I especially liked the “tanking is a quarter the value of a Proc” fallacy in this one.
But nil desperandum! CCP has come to the rescue of Industrialists like me, and reduced how much tank I have to fit! And made it Armour based so getting away is… Oh. Wait.
As compared to the very stupid idea of having things last forever and thus needing to be destroyed with the assistance of all those utterly altruistic Robin Hoods…sorry…lions…out there 
Here we see a classic example of a gank happening in a Caldari ice belt. A herd of miners suffers a single casualty, and watches in morbid curiosity as one of their own is consumed alive in front of their very eyes:
They don’t ?? But…but…I thought all those altruistic Robin Hoods had a wife and 15 wee bairns at home to feed and that’s the only reason they had to resort to a life of highway robbery. Now my romantic illusions are shattered and I’m gonna have to throw away my copy of Dick Turpin…oh and Adam & The Ants ‘Stand And Deliver’ in disillusionment.
You express like it’s a bad thing.
It’s called meaningful choice. You don’t have to fit those things. You can accept the risk of not fitting them. And players having to make that decisions mean we have some level of fitting diversity. A decision between max yield and less yield with some tank.
If you take ganking away then mining in highsec is a zero risk activity. There will be one way to fit the ship to maximise yield and tank becomes irrelevant. That’s just bad on two fronts. 1 destruction is reduced and 2 the amount of material on the market increases.
That procurer you bought. Well you wouldn’t need it now coz you don’t need the tank so you would be in a retriever probably (coz the hold and semi afk) and that ship would be a ship for life. If you don’t leave high sec it would never get destroyed. You said yourself belt rats in high sec are pointless. So folks building retrievers take a hit, folks building catalysts take a hit. Material prices start to drop.
You get to mine in safety but it’s all worth so much less.
The thing you are portraying as a negative is the thing I view as the biggest positive.
Those are only Tech 1 balls…so the lion will still have lost ISK when the Concord gamekeeper catches up 
Hell yes…I can just open my door at night and shout out ’ hey…burglars…is there anything in my house you’d particularly like to walk off with before I go to bed ?’
Yeah…meaningful choice. Or maybe you are just talking what that lion above is eating.
It wouldn’t be a burglary if you’re giving consent to someone taking your assets. Just like you give consent to other players to take your items (if they are skillful enough to do so) when you sign into EVE.
There are many players that approach it from a max yield perspective and mine in quiet areas.
They accept that they will lose a ship occasionally but they will out mine that and still make money.
And without dredging up a conversation we have had before……… if a ganker has locked you up you have already lost. The battle started way before then.
Where you chose to mine.
If you were watching local and Dscan.
If you reacted in time when someone appeared on grid.
Players that have those skills mastered may decide tank is irrelevant and rely on their ability to react to danger. That is then a potential advantage for them as their “skill” allows them to mine more than the competition.
Removing ganking and the need for fitting decisions takes away that element of player skill and puts everyone on the same footing and fitting.
So again bad
Not really. I mean, in highsec stealing someone’s stuff in such a manner is treated in the game itself as a crime and is punished.
And just how much ‘skill’ does it require to blow a Venture to bits with a Catalyst ? In my view most ganking is the least skilled activity in Eve…which is probably why there are so many gankers.
I’ve seen zKillboard reports of 15 gankers taking on one Proc in some asteroid belt. Are you seriously telling me there’s skill involved in that ?
Grabbing a soccer/football ball with your hands is also treated as a crime and punished within the game itself. But is it a crime once you leave the field?
There are very few, actually. Somewhere between 150-200 total accounts are engaging in the activity on a routine basis, out of the 100,000-150,000 accounts who are located in high-sec during the same time period.
No, I’m pointing out that it is simply not true that ganking is anti inflationary as was claimed. More stuff gets created because of ganking than gets destroyed by it. That is not anti inflationary…it is inflationary !
Thousands of ships traverse highsec every day that have fittings that only exist because of ganking. Sure, gankers destroy a few of those, but even then…not all the fittings get destroyed. And the vast percentage of anti-gank fitted ships don’t get destroyed by gankers.
In addition to which, the gankers also use retrieval ships, etc, that are there just for ganking and which don’t get destroyed. So the notion that overall ganking is destroying stuff is just nonsense. Ganking creates far more than it could ever destroy.
But you then only serve to confirm that ganking is inflationary…as all those non-ganker ships will be fitted with mods and fittings that need producing and inflate the economy. There is simply no way that gankers are destroying every day an amount equivalent to all the shields, rigs, etc that are added to ships every day because of the threat of ganking.
Yo, I remember the EVE when I tried it 20y ago - you undock - you blow-up, you undock - you blow-up, you undock - you blow-up… Is that the mantra you longing for? 
What sort of logic is that? Did you play any other survival games? There is always a balance between resource gathering, defense, combat, camaraderie, etc. If it’s all combat then it’s not a survival game - it’s a shooter
Second that!
Also true. It’s not a PVP when it’s 5y veteran VS 1-month-old pilot. It’s a slaughter. In other shooter games combat sessions start with more or less equal possibilities and you gather your perks during that session because of your experience. Now it’s a survival experience in the sense that a novice is running like a mouse from one dark corner to another, and vets are hunting them down. I am not saying that’s a wrong concept but it doesn’t exactly encourages PVP 
Except for the economics aspect which is a very good sim - to the point where it could be recommended to kids as a educational tool, I think
Secondly, as marketed, it’s a living, breathing, evolving SciFi experience / story. There is only one another ‘medium’ where one could get more creative - book writing
Thirdly, it’s a beautiful thematic platform for mature people of similar interests to socialize in different ways - by communicating, by doing some activities together, or by arguing and fighting in a safe way
And so forth… What I am saying, it’s a great SciFi experience and an incredible, very complex strategy sandbox but for the pure combat, destruction, and full-throttle adrenaline PVP experience one should look somewhere else - there is a lot of quality choice nowdays
That argument simply doesn’t work because players who produce would still produce if ganking didn’t exist. They’d just (be producing other (maybe) items. Overall production would be in line with current trends. Just the destruction component would be missing.
It’s an interesting argument (it’s fresh), but it just doesn’t work because it relies on the assumption that producers would produce less if there was less demand for their products, as opposed to producing the same amount but driving prices down. Your argument relies on the assumption that producers would play the game less if they didn’t have an outlet for their production in the form of ganking. This would actually be a worse outcome for the game as a whole.
Nobody would have a pile of 50,000 shield extenders sitting there in a station if nobody was buying them. Even in the crazy economy of Eve, supply and demand still means it is economic suicide to be making stuff nobody is buying.
The point is that ganking is not an economy curtailer. It is an economic activity in and of itself…and thus a source of production. In exactly the same way that burglary is a source of income for thousands who manufacture for home security, etc. The dark, uncontrolled, economy has always been a source of inflation in real life and a virtual world like Eve is really no different.
Once again, carebears wouldn’t stop producing just because there’s less demand. They don’t even begin to think about the economy this way. These players log in to “play” by grinding out minerals and throwing some blueprints into the oven. They wouldn’t stop doing that just because fewer people are demanding their products. If they did stop, they’d have no reason to keep playing the game.
If ganking didn’t exist, people would still be buying shield extenders for PvE or for PvP outside ganking.
“Wait, there is PvP outside ganking?” you may ask. Yes, travel outside high sec for a change.
No, my argument is that ganking actually generates more product than it destroys. You are arguing that people just make stuff regardless, but if that’s the case then even ganking doesn’t stop them making way more stuff than gets destroyed…so the argument that people make stuff anyway is a bit of a red herring. The only real issue is whether more stuff is created because of ganking than is destroyed by it…whether ganking is really reducing the amount of stuff in Eve or just adding to it.
I don’t agree with this. You are only considering one particular type of gank. Catalysts onto mining ships.
What about haulers?
What about the guy who built those 50k shield extenders you just mentioned above. He has to move them somewhere he wants to sell them. Contracts that to a hauler and that hauler gets ganked. 50% drop rate. 25k shield extenders wiped out in a single gank.
Obviously hypothetical but freighter and hauler ganks are a thing. You don’t need to look far to find examples where 100’s of millions of not billions get wiped off the economy in a single gank.
This isn’t always just ships and fits. Freighter ganks change your equation considerably