, essentially, the substitution of certain players with NPC entities of extended Artificial Intelligence.

I once suggested that miners should be similarly replaced, so that a tedious in-game activity could be farmed out to the bot-like NPCs many of their real-life counterparts seem to emulate.

It was not a serious suggestion, for I believe that mining in EVE attracts (and may even retain) a particular type of gamer, for whom other games do not properly cater.

I was, however, quite serious in my advice to you to go away and work out in detail your proposals. You may then return with them either to this sub-forum or (better) to the one dedicated to the receipt of player suggestions. You might even give our new CSM a look at them. Why not?

If you fail to do so, you are at some risk of appearing to be a narcissistic attention-seeker, not at all interested in the considered opinions of others, when they diverge from your own - even if they clearly make sense. I would not have that said of you.

On past evidence, you are likely to ignore the detail of what I have here written, and to address rather the fact that I have had the temerity to disagree with you. The ‘big picture’, again.

I do however wish you well in your endeavours!

Thanks for the correction – legitimate misunderstanding.

Your lack of understanding and confusion on everything is the only thing that amazes me.

You don’t understand the conversation, it is beyond your level, step back and let the adults talk here. I will come read you a story later so you sleep well.

Type of space is very relevant. I am not sure why you can’t seem to read the heading of the discussion. But hey learning a lot about you and there are many things you show gaps on.

So are you saying ganking is only a griefer activity or is there a purpose? If there is a purpose wouldn’t that purpose still apply in low, even if called PvP?

Would you agree Eve is a game based on risk vs reward? Do you think the risk and reward are proportional for ganking? And how do you think a reverse fine is going to work.

Oh you mean right after CCP released alt or multiple accounts with the same email a couple of years later they released the Alpha account those golden years of numbers of PCU fake-outs. Yeah sure bud real golden years there.

Enjoy your lunch Etch…don’t forget to chew before swallowing.


lol I mean lo we both know the bounty system is broken. If I put 1B isk so you get shot, you would, by your friend or alt.

Now if we wanted to change the bounty system where they are paid to the Empire, and the Empire hunts you down and takes you out and keeps the isk (isk sink) you would have my attention.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Well i tried.


The guy is immune to all feedback. If only anyone of us would just listen.

1 Like

Listening would be far easier. As apparently i cant read.

I cant believe its taken this long for me to be found out.

1 Like

The real issue is that you don’t comprehend the game as it already is. We don’t need lectures on ship loss from someone who has never lost a ship and has no record whatever on killboard. In what conceivable way are you in a position to lecture us on the subject ?

You fundamentally do not understand Eve. I lost a 60m ISK ship yesterday. You don’t see me on here bleating to have the entire game changed as a result. In the game, the conflict resulted in a ‘good fight’ from both sides. From my perspective, for someone who not that long ago was scared to even go to lowsec, the fact that I’d gone there and deliberately baited a gate camp was an achievement…ship loss or not…and I learned valuable lessons.

When are you going to actually undock and lose something and actually be in a position to talk about ship loss ?

Likewise with highsec ganking. I was ganked ( the only time its happened to me ) not long after starting Eve. I can see now how it was the result of my own lack of awareness, a badly setup Overview, and other such factors. But more to the point…I am still in the game 8 months later, and thus disprove the nonsense that highsec ganking makes people leave. It doesn’t. I am myself proof of that.